Some thoughts: 1. As is often said, the best Bible translation is the one you read. 😊 2. I think most modern Bible translations in English done by evangelicals will be good. I prefer some more than others, but they're all good translations of God's word. There are some exceptions, but most major evangelical Bible translations will communicate God's word accurately and clearly enough for most people. 3. Of course, it'd be best to learn biblical Hebrew and Greek. Or at least if you know a second or multiple modern languages like Spanish or Chinese to compare English translations with other Bible translations in other languages. That really helps better understand the Bible. 4. If English is the only language one can read, then it'd be best to use multiple English translations side by side. Such as a literal or word for word translation (formal equivalence) like the NASB or the ESV or the NKJV, a mediating version like the CSB or the NET or the NIV, and a more dynamic or idiomatic translation like the NLT (functional equivalence). Use a good (free) website to compare the translations. Such as Parallel Plus, STEP Bible, TIPS Bible, Bible Hub, Bible Gateway, etc. 5. The NET Bible is available for free online and it has awesome notes that are well worth reading. I think these notes give the closest look into how translators think and how translations work short of learning the biblical languages. And even if one knows the biblical languages, the NET Bible notes are often useful and insightful to read.
I was gifted an ESV Bible and it has really brought me far in my journey with the Lord. I was so angry when I first saw your headline but after watching I only feel the necessity to find a better Bible translation. This is very informative and I pray it reaches more people. Thank you for taking the time to explain with examples from Scripture. I’m excited to see your other videos. I’ll have to do more research on what Bible to buy but I am thankful you did this.
Thanks! I went on a similar emotional journey when I found out the ESV was not what it was touted to be. The further you go down the rabbit hole with the ESV, the more frustrated you will become… especially if you are a critical thinker. I’m glad my video could help you.
@@wendyleeconnelly2939 I have a whole video on it. They were not forthright about why they did this translation from the beginning… and when people questioned them about it, they denied it, even though, behind closed doors, it was exactly the reason they did it. That was what was frustrating
Thank you. I knew there were biases among translations but wasn't aware how blatant certain versions could be. Especially the more conservative ones such as ESV and NASB. Just discovered your channel. Thanks 👍
I loved your video. I thank the Lord for disciples like you among gentiles. The assessment was delightful and useful. It's amazing that you recommend various translations. I started reading the Bible in English using the NIV 84. In time, I came to read it in various translations. Be blessed abundantly in our common Lord and Savior Yeshua the Messiah (Jesus Christ). Please, pray for us the Jewish people, especially for the Jewish remnant among our people, Yeshua's disciples around the world. We are but a few, but we're one with you all in one body. Bye.
There will never be agreement on the best principles of Bible translation. In my view it's important, for example, to retain any figures of speech that work in English. That's one example of striving to keep the flavour of the original as far as possible. Perhaps the best example is "walk" to describe the way we live as we walk through life. It works beautfuilly in English but some translators change it to a verb such as "live". In English we speak of various walks of life, walking the walk as well as talking the talk, and so on. I also think translators, unless translating for a particular ignorant or language-deficient people, should refrain from "dumbing down" where the original authors didn't see the need to do so.
Have you read the New Jerusalem Version (NJV)? Give it a shot. I love the NASB 95 and the CSB. I occasionally use the NLT. I definitely love the KJV for its beauty and literary value. It resonates with my Spanish Reina-Valera.
Great foundational info on translations. I was surprised you didn’t address the Legacy Standard Bible. After being a die-hard user of the ‘95 NASB for over 36 years, I’ve been converted to the accuracy and excellent renderings of the LSB. It’s proven to be the most literal and correct word for word translation; and the translators have published their full translation notes explaining why they modified the NASB. It’s worth checking out.
I actually have friends who have studied under some of the translators from The Master's University... I haven't looked at it yet. I more than likely will.
I will add... I don't always agree with MacArthur or the theology of TMC & S, but I'm sure they faithfully translated the words and gave their reasons on where they made "decisions."
@@sam_burke I totally agree. But being able to download the full set of the translators’ notes and their reasons for the decisions they made, gives the LSB amazing transparency. Then I can decide if there’s underlying bias. I’m so impressed with the translation, nothing today comes close to the accuracy in my opinion. Thanks for your response.
@@abba2me yes. I was impressed with the verbiage of “we translated it this way to let the pastor explain it the way they would like, not us trying to guide the reader.” As a pastor, I wholly appreciate that sentiment.
I’m a TR fan. I wish someone would translate a dynamic equivalent from the TR. I preach from the NKJV and love it but would be sweet to have something like the NIV or CSB based from TR. thanks for the video
@@chris2fur401 Thanks. I actually started recording these videos because I was getting these questions from people in our congregation and on facebook, so I decided to record videos to answer some of these questions... it took off from there. Blessings on your ministry!
Correction: The Septuagint is older than the Masoretic texts. The Masoretic texts are preferred by translators because they are in the original language (and thus, ostensibly, preserve some more nuance in the word). However, there is a debate over whether the Septuagint represents a greater connection to early Christian heritage and perhaps, preserves some of the nuance that the Masoretic has lost over time (notably, some numbers differ, the size of Goliath being one example).
RU-vid decided to show me your channel. I don't know if you're interested, but I collect Catholic Bibles. Your video got me interested to check Romans 16:7 to see what my Bibles had to say. Most of them use "Junias," with the exception of three. The New Catholic Bible, a recent (2019) translation: "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who were in prison with me; they are eminent in the ranks of the apostles and were in Christ before I was." Footnote: "Junia: This name is usually taken to be masculine; others see it as feminine. In fact, some manuscripts have 'Julia' in place of 'Junia.'" The New American Bible, Revised Edition (2011): "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives and my fellow prisoners; they are prominent among the apostles and they were in Christ before me." Footnote: "The name Junia is a woman's name. One ancient Greek manuscript and a number of ancient versions read the name 'Julia.' Most editors have interpreted it as a man's name, Junias." The Revised New Jerusalem Bible (2019): "Greetings to Andronicus and Junia, my kinsfolk and fellow-prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles and were in Christ before me." Footnote: "This person, here named in the accusative case Junian, could be male or female (Junia). The latter is more probable, for the name Junia is frequent, the male 'Junias' very rare elsewhere. If it is female, this is an important testimony to female participation in the apostolic work." I can't read Greek (it's all Greek to me), but I find the differences and nuances in translation fascinating. Translators can so easily color our perceptions of what we read. Thanks for the video.
@@sam_burke Catholic Bibles are required to be printed with explanatory notes, which I'm often grateful for. Been thinking about doing my own channel to dive in to Catholic Bible translations, to do something like what you're doing here. Hopefully there would be some interest in it. Blessings to you as well!
@@3ggshe11s Yes, please start your own channel to discuss this! I'm Catholic, so of course I own Catholic bibles, but I've also bought some Protestant ones because they make them better.
Give some examples of why you don't like the ESV. Scriptures you have issue with. ALL modern bibles are translations. I feel any bible being read is a good bible... you really don't explain your dislikes.
I gave 2 examples in this video (the translation of adelphoi and Acts 16:7)... and in 2 other videos I break down the backstory of why i don't trust the process of the ESV translation. My major concern with it has to do with how they translated their patriarchal, complementarian theology into Genesis 3:16 with the phrase "your desire will be "contrary" to your husband, but he will rule over you." when it should be "your desire will be "for" your husband "and" he will rule over you." It may not seem like a big change, but it makes patriarchy God-ordained before the fall, and not a result of the fall. This rendering received major backlash from many Old Testament scholars, professors, and theologians (you just need to do a simple google search to see article after article refuting this translation). The bigger issue with it is that they footnote "or toward" and yet stuck with "contrary." Why? Because that is their interpretive theological lens. Thus why I don't trust the ESV.
not sure what you mean by this question. Like which one is the "God-ordained" version? I mean, they are all written down by people, under the inspiration of the Spirit, but not negating their experiences, culture, idioms, ideas, history, literary styles, cultural stories and myths, etc... and then copied and then translated and then interpreted. So I'm not sure you can remove the "human" element entirely. I would love to hear what you mean by this, however.
@@sam_burke I have observed that many people choose a Bible just because it is "easy to read" at the expense of truth. They find it less offensive which could steer them in a bad direction.
@@normmcinnis4102 which ones do you have in mind that steer people away from truth and which ones are, objectively, the bearers of truth? It seems as if you have some in mind.
Hello, dear brother. No, Jesus (Yeshua) wouldn't have read the Septuagint. He must hve read the Scriptures in Hebrew, and his speech in Aramaic, at the synagogue. (Luke 4). He said "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachtani". That's Aramaic. However, it's true, the Apostles wrote in Koine Greek. Around 5000 manuscripts prove it. Oral tradition in Hebrew-Aramaic paved the way to the written New Testament in Koine Greek. Hugs from Havana, Cuba. God bless you.
I mean the synagogue. The vernacular was Aramaic, in Judea, probably both, Hebrew and Aramaic, like in every Jewish community. Even today, some communities use Yiddish and Ladino. I am a Messianic Jew, so we use Hebrew and Spanish in our services. A lot of Jews have had a grasp of languages along the centuries. There is one Scripture that says that some Greeks wanted to see Yeshua. It's possible that it's referring to Greek-speaking Jews, like Apollo from Alexandria, or real Greeks. It's possible that he could have talked with them in Greek. And he could have known a bit of Latin too. He talked to Pontius Pilate. Either Pontius Pilate talked with him in Latin or Aramaic. All is possible. Jews in the diaspora must have read out of the Septuagint. Later in time, they used Symmacus and Theodotion. Greetings.
Really the only thing that verse shows is your bias as an egalitarian forcing the text to read how you want it to. If I were to say "my brother is of note among the women" it does not mean my brother is a woman. It means the women consider him to be of note. That is all that verse is saying unless your force your theology upon it.
Except that is not how Greek prepositions work. The church fathers, who read and spoke Greek, confirmed that Paul was naming Junia as an apostle. The scholarship that the ESV translators used to update this verse from its original RSV rendering of “among” to “to” was solely to make it not say this… and the scholarship by two guys who said “well sometimes you can translate it as “to” Was debunked by many Greek scholars. This is not just my bias. Junia’s apostleship has been fought over in a huge way in the academic study of the Bible world. The preposition “en” in Greek always is viewed as inside the circle, not viewed from the outside or to or around. For quite a bit of church history, Junia was considered an apostle.
@@sam_burke Also, one other thing. The preposition εν is not always used as "inside the circle" it is also used as "in close relationship to". As in many instances of "in the Lord". This is not literally talking about inside Jesus. It is talking about in close relationship to Jesus.
@@dustinpianalto2729 thus the scholarly debate over this. The translators of the ESV originally said that they used scholarship from the translators of the NET that said you could translate en that way, and it was met with heavy scholarly criticism. Why did they change it to the word “to” if among can also mean that? I forget the exact wording of the NET footnote, but it was something to the affect of “a word in the plural dative using the preposition can be translated to if the context demands it”. That was where the scholars disagreed. And the debate is still over if the context demands it. As for the church father’s stuff.. I’d have to find it. I’ll look, because when I wrote a paper on this, I remember being surprised that people like Augustine, Ireneas, and even Origen (I believe, I could be wrong about one of those) would admit that. And, by the way, I wasn’t always an egalitarian. At one point in time I was a pretty staunch complementarian.
@@faithhope7777 like I said, I grew up in an IFB church (Independent Fundamentalist Baptist) and they were King James Only apologists. I leaned that way for 18 years of my life, and then went to school to be a pastor and learned about Greek manuscript traditions… and that changed my mind big time. If people like the King James Version, I think that is great for them. I read it for my personal devotional time, but I find the KJV only argument weak, unconvincing, and wrong on so many levels. I find reading multiple texts helps me see what’s really there.
@@sam_burke Many people need help with the Bible Wording. But we don't want to get manipulated by man bible copies. Many moons ago, when I started out, I to was hit with bible copies. Through wanting to know the right Word of God, I was led to a Jewish man with a similar problem. (who was trying to destroy the Bible) Through his comparison of the bible to the Hebrew Torah. He found that the KJB was Word for Word. What people don't understand is that even the Greek and Hebrew has now also gone through some changes. If you will notice how many people is warring against the KJB, you will see how frighten satan is of Jesus True Word... Don't let man teaching of men deter you from the Truth. It took 7 years, three universities and over 50 scholars to complete the KJB... Since that time publishers have been putting to gather copies so that they too can have some of the gravy train... And with copy rights, they cannot be the same... So, they are doing their copies from the Alexandria writings... For around 1700 years we have been taught backwards, and now satan is trying to destroy the Word of God. And we are like lambs to the slaughter, we are going willingly... God Bless
