The New Strong's Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible Review 

Thanks for the comment - I'm really glad the video was helpful! I'm not familiar with the other work you mentioned, but I'll look it up.

Hi Dr. Shea, thanks for your comment. Yes, of course - it's the beautiful KJV Personal Size Reference Bible in red goatskin from Thomas Nelson's Premier Collection. I actually have a full review of this edition that's scheduled to be published next week.

@@BibleReviewers I think I’ll get one of those bibles. I have become a fan of the new Berean translation, but I have many others and refer to them often. I still consider the KJV to have set a high bar for scholarship and literary style. In my mind, standard versification often detracts from the literary value of the book, so having a “reader’s” edition is something I will appreciate.

@@drmichaelshea I actually downloaded the Berean translation a few days ago to my Olive Tree app. If you enjoy the KJV, you absolutely should have that edition on your radar - it is phenomenal, and yes, I agree with you that the layout is superb. The video review is finished, I just need to complete the write-up and finish the photo editing. God willing, it'll be live late next week.

@@BibleReviewers I’ll be looking forward to your next video. I hope you like the Berean translation. It preserves much of the beauty and elegance of the KJV and it reads very well without becoming simplistic or politically sensitive, both of those characteristics seeming important to me. After all, the Bible is supposed to define a godly lifestyle. I don’t think it was ever intended to make political declarations or to indoctrinate the public with popular philosophies of (generally uninspired) men. I have a great appreciation for scholars like you who have made such a great effort to thoroughly read and understand it. Bible scholarship may not be as popular as it once was, but it’s place in the world still exists and always will. In my own tradition, it was said of one of the early church leaders that if someone quoted a verse to his, he could quote the next verse verbatim in English, German, or Hebrew. To me, that sort of accomplishment is mind-boggling. It’s a pleasure to meet you. Thanks again.

​@@drmichaelshea You may also want to check out the YLT (Young's Literal Translation), if you're not already familiar with it. I really enjoy it. Thanks again for the kind responses, it's a pleasure to interact with you and if you ever want to hash anything out in greater detail, just drop me a line through the contact form on my site: biblereviewers.com/contact/ Have a restful weekend...

Hi Christopher, thanks for your comment. My comment in the review was 100% accurate - the KJV's usage of the word "easter" in this passage is anachronistic and was a deliberate mistranslation of the text. It should appear as "Passover". Pesach (Passover) takes place on a single day - the 14th of Aviv or Nisan. This is the day that the sacrifice takes place, and it's immediately followed by the seven days of Chag HaMatzot (Feast of Unleavened Bread). Over time, the word Pesach began to be used as a name for the entire 8-day period, and that continues to this day. Regarding your comment that "the King James is NEVER wrong", this is simply not true. The KJV is simply a translation of the Bible into English, like any other translation. It's a good translation, but it is not inspired, nor is it error-free. There are several examples that could be provided, but here are two quick ones. Compare Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 in the KJV to literally any other translation - you will see that the KJV translators mistakenly understood both passages to be referencing Messiah, when in reality, they are referring to Joshua. I really appreciate your love and reverence for the Father's Word, but placing faith in a simple translation is misguided. It's always best to focus on the original languages, with the understanding that all translations are simply the result of an individual or translation team doing the best they can to understand the text and relay its meaning to the reader. Hope this helps...

@@BibleReviewers Thank You indeed for Your Reply to my Comments, but I do still stand by what I said, just as You have done by what Comments You have made in this Video. As for the idea of my placing my Faith in one Translation being misguided, I disagree. I have no problem looking at the Original Languages, as I have the Key Word Study Bible and other aids, and Blue Letter Bible, because I appreciate other languages, as they teach me more about English as well. However, we have the Bible translated into English for a good reason - so we can understand it. Some complain about the older language of the King James, as if it needs to be updated, but then try to get the same people to look at outright foreign languages, as if that would make things easier to understand. Now, as for believing there is only ONE Bible we can trust in English (as opposed to other languages), I stick to that, for after all, as Christians, we believe in the Bible - that is, whatever version people might use, they do understand that it is the Bible that is our Guide to GOD, not, say, the Bhagavad Gita, the Koran, the Purana, or any other works - if we want to know the Christian GOD, we stick to the Bible - so why not also just ONE Bible in our Language - why should we need all those other ones ? If we believe in GOD, surely we understand that He wants to talk to us, and to do so accurately. He will not give us mixed messages, for GOD is NOT the Author of Confusion. But since about 1881, with the arrival of the Revised Version New Testament, we have had a plethora of new versions of the Bible, each supposedly updating the language and comparing itself to the King James, but why so many ? If there is a genuine, faultless Word of GOD in English out there, how can we know which one it is ? Some of these versions of the Bible do not even agree with each other, and they certainly do not agree one hundred percent with the Authorised Version. GOD has promised to preserve His Words. Having His Word Given by Inspiration is one thing, but this is no good if He did not preserve it for us for all time. This was so in the Original Tongues (not the MSS, which rotted away, but were copied faithfully, thus preserving the Word - just as Baruch did by the Mouth of Jeremiah in JEREMIAH CHAPTER 36 after the king and his cronies burn the original words of GOD written by Baruch from exactly what Jeremiah had said). GOD’s Word is Pure - so which of these English version is the Pure Word of GOD, if it is NOT the King James ? For if we say that only the Originals were pure, and mere translations now cannot get it completely right, we are saying GOD was not able to preserve His perfect, pure Word in a Language He knew in advance would dominate the World. English has done that, as much because of the King James Bible, which has borne massive spiritual fruit over the four centuries it has been around. Before then the Bible from the original Languages had already been translated into other tongues like German, Italian, Spanish, French and Latin (not the Vulgate). As for Your comments about Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 in the KJV, it is clear from the Context that this is talking about Joshua the son of Nun, not Jesus Christ. The translators used the name Jesus here as the Greek version of the Hebrew name Joshua, and I have always understood that to be the case. Certainly the LORD Jesus Christ in His Preincarnate Form was with the Jews in their Journeys in the Wilderness, for the Rock followed them, and That Rock was Christ, but Jesus here is never intended to mean our Lord Christ, but the man who took over the Guidance of the Children of Israel for them to enter into the Promised Land. The Name Jesus NEVER appears in the Old Testament, while the word Joshua last appears in ZECHARIAH 6 : 11 - this is why the King James translators referred to the son of Nun as Jesus in those two verses. I do not believe the King James was inspired in the sense that the Translators received Visions or Signs or Direct Messages from GOD to do so, for Jesus Christ Himself said that there shall no sign be given, as in this Age, the Just shall live by Faith, a quote from Habakkuk, and Paul also added that We walk by Faith, not by Sight, indicating that the Sign Gifts of the Early Church we being phased out, since the Word preached by Christ and the Apostles had been verified as of GOD by the Miracles they had done - even if the Pharisees tried to attribute Jesus’ Works to Beelzebub. Rather, GOD superintended the translating of the Original Languages into English for the King James as part of His preserving the Scriptures. Some or all of these men might have been saved, we do not know for sure, but for those who were, the Holy Ghost guided them into making the right choices in making a good translation better. Now, because they were putting into another language words that had already been given by Inspiration of GOD, that is the Inspiration and Preservation of the Scriptures - that is what makes the King James the perfect, preserved Word of GOD in English - so when one reads the King James, they are reading a Translation of Inspired Scripture, and as such, that is its claim to Inspiration, and to being the perfect, Inspired Word of GOD in the English Language. This is not to say we do not have proper Translations in other Tongues, for we do - one should not have to learn a foreign language in this Age of Grace in order to be saved - the Bible can go into any language, and if we can no longer find the Original Tongues, we can translate it from the King James, because that has already been done properly. Those men back then, 54 to begin with, 47 in the end who are known to have done it, as some died over the time it took, these were amongst the greatest scholars of the time - Einsteins to the power of seven - but do we think that, in these End Times, characterised, as the Bible prophesies, by Apostasy, we can find the quality of Godly men to improve upon the perfect Translation ? And if their ones are so better, why do they keep coming up with new ones every year ? Is it that they want to improve upon the Word, is it the lure of the Almighty Dollar ? For sure, and there is NO verse in the King James that states, “ And thou shalt only read the Authorised King James Version of the Holy Bible, as newly translated out of the originall Tongues, and with the former translations diligently compared and revised . . . ” - but say there was, would not the modern Bible scholars claim that was a mistranslation, and say it should not be there ? When then does it end ? For if we cannot trust that the Bible we have is one hundred per cent accurate, then how can we trust GOD and His Word, and the Way to be saved ? Nay, we must be able to have COMPLETE Faith in Someone and His Something - and that is the Inspired, Perfect, Preserved Word of GOD, and for the English Language, this is the Authorised King James Bible, originally published about May of 1611, reprinted soon after to correct only typos, and revised in 1762 and 1769 to get rid of the last typographical errors, and standardise the spelling to what is more recognisable today. Back then, up to the seventeenth century, the English spelt the same word different ways, even in the same passage, and this can be seen if one has an original spelling 1611, but that is a fault of the evolution of the English Language, not of the Wording of the King James Bible. So, what do we want ? A Bible - nay, The Bible, that gives us GOD’s Word and Words accurately, without any error, and shows us the genuine, only Gospel Way of Salvation for us in this Age, that people may learn only of Christ and Him Crucified, repent and believe, and be saved - and this IS in the King James, and it IS ALWAYS right, otherwise I would not use it - I trust it completely, for it teaches me the Way to trust GOD, that, when all is said and done, it is about the Lord Jesus Christ, and He does Value His Word, for He is called the Living Word, and it is therefore important we have it all, and can trust it all.