Відео

Thank you Steven, because of this video i discovered the 1764 Purver Literal Bible. Wow, Anthony dedicated his adult lifes free time to translate, research and do critical notes on correcting the KJV for 30 years, right up to selling the copywrite, then another man published it. Thats the greatest bible devotion i ever heard of. He spent 6 times longer than Julia Smith did and also did his work solo without help. His references of other sources show he must have had an extensive library or access to one as a Quaker Pastor.

The bible of colonizers too.nothing different from other versions..europeans use bible to colonize ..

Thank you,Sir.🌹🔥🌟🔥🌹

Thanks for this comparison! I like the NIV '84 and understand why many wish it was still being printed. Now, the Berean Standard Bible is an excellent new translation that is reminiscent of the older NIV while staying more traditional with some of it's word choice and formatting (ala the NASB or NKJV.) If you're looking to replace your old NIV I recommend giving the BSB a try! God bless you.

I found a Berkeley Bible while thrifting a couple months back. I collect Bibles to have different translations to compare while studying. I haven't read much in it yet, but I plan to because I like the wording so far. Thank you for doing this video, and for covering a little about Verkuyl's background.

This is very helpful, thank you!!

I am a Protestant

great work!

The NASB95 has a few things that I wish were different. One major thing is the rendering of Romans 9:5, which states, "whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen" (NASB95). "whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen" (NASB20). There is no change, even with the most up-to-date scholarship. It ought to read, "whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen" (LSB). This is a super clear Deity-of-Christ passage. Now, we don't NEED this to prove the Deity of Christ, but this is the more accurate rendering and having another clear Deity-of-Christ passage never hurts.

How in the world can anyone say the Amplified Version is one of the most accurate? It’s practically a paraphrase, with dozens of words of commentary inserted in almost every verse?

Good commentary with added historical details

I Have Never Heard about The Geneva Bible Until Recently. Interesting.

Christians Should Know About, And Read The Geneva Bible.

Interesting Info.

“Formless and desolate emptiness” is pretty accurate to “tohu va bohu”

Here are my thoughts on the NASB 2020. 😊 1. Textual basis. I like that the NASB 2020 uses the most recent scholarship for the Old Testament (OT) and for the New Testament (NT). Of course, the most recent scholarship wasn't available in previous translations of the NASB like the NASB95. A. For the OT, the NASB 2020 primarily uses Biblia Hebraica (BH), just like most other English Bible translations. The main BH that the NASB 2020 uses is BH Stuttgartensia (BHS) which was completed in the 1970s. The most recent but still unfinished BH is Biblia Hebraica Quinta (BHQ) which was started in the early 2000s and will be completed in the future. The NASB 2020 primarily uses BHS but it incorporates BHQ as well. The NASB95 only used BHS, since BHQ wasn't available back then. Again, BHS is the current standard OT Hebrew text used in most of our English Bible translations, though it will most likely be replaced by BHQ once BHQ is complete. BHS is in turn based on the Leningrad Codex which is the oldest complete extant Masoretic Text (MT). The Leningrad Codex dates to approximately 1000 AD. There are other texts used in the NASB 2020 for its translation of the OT. Some of these texts weren't used in the earlier NASB95 let alone the NASB77. For example, there's the Aleppo Codex which dates to the early 900s AD, but it's not as complete as the Leningrad Codex. There's also the very significant Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). Not to mention the Septuagint (LXX). Also the Targums. And several others. B. For the NT, the NASB 2020 primarily uses the latest editions of the Nestle-Aland's (NA) Novum Testamentum Graece. Specifically the NASB 2020 uses the 28th edition of Nestle-Aland (NA28) as well as parts of the yet-to-be published NA29. By contrast, the NASB95 used NA26, which is two or three editions behind the latest editions - NA28 and the forthcoming NA29. 2. Although the NASB 2020 uses the latest texts for its OT translation, it tends to stick to the MT tradition. It doesn't usually incorporate the earliest texts if these texts aren't found in the MT tradition. For example: A. Gen 4:8 has an extra line that's found in earlier texts like the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac, and the Vulgate, but the NASB 2020 sticks with BHS/BHQ and the MT textual tradition. By contrast, the CSB includes the extra line. B. 1 Sam 14:41. The LXX has an entire middle section that is omitted in the MT. The CSB and the NIV include this omitted middle section on the basis of the LXX. But the NASB 2020 follows the MT and doesn't include it. C. Isa 53:11. The DSS and the LXX are important texts for the OT, and they are significantly earlier than the MT, and the DSS and the LXX contain the extra word "light" (and translations like the CSB and the NIV translate the verse to include "light" as well). But the NASB 2020 does not include "light". This is important because it is possible "light" refers to the suffering servant seeing the "light" of life, i.e., it may be a prophetic reference to the resurrection of Jesus. 3. Regarding the NT, the NASB 2020 generally follows the NA28/NA29, but sometimes doesn't. For example: A. 2 Pet 3:10. Some Bible translations translate the last word of the verse as "burned up", but "burned up" is most likely incorrect. Most of our English Bible translations now follow the NA28 which has instead "exposed", "disclosed", "discovered", "laid bare", or something to that effect. (And at present the NA29 adds the significant word "not" as in "not exposed" or "not disclosed" or "not discovered" or "not laid bare" based on the evidence of some Syriac and Coptic manuscripts; however the strength of this evidence is still being debated.) The NASB95 uses "burned up", whereas the NASB 2020 uses "discovered" as most contemporary English Bible translations do. B. Jude 5. Is it "Jesus" (e.g. CSB, ESV) or "Lord" (e.g. NIV, NASB95, NASB 2020)? This isn't a settled issue and either translation could be correct. 4. Literal and readable. A. Literal. I think "literal" is actually a poor term to use for what most people mean when they are referring to a literal Bible translation, that is, formal equivalence. But it appears we're stuck with the use of literal at least in popular discourse. Of course, the NASB in all its incarnations (77, 95, 2020) is considered very literal in the sense of being as transparent with the structure and syntax and so forth of the original biblical languages as is possible for a translation to be. In this respect, the NASB is at least similar to other so-called literal translations like the LSB, the LEB, and the ESV, and some might say it's even superior. B. Readable. By readable I mean clear (is it understandable?) and natural (is it how a native English speaker would put it?). For example, the sentence "I am the one whom people call John" is clear in that an English speaker can understand what it means, but it is not natural in that most English speakers don't speak this way. It would be both clear and natural to simply say "My name is John." With this in mind, I think the NASB95 is clear but not natural, i.e., there's quite a bit of truth to the charge that the NASB sounds clunky or wooden. By contrast, I find the NASB 2020 is significantly more clear and more natural than previous NASB translations. In fact, I'd say the NASB 2020's readability is almost but not quite up there with the CSB and the NIV which are considered very readable. And I'd say the NASB 2020 is more readable than the ESV and most other "literal" translations. Indeed, I think the NASB 2020 is often enjoyable to read. C. Literary style. The ESV has significantly superior literary style in comparison to the NASB 2020 and indeed in comparison to most other English Bible translations, though there are a handful of exceptions. Such as: the KJV which is the peak of English literary style; the RSV from which the ESV directly comes and as such equals; Alter's Hebrew Bible which is translated in fine modern English literary style while keeping an eye on Hebraic style; perhaps the NEB/REB, though these often play fast and loose with the original text. Nevertheless the NASB 2020 is in the Tyndale-KJV tradition and as such there are significant traces of literary beauty in the NASB 2020 as well. But by and large the NASB (in all its incarnations) is a cut or two below the ESV in terms of literary style. D. In short, I think the NASB 2020 balances both literalness (formal equivalence accuracy) and readability (clarity and naturalness) in maximal ways. The NASB 2020 is perhaps closest to the CSB with its optimal equivalence philosophy of translation. In my view, the basic difference between the NASB 2020 and the CSB is that the NASB is more literal (formally equivalent) than the CSB, while the CSB is more readable (clear and natural) than the NASB 2020. 5. Contentious issues. A. Lord as Yahweh. The NASB 2020 sticks with Lord as do most of our English Bible translations. The only major exceptions I know are the LSB which does generally translate Lord as Yahweh as well as the HCSB (not CSB, which went back to Lord from the HCSB's Yahweh). B. Gender accuracy. This is probably the primary issue that people think about when they think about the NASB 2020. The NASB95 tended to use the generic "brethren" for the Greek terms "adelphoi", whereas the NASB 2020 tends to use "brothers and sisters". I prefer "brethren", but I am also fine with "brothers and sisters". The NASB 2020 doesn't go overboard with "brothers and sisters"; I find it is still very traditional or conservative in its usage of "brothers and sisters" and suchlike (e.g. for anthropoi the NASB 2020 often uses "people"). Nevertheless many people who like the NASB dislike the NASB 2020 for this, and they either go back to the NASB95 or NASB77, or they move on to the LSB which as James White has said "the LSB is the NASB perfected". I don't agree, in part because I think even if it's a problem it seems to be outweighed by all the other benefits of the NASB 2020, but of course to each their own. We have plenty of solid Bible translations from which to choose. And personally speaking I most use the ESV and the CSB as my preferred English translations. C. Formatting and related issues * Capitalization of divine pronouns. * Extra italics to highlight words not in the original biblical text. * OT quotations in all caps. * Tons of textual footnotes. * I suppose each of these points could be debated as to their advantages and disadvantages, but overall it all makes the NASB comes across more like a reference work, which could be a good or bad or mixed thing, depending on one's perspective. Anyway, that's all I have for now!

Michael sampson

I picked this Bible up for free at a Christian thrift store several months ago, and while I like how the books are ordered as I'm big on Bible timelines, I didn't care how for how it was read, nor did I care for how he rearranged the chapters. It's also my understanding that James Moffatt translated the Bible solely by himself which to me raises several red flags. I ended up getting rid of it although there's a part of me that wished I didn't.

NKJV Acs 11:26 Amen

The NA S B does not believe the virgin birth . , It is a deception .

i was THRILLED when I heard about the New Geneva Study Bible, thinking it would be the Geneva Bible in today's American English. Was disappointed when I found it to be NKJV. Will try to get a true Geneva Bible, perhaps Biblegateway will add it to their lineup,

It is so heartening to see this translation puts back the name of our God, Jehovah/Yahweh where it rightfully belong. The Witnesses have for so many years emphasized on using the name of our God as he deserved to be called by his name, and Jehovah wants his name to be revered.

😊

Novel video. Cheers. wow

Thank You! 🙂... I like the CEV!

Where can I buy the 1987 classic. Amplified bible

Love the older version

What you perceive as an “f” is the typical way a second “s” was rendered calligraphically.

The only reason it was widely read was because only the poor could afford. Stop pushing this bible. It died for a reason. It's William Shakespeare and he was dark. Geneva is a female name meaning bend in river. River is water. Water is life. Life is the word. A bend in river is bend in the truth. Geneva also means juniper tree which was used to ward off evil eye. Superstition and witchcraft. Now tell them what happen to alot of those people. They were burned at the stake. This book died for a reason.

Before I purchased my Geneva Bible, I watched a video comparing the 1560 to the 1599 edition. Because the 1599 edition showed some Calvinistic bias in certain verses, I chose the 1560 edition. Since then I have compared my Geneva Bible to the King James Version, and I offer some observations that might be helpful to others. While much is the same or very similar, the Geneva Bible tends to use simpler language. It has less supplied words, which may give a slightly different meaning and, possibly, a more accurate one in some places. There are a few more archaic words in the Geneva Bible, but not many. It is interesting to note the the text of the Geneva Bible often uses words that the KJV gives in the margin as the more literal meaning of the Hebrew and Greek. Where the KJV uses a different word, it is often found that it uses the same translation as the Geneva Bible in other places. Some improvement to the text is made by the KJV, but more often I think that the Geneva Bible is preferable. Most of the chapter and verse numbering is identical, but not always. My modern spelling edition doesn't include the notes, so I make no comment on those. Prayerful Bible study reveals that neither version is without fault; let us be open to the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Thanks, informative overview of Rotherham's bible. One point of critique, Hebrew does not have gender neuter, everything is feminine or masculine.

A beautiful film. I sat it twice.

coming today...

Dumb video. You could, you know, show…. the bible?

Word for word is NOT always more accurate than thought for thought. Word for word is weaker when dealing with idioms.

Uh

I Wish Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, EBR, was more well known. I was on the hunt for a translation that kept the name(s) of God intact and it was one of only a few translations to do so.

I have been reading this version since finding it in a neighbors "Give a book take a book". I have gone through Revelation and John and now Matthew, comparing the notes with John Macarthur's NASB study bible, and NKJV and KJV texts. I find nothing so far, absolutely nothing, that is not written without being in the Holy Spirit and being accurate to the Word of God. It's an extraordinary version. If you take some time to watch sermons of Witness Lee I don't understand how you cannot be moved in your heart closer to God. That man seemed to have lived in the Spirit all day every day. If you also take time to learn the history of Henry Nee, how the man who started it suffered in China and died in prison a loving Christian, who spread the gospel to many thousands in a huge region of China, the history of the church, I think you would be amazed. I pray Lord may I please have such an influence bringing so many others to see the light and love of Christ! You should also ask this, why are any of these hundreds of other people who have translated the Bible more qualified than Henry Nee or Witness Lee who clearly devoted their entire lives to learning and spreading the gospel, and lead righteous lives. I am not a member of this church, I simply have been reading as stated and my faith has strengthened and I have become more enlightened/educated because of it. I am so grateful for God giving me this New Testament study. It currently holds the premier spot amidst my study Bibles as I read it with John MacArthur's. May God bless you all!

check out Jonathan Mitchells New Testament, he has a free pdf of it

Thank you, you always find such interesting Bibles to review!

The Lord has preserved his perfect word with the 7th version...Psalms 23:6-7 (The Authorised King James Bible)

The Authorised King James Bible declares itself... Acts 16:11 ... check out the height of Samothracia (in metric) !!

Appreciate so much your informative piece of our Holy Bible. The overall timeline was helpful. We don’t realize the treasure we have and what our fellow believers sacrificed for mankind. We are not worthy of the blessing of Gods Holy Word imparted to us.

Thank you I have found the AMP To be very helpful in keeping teaching on track, especially with inductive Bible study methods

I Don't Have The Geneva Bible. I Have The KJV, And Modern Versions.

Christians Should Know About And Read The Geneva Bible

I went from the 95 to the 2020

I purchased an electronic Geneva bible and it was not hard to read, once you allow your brain to adjust. It isn't easy if all you read is something other than the King James bible, as the King James 1611 can also be easily read if you are familiar with the KJV. Those who use other translations for their everyday study, even the KJV (King James) is hard for many to read because it is at the twelveth grade reading level.

Where can you buy one?

Those versions are blatantly obvious and to me arent the worst as they are hot or cold the worst versions are those that pretend to be Gods word yet change the smallest thing to fit a doctrine like everything from the critical texts like the niv. The message to me is absolute trash and is used today by many pastors trying to be hip, I will stick with ole faithful the KJV