NASB Single Column Reference Bible with Comfort Print Typeface

Подписаться 11 тыс.

Просмотров 12 тыс.

50% 1

A review of Zondervan’s New American Standard Bible (NASB) Single-Column Reference (SCR) Bible with Comfort Print typeface (ISBN 9780310451167). This Bible has art-gilt page edges and a 10.5 point line-matched text arranged in a verse-by-verse format in a single column. References are conveniently placed alongside the verses in the 56 to 57 mm (2.2 inch) wide outer margin. The inner margin is narrow, and text does drop away into the gutter. The 36 gsm paper has a slight gloss, but is sufficiently opaque so that show-through (ghosting) is not an issue. The Bible is Smyth sewn with overcast stitching in front. The cover is made of brown Leathersoft, an imitation leather. The words of Christ are in black ink. Seven glossy, moderately detailed color maps spanning eight pages are provided. The volume also includes a 104-page, three-column dictionary / concordance / thesaurus in a 7.5 pt font. This Bible was printed in China.
Those who rely on the NASB's extensive translation notes may be disappointed to learn that only a small percentage of them appear in this edition.
Detailed Contents
00:00 Dimensions, margins, layout, font … (four charts)
00:16 Unboxing
01:44 The box
02:18 The ISBN and list price
02:57 Dimensions compared to other Bibles
04:07 The page layout
06:05 The font in the text
07:00 The text is line-matched
08:00 The references
08:16 The translation notes
08:38 Paper qualities (thickness, paper weight, color, texture, opacity)
09:28 Print non-uniformity (fading)
09:50 The book introductions
11:05 Each books of the Bible begins on a fresh page
11:28 The words of Christ are in black ink
11:48 Inserts at the back, including the Concordance/Dictionary/Thesaurus
13:15 Nine blank pages
13:52 The maps
14:21 The paste-down construction with paper liner
14:58 The brown head and tail bands, and the brown and golden brown ribbons
15:45 The sewn binding with overcast stitching
16:05 The Bible lies open in Genesis
17:35 The copyright page
18:49 The layout compared to that in a 1963 NASB New Testament
20:05 The layout compared to that in a 1973 NASB SCR
21:00 The layout compared to that in a 1977 NASB SCR
21:42 The layout compared to that in a 2003 printing of the 1995 NASB SCR - “the Judge”
22:18 The layout compared to that in the Crossway ESV Side-Column Reference Bible
23:05 A close-up look at the font
23:45 The font compared to that in Nelson’s NKJV Comfort Print Classic Center Column Reference Bible
24:15 The font compared to that in the Schuyler Canterbury
24:33 The font compared to that in the Crossway ESV Side-Column Reference Bible
25:07 The font compared to that in a Lockman NASB SCR
25:30 The spine and cover
26:12 How literal is the NASB? My translation continuum chart
26:42 Three charts that describe how closely the 1995 NASB New Testament agrees with four Greek New Statement editions: The Nestle-Aland 28th edition, Robinson-Pierpont’s Byzantine Textform, Westcott & Hort, and the Tyndale House Greek New Testament
28:21 Summary

Опубликовано:

26 июл 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 122

@j.woodbury412 10 месяцев назад

We need more bible reviewers like you on here that feature non-premium bibles. Nothing against bible reviewers like Tim Wildsmith and Tim Nickels. I enjoy their channels too, but everybody can't afford to pay $200 on a premium bible.

@RowanTasmanian Год назад

Fastidious review. I have subscribed as your reviews are so thorough. A huge thank you.

@RGrantJones Год назад

Thank you for the kind comment, Rowan the Tasmanian!

@taywil64A 3 года назад

Yet again, another excellent in-depth review of the Bible by Mr R Grant Jones. I enjoy these reviews for their focus on the translations accuracy. the ease of use, legibility, the ease of reference, and the accurate dimensions to name just a few of the wide variety of evaluations given to each Bible as is reviewed. Clearly a labour of love for the reviewer which educates us all.

@jazzmonk5670 4 года назад

My brother, you are one of the few and more balanced “Bible reviewer’s” online. Others predominantly give attention only to the “premium goatskin” editions, and rarely review the budget editions. Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate a good premium binding of the Scriptures (I own a few...). However, every Bible I own does not have to be a “premium edition”. And many of the imitation leather and genuine leather editions are just as good as their premium predecessors. Anyway, excellent review as always, my brother!

@RGrantJones 4 года назад

I like the less expensive Bibles not only because they're more affordable, but also because I'm less anxious about damaging them. Thank you for that kind comment, JazzMonk!

@hassanmirza2392 3 года назад

That is correct, other reviewers touch the surface of Bible only and talk about superficial stuff. Mr. Jones is a learned man.

@gleasonparker1684 2 года назад

I agree.

@j.woodbury412 10 месяцев назад

I agree. I wish there were more bible reviewers like R. Grant Jones that give attention to the budget bibles. It would be great if there was a channel that focused exclusively on non-premium bibles. Not that I don't enjoy Tim Wildsmith and Tim Nichols, because I do. But everybody can't afford to spend $200 for a premium bible. And like you said, there are a lot of great non-premium budget bibles that don't cost a fortune and they deserve as much attention and exposure as the premium bibles. I've seen a lot of great bibles online.

@pedrovaldivia7694 Год назад

thank you Dr. Grant. you do not seem to leave anything out. wonderful review. I bought it because of your review.

@hobartborger5064 3 года назад

Thank you, for this most complete review. The NASB is my treasured translation. I am considering this Bible, and this review was so helpful. I enjoyed the review so much, that I subscribed. Bless you.

@RGrantJones 3 года назад

Thanks very much for letting me know, Joan!

@hobartborger5064 3 года назад

@@RGrantJones My pleasure.

@keithh4559 3 года назад

Great review. And ASMR a bonus.

@seawynd99 4 года назад

mine came two days ago,very impressed. btw,yr reviews are the best!

@RGrantJones 4 года назад

Thanks, joseph! Could you let me know whether either the box or the Bible itself was wrapped in plastic? I suspect mine may have been returned.

@jkdbuck7670 3 года назад

@@RGrantJones mine showed up two days ago and the box was not wrapped.

@RGrantJones 3 года назад

@@jkdbuck7670 - thanks!

@kevinlscott 4 года назад

Phenomenal reviews my brother!

@AFrischPerspective 4 года назад

I look forward to your NASB 1995 vs. ESV 2016 translation comparison video. Great in-depth review here. Thank you!

@RGrantJones 4 года назад

Thank you, A Frisch Perspective! I hope I can produce a useful and informative video without making too many new enemies.

@FernandoSerna1654 4 года назад

R. Grant Jones I also look forward to the comparison. I hope to find a good used copy of the 1977 NASB. I am guessing you consider that edition a better translation than most modern ones, including the ESV. Blessings!

@RGrantJones 4 года назад

@@FernandoSerna1654 - I like the '77 NASB better than the '95 principally because the former is more literal and retains archaic forms of address to God. (The '95 on occasion makes better textual choices in the New Testament, in my opinion, but that doesn't quite balance the '77's advantages.) However, compared to the ESV, the case isn't so clear cut. Making the video will allow me to weigh another factor I haven't considered carefully to date: the degree to which the two translations (NAS95 and ESV16) rely on the Dead Sea Scrolls.

@FernandoSerna1654 4 года назад

R. Grant Jones Did 1977 NASB make use of the DSS?

@RGrantJones 4 года назад

@@FernandoSerna1654 - I need to examine it closely to be sure, but my sense is that the NASB (both '77 and '95 editions) stays close to the Masoretic Text. For instance, the NASB does not include the _nun_ line in the text of Psalm 145.13, although the added line is supported by both the LXX and 1QPsa. Nor does the NASB mention the _nun_ line in a footnote. The ESV includes that line in the text within brackets, and provides a footnote to indicate its source.

@chesterdiaz4382 4 года назад

I love the NASB 1995 SCR Comfort Print Premiere Edition by Zondervan Publishing. Comfort Print fonts help you won't strain to your eyes on reading the Bible. Great for Bible study.

@RGrantJones 4 года назад

Thanks for commenting, Chester Diaz. I agree. I'm very happy Bible publishers have come to recognize the importance of printing a quality typeface.

@Ambrose_op 4 года назад

Excellent as always, Dr. Jones. These new Zondervan NASB printings look promising. I was glad to see them continuing the 1995 text, although I, like you, still appreciate (maybe prefer?) the 1977 text. As an aside, I agree with another comment here: a tour of your library would be fascinating. Also, would you consider doing a video regarding what you perceive as some major differences between the 1977 and 1995 NASB Bibles? Thank you again for your time and work.

@RGrantJones 4 года назад

Thank for the kind comment, Parker! I did a mini library tour a little over a year ago, but it included only the books on a small shelf I then had atop my desk. Perhaps I could do something broader in scale. Regarding the differences between the '77 and '95 editions, that's an excellent idea. I believe I briefly touched on the subject in one of my earlier NASB reviews, perhaps the one for the 2003 SCR (the Judge).

@Ambrose_op 4 года назад

@@RGrantJones Yes, sir, I enjoyed the desktop tour. Fascinating volumes. I will revisit the 2003 SCR video. Your comments on the contrast between the '77 and '95 would be much appreciated. Thank you again.

@andyheller2691 4 года назад

I'm going to get one of these. I get all kinds of bibles....afordable ones and the expensive ones. I just received the John MacArthur Preachers bibles by 316 Publishing and they are very nice. I am very interested in this one too. It looks very nice!

@Sirach144 4 года назад

I LOVE this bible. I got the premier one and was disappointed. So I got this one she I didn't think I'd like single column but I do.

@RGrantJones 4 года назад

Thanks for the comment! What did you dislike about the goatskin edition?

@carmennooner2027 4 года назад

I really wish the option to have all black letter or red letter existed today. I understand that many pastors have been wanting a black letter only text, but I think there are many others like me who still prefer the red letter text in the New Testament. This particular Bible wouldn't be for me anyway because the print falls too close in the gutter. I prefer more space in the center so I don't have to play games with the Bible in order to comfortably read the text. Thank you for your honest review.

@RGrantJones 4 года назад

Thank you for the comment, Carmen! Although I personally dislike red letters for a variety of reasons, I wish publishers made each edition with black ink and red ink options available. I'm not sure why they don't, but there may be an economic motive.

@jkdbuck7670 3 года назад

Great bible. Better paper than the Lockman.

@bstring3967 4 года назад

I don’t understand why they can’t just use vinyl or something stronger for the paste down liner which seems like it would hold better, good recommendation on the tape to strengthen the hinges. Good review this ones on the radar.

@RGrantJones 4 года назад

Maybe it's stronger than it looks? Thanks for the comment, G String!

@trevorhare9393 4 года назад

Mmm. All looks good (for the money). 36 gsm paper good. 10.5 point font good. 1 inch margins good. Sewn block good. This will complete what is to become a trio of KJV (TBS Westminster Reference in calfskin delivered last week), ESV (Crossway Large Print Wide Margin Bible in TruTone ‘portfolio’ being delivered soon) and the NASB featured here in this review that I am most likely to order, given this and other favourable reviews *. I will never write in my new KJV but the ESV and NASB are going to get a lot of note taking! (* Although I am sort of/maybe/possibly going to complete the trio with an NIV instead, if I can find a good reference one with decent sized font and room for notes. The contrasting translation approaches could be more interesting.)

@RGrantJones 4 года назад

That sounds like an excellent lineup. Good point about the NIV. It would give you a dynamic equivalence translation to complement your relatively literal ones. Thanks for commenting!

@trevorhare9393 4 года назад

R. Grant Jones Well, after an eon of dithering, hesitation, prevarication, more reviews, more decisions, more cups of tea etc ... I have just ordered a Cambridge NIV Clarion calf-split. It was a steal at £72 (UK) and even more of a steal after entering a voucher code for £5 discount on ebay! (And free delivery.) The Clarion’s full price is £105 so I did well. I ordered it from Blackwells (a respected and very old bookshop chain based in Oxford). I have spent some time online comparing passages from the NIV against other translations and it is a very comfortable read. The Clarion is a very nice, readable format too, so I gave up on thoughts of NASBs (maybe a bit too rigorous/academic for me) and wide margin bibles (heavy) and gave in to comfort and price alas. As mentioned above, I have the KJV Westminster reference and an ESV already for contrasting old and modern approaches to ‘accuracy’.

@joep6023 4 года назад

I would really enjoy a comparison on the ESV and NASB. Since those are the two I am trying to decide between for my main study. When do you think you’d be doing that?

@RGrantJones 4 года назад

I'm hopeful that I can finish it by 5 April. Thanks for the comment!

@jkdbuck7670 3 года назад

14:40 Librarian tape? White linen material? Can you say what kind you would use? I have the same bible and I'm thinking of doing the same.

@RGrantJones 3 года назад

I've been using Koltose "Ultra High Quality Book Repair Tape." I found it on Amazon. I bought the 2" x 45 feet reel, but I think 1 1/2" width would work well also.

@gleasonparker1684 2 года назад

I have a SCR in PREMIER which has more gutter space for NASB 95. And is a bit more centered on page. I wish more people would use bolder FONT much like Cambridge does with their KJV versions but NOT with other versions. I wonder if KJV has a proprietary FONT or type size?

@PrentissYeates 4 года назад

I’m new to your channel, but very good review. Where one find library tape, most of my 1985 nkjv are in need of repair but found out the very hard way, scotch tape isn’t a wise reinforcement for the Bible hinge. I’ve torn too many maps.

@RGrantJones 4 года назад

Thanks for the question! I found a roll at Amazon.com. Search for book repair tape. You may want to order a bone folder also.

@shanedarden5238 3 года назад

@@RGrantJones could you do a tutorial on the tape and older you are mentioning. Also how to apply it. If you have time thanks

@RGrantJones 3 года назад

@@shanedarden5238 - I don't think I could do better than this old video -- ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-JCazSNpuw-c.html . I don't have their specialized hinge tape, so I cut the backing myself with an X-acto knife. And the tape I have is 2" wide. But apart from cutting the backing into two parts myself, I follow essentially the same procedure. Thanks for commenting! By the way, I bought this tape, but there are many other options: www.amazon.com/Bookbinding-Repair-Bookbinders-Semi-Transparent-Hinging/dp/B07D96LG78 .

@shanedarden5238 3 года назад

@@RGrantJones thanks brother

@stevemillershow 3 года назад

Aloha, brudda! FYI: Zondervan fixed the problem with text running into the gutter with their 2nd edition. ✝️

@RGrantJones 3 года назад

That's good to hear. Thanks for the information!

@gregalvis4339 4 года назад

Can you tell me the print date of the Lockman SCR you compared with the Comfort Print at the 25:10 mark?

@RGrantJones 4 года назад

Sure. Thanks for the question, and sorry for the delay in responding. RU-vid is haphazard with its notifications these days. My copy was printed in China in 2010. Eighth printing. The ISBN is 9781885217660. It's Style #863 (not #863W).

@Airik1111bibles 2 года назад

They really needed to move out of the gutter , they have plenty of outer space to do so. The print is very nice and dark , I kick myself for giving away my old moody edition...I check ebay every once in while hoping to score one for a low price. I won't pay no crazy $100 like many ask for them. I seen a Humble Lamb NKJV blue edition for $1100.00 on ebay . Mine just sits on the shelf, maybe I should try selling it for $1101.00 🤣 Just kidding. I wonder if people actually buy them at those crazy prices ?

@RGrantJones 2 года назад

You do have to wonder. When I was preparing to do a video on an old sheepskin Jerusalem Bible, readers' edition I have, I searched the internet to see if it was still available. I found one for about $700 dollars. But looking a little further I saw that two had just sold on eBay for about $50 each. So I think perhaps some people try to sell at an outrageous price, hoping to get lucky.

@amen4834 4 года назад

Is the paper less glossier than The NKJV classic verse by verse? Because I find it distracting in my NKJV classic verse by verse, how would you compare the two.God bless

@RGrantJones 4 года назад

Thanks for the question, John. No, it's about the same. I think that both Bibles may use the same paper. A bit too glossy for me also.

@rmarcusshort 4 года назад

Are you going to review the Baronius Knox Bible? I thought I saw you use it as a size comparison on another video. The Knox is a very idiosyncratic translation, but it's my favorite daily reader. After 5 years of heavy bible study, I just want to read and pray with scripture these days, so I don't mind a translation on the free end of the spectrum. Its literary qualities are incredible, but someone not raised on Shakespeare might find the prophets tough going in the Knox.

@RGrantJones 4 года назад

Thanks for the question, marcusshort. Yes, I intend to, perhaps in a month or so. I'm afraid my review will be somewhat superficial, since I haven't spent much time with Knox. But at least I'll be able to talk about the paper, print, and binding; show the format; and let viewers read a few sample passages.

@rmarcusshort 4 года назад

@@RGrantJones You have a great channel, keep up the good work. When you prep for that video make sure you check out the way he preserves the Hebrew acrostics. His book. On Englishing the Bible is quite interesting too--probably the best defense of what we would call dynamic equivalence I've encountered. But not all dynamic equivalency is equal. Knox pulls it off, in my opinion, while also preserving the patristic understanding of the Old Testament

@Strawby88 4 года назад

I just wish it would have the full translators' notes instead of references. The notes seem limited, hence I find myself compelled to just use biblegateway's version.

@RGrantJones 4 года назад

Thanks for commenting, Strawby88. I agree. I think it was a mistake to omit the translators' notes. This is probably another case of aesthetics trumping utility: The design team may have thought that the notes made the page too cluttered. It's almost as if there's a publishers' standard that requires every Bible to have at least one significant flaw.

@tonyn2101 4 года назад

I have a similar bible like this one. It’s a calfskin single column NKJV from this website called Lamb of God that I like. Maybe not the best by critical standards though haha. I wanted to ask if you ever will do a NKJV translation comparison video with other translations by chance? Like you’ve done in the past with RSV and ESV. My favorite translations personally are the RSV, ESV, and NKJV but would want to know from an expert if you find the NKJV a good translation comparatively or not. I hope so cuz I really like it and I do like the extended version of Marks gospel ( and I am aware of problems with the TR so I’m not some TR onlyist or something ) which the other versions don’t have so I would be bummed if it wasn’t all up to par but wanted to know your opinion on that. Thanks for the great video as always @R. Grant Jones

@RGrantJones 4 года назад

Tony N - I don't have any NKJV comparison videos planned at the moment, but I have no objection to doing one. I think the NKJV is an excellent translation. I'm certainly not a TR advocate: I consider both the reasoned eclectic approach and the majority text view superior to relying on 16th century scholarship. But the NKJV provides textual notes that supply many (though far from all) of the variant readings. It's a solid modern translation in the Tyndale tradition.

@jerryfortenberry1956 4 года назад

Do you intend to review the giant print version? NASB Thinline Bible, Giant Print

@RGrantJones 4 года назад

Thanks for the question! No, I have no plans to review that one.

@jerryfortenberry1956 4 года назад

@@RGrantJones I purchased one and then returned it. The paper was thin and the ghosting was quite bad. I wish I could find the Zondervan SCR without the SCR... Move the 10.5 text to the center of the page...or the Zondervan preachers bible with 10.5 font. Just wishing

@RGrantJones 4 года назад

@@jerryfortenberry1956 - thanks for sharing your experience. Personally, I didn't find the paper opacity to be an issue, given the dark print and line matching. The gleam was more distracting to me. But we're all wired differently. I like your idea of moving the text out of the gutter.

@edwardgraham9443 4 года назад

Think is better printed than the later SCR from Foundation. But I wonder why this particular Bible at this time seeing that the 2020 edition is coming out later this year. The samples I've seen of the 2020 will make the Nasb less literal. It won't be able to call itself the most literal translation anymore, even though based on previous video you showed that the NKJV was actually more literal than the Nasb. I think this new update has ruined a good translation.

@RGrantJones 4 года назад

The printing and paper are definitely better, though the paper isn't as good in my opinion as that used in the '73 and '77 NASB SCRs. I'm looking forward to examining the 2020 NASB in detail when it's published. I hope the publishers decide against the so-called gender inclusive language that's appeared in some of the examples I've seen on Facebook, but I suspect we'll see "brothers and sisters" instead of "brothers," along with the elimination of many grammatically masculine pronouns. The '95 edition wasn't as diligent as the earlier NASBs in noting departures from literal readings. I anticipate the 2020 edition will continue that trend. Based on the Bible I reviewed in this video, it would appear that Zondervan wants to retain only a few of the textual and translation notes.

@edwardgraham9443 4 года назад

@@RGrantJones I think we've come to a point where we need to settle on a translation. As a pastor myself from Jamaica where we don't have access the sort of resources you would have in the States and Seminary isn't widely available to most of us, as far as I know there's only one seminary here, a settled text, I believe, facilitates better communication of the Bible. I believe that's one of the reasons many people stick to the Kjv and to a lesser extent the NKJV. I certainly prefer the stability of those texts. That is where teachers of the scriptures help the congregation with understanding the biblical text and especially when most of these changes and tweaks don't change much in any that we've not already seen in the Kjv. Also I think scholars are never satisfied with their work, they seem to always be tinkering with something, and this causes more confusion among the lay people than anything else. The Septuagint isn't perfect, but Jesus used it, so I think that it's time now to settle on a text. Another sir Jones, is I also believe that with how the world is going now, publishes are bending to feminists and left wing people to put the scripture how they want it. I use the NKJV and should they ever decide to "update" it I go back to the trusty KJV

@christiancurcio2576 4 года назад

Other reviews of this bible state that it does not include all the translators notes. Is this correct? If so then by what percentage would u say do they have?

@RGrantJones 4 года назад

That's an oversight on my part -- I should have mentioned that issue. If Romans chapter one is indicative, Zondervan retained less than about 20% of the translation notes. Another case of aesthetics over utility.

@christiancurcio2576 4 года назад

R. Grant Jones wow that’s crazy! Ppl who are inclined to the nasb do so bc of the literalness of the translation and the notes. I’ve heard many nasb ppl say they will not buy for this very reason. Stupid move on Zondervans part

@RGrantJones 4 года назад

@@christiancurcio2576 - I can understand why people would avoid it for that reason. I had the same reaction to one of the Nelson Comfort Print NKJVs. If it weren't for the wide margins, I'd feel the same way about this edition. But since there's room to write, I can supply my own translation notes. And many of the NASB's translation notes do seem superfluous (e.g., Gen 34.8, where the text reads 'in marriage' and the note reads 'Lit for a wife'; or Gen. 34.10, where the text reads 'live' and the note reads 'Lit dwell').

@christiancurcio2576 4 года назад

R. Grant Jones I just purchased Nelson’s NKJV SCR today. Should receive it in the mail by wed. From the reviews I’ve read / watched, it should have all the translators notes. Have you been able to review that edition?

@RGrantJones 4 года назад

@@christiancurcio2576 - I reviewed a hardback Nelson NKJV SCR, but I'm not altogether sure it's the one you have in mind. Unlike the reviewers who receive copies from publishers, I can't keep up with all the new editions. The NKJV SCR I reviewed did have all the text and translation notes, as far as I could tell. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Y15BFKPt9H0.html

@Jordan-1999 4 года назад

Which catholic bible would you recommend for someone like me. I am thinking about becoming a catholic, but I don't know which bible version is the best. I'm looking for something that's understandable and accurate. I was reading a KJV bible without the apocrypha, then I moved to the NKJV. But as I said just unsure of what catholic bible would be best. Appreciate it brother God bless.

@RGrantJones 4 года назад

If I were Catholic, I'd probably use the old Douay-Rheims as my primary Bible, because the Council of Trent endorsed the Latin Vulgate. The Douay-Rheims is a good, literal translation of the Vulgate. Since you're used to the KJV, that might work well for you also. Among the more modern Catholic translations, the RSV Catholic Edition and 2nd Catholic Edition are the most literal, and both are rather elegant, retaining something of the KJV's literary qualities. The RSV2CE would be my second choice. (The Didache Bible is an excellent study tool, and it is in the RSV2CE.) I like to read an interpretive, dynamic equivalence translation alongside a literal one. For that role, I would choose either the original Jerusalem Bible or the CTS New Catholic Bible (which is the Jerusalem Bible with 'Yahweh' replaced by 'the LORD' -- it also has a different Psalter). Perhaps a Catholic viewer will weigh in and give a more informed opinion.

@Jordan-1999 4 года назад

@@RGrantJones Ok thank you. Much appreciated.👍🏻

@brianzavitsky7575 4 года назад

I would say, as a Catholic, the Didache Study Bible (RSV-2CE) (here a link for the hardcover on Amazon www.amazon.com/dp/1939231140/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_c_api_i_k-SDEbR1DF226 ) is the best hands down. It also has references to the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) which is another “must have” Catholic book. If I could only have one bible, that would be it. My second choice would be the Douay-Rheims. Many consider this one to be the best Catholic translation BUT it does have a lot of Elizabethan english (thou; shalts; thy; ect). Also, as a newbie, I highly recommend a study bible which contain extensive footnotes and essays to help better understand what you are reading. I’m not aware if there is a study bible based on the Douay-Rheims translation... Lastly of my recommendations would be a Catholic Study Bible based on the NABRE. I suggest the Little Rock version and NOT the Oxford edition. The Oxford hardcover book is garbage as the first part of the bible is glued and the paper WILL rip even with careful and cautious use. Maybe the paperback or bonded leather edition would be better. So, RSV-2CE ---> Douay-Rheims ---> NABRE Good luck!

@FernandoSerna1654 4 года назад

Do you prefer the 1977 NASB or the 1984 NIV?

@RGrantJones 4 года назад

If I could have only one, I'd definitely chose the '77 NASB. But the 84 NIV is a good interpretive (if not particularly elegant) supplement.

@michaelfalsia6062 3 года назад

The text is too far to the gutter? A little more centered would have been better and more aesthetically pleasing. Too bad. the 10.5 print is just the right size.

@ConciseCabbage 4 года назад

Grant, do you have any videos specifically about manuscript traditions? Lately, I’m more interested in different theories on which manuscripts are best rather than how the translations actually do things. For example, are there any new/fresh translations that use the textus receptus like the KJV did? Do we know that the KJV translators would definitely have preferred textus receptus if they were alive today?

@RGrantJones 4 года назад

Thanks for the question. I'm also interested in that subject, but I have no expertise in it. While I haven't done a video on that topic, I do touch on it in a few videos. For instance, at around the 5:00 mark in the KJV vs ESV video, part II, I briefly discuss the issue. I think I touch on the perspective of the editors of the Tyndale House Greek New Testament in the video "An Introduction to the Greek New Testament Produced at Tyndale House, Cambridge." The "Four-Dimensional Perspective on Bible Translations" video shows that all modern Greek New Testaments are not clones of Westcott & Hort and that translators often do their own textual criticism.

@ConciseCabbage 4 года назад

R. Grant Jones - I have to admit that I do find a lot of KJV-Only arguments convincing because of the manuscript discussions. In that respect, perhaps I would find a Douey Reims Only argument even more compelling 🤔

@RGrantJones 4 года назад

@@ConciseCabbage - If I were a Catholic, I'd definitely use the Douay-Rheims, because the Council of Trent stated that the Latin was authentic and no one should reject it (paraphrasing from memory). I prefer the original Rheims New Testament over Challoner's revision.

@ConciseCabbage 4 года назад

R. Grant Jones - I’m not familiar with the DR translations in English. The only one I’ve heard of is the Knox translation which is supposedly very stylistically pleasing. Is that the “original” English one?

@THCAPI 4 года назад

@@ConciseCabbage , these arguments prey on the average American believer lack of knowledge of the underlying subjects (Koine Greek, Textual Studies, Church History) and a general lack of training in logic by the American school system in general. I recommend you read the book "The King James Only Controversy" by Dr. James White to understand this discussion, here's the link to it on Amazon: www.amazon.com/King-James-Only-Controversy-Upd/dp/B004TWZKBY/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=The+King+James+Only+Controversy&qid=1582490295&sr=8-2 I myself, not being American, was very surprised when I first encountered the KJV-Onlyism phenomenon. This was one of those rare instances where the American Rube stereotype that the Europeans like to promote seemed to come to life before my very eyes. One thing that folks new to this discussion don't get is that the KJVO arguments that sound reasonable to the average American church-goer sound as ridiculous to folks who have a working knowledge of the underlying subjects as the "If the King James was good enough for the Apostle Paul it's good enough for me!" kind of argument. To think of the unmitigated gall of Pastors who would dare posit in effect that since the Dutch first brought the Reformed Faith to my town nearly four hundred years ago no one has been saved here because we don't use, and in fact never used, the King James translation, nor it's underlying "Greek" text (The Scrivener "Textus Receptus" which was arrived at by working backwards from the King James translation) beggars belief! Luke 23:34. Newsflash! There have always been multiple languages in the body of Christ, the Old Testament was preserved in it's original Hebrew, in Koine Greek (from which came the majority of its citations in the New Testament), In Aramaic commentaries and others. The New Testament was preserved in it's original Koine Greek, In Syriac, in Coptic, in Latin and others. The text that Luther used to translate the Bible into German was not the "TR" of the King James translation, given what I said before it obviously could not have been it. You can also find Dr. James White speaking on this topic (and debating it's proponents) here on RU-vid, search for "aomin" and "droakley1689", and on Sermon Audio. God Bless!

@bigpoppa12311 Год назад

Are Jesus’ words in red ink?

@RGrantJones Год назад

Thanks for the question, bigpoppa12311. No, they are in black ink. I usually put that information on one of the opening charts. You can see it on the second chart, at about the 00:08 point.

@vickih5405 3 года назад

I really wish this wasn’t verse by verse

@gleasonparker1684 2 года назад

Gutter looks close.

@MAMoreno 4 года назад

Oddly enough, I prefer the layout of that 1963 New Testament over the SCRs that followed. I generally think that the verse-by-verse format doesn't agree well with a single-column layout. It results in too many characters per line _and_ too much negative space within the text itself, a combination which I find aesthetically unpleasant. It's less of a problem with compact and giant print Bibles, where the size of the characters on the page is more suitably proportional to the size of the page itself.

@RGrantJones 4 года назад

Thanks for the comment: Those are excellent points.