The Passion Translation shouldn’t be counted as a translation at all. It was all done by one person who had no experience in translation of biblical texts. The best you could call it is a Biblical commentary and many would call it much worse (heretical).
I appreciate the effort, but it really does feel like you're saying the exact same thing for most of them. The best way to understand the translations is to understand their relationships to each other. If you would have covered these versions in chronological order, you could have indicated these relationships more clearly. For instance, it's helpful to know that the RSV is essentially a revision of the KJV (albeit more directly an update of the 1881-1901 revision efforts), while the NRSV and ESV are two alternative revisions of the RSV with two very different attitudes about gender-inclusive language.
So basically everything other than the KJV is just there to be "faithful to the original manuscripts but also being readable". Aren't there any differences between each book? There's a reason some people prefer NIV or ESV compared to other books, why didn't you delve into that?
There’s even better reasons why some only prefer the kjv that actually understand the sources of manuscripts and prior English translations before the kings James. There are two different kinds of kjv only people. There are the ones that just say so for the sake of saying so because of tradition and there’s the ones that are actually educated on the history of all the manuscripts and translations. I find it hilarious how so many Christians say these modern translations are the most accurate yet if that was the case why are they all sourced and translated from manuscripts that sat in the Vatican library for years and years never used collecting dust until just recently. Not to mention it’s a fact those manuscripts keep getting changed and copied. While the manuscripts that the kings James and prior English translations were done with manuscripts that have been preserved used and unchanged. I’ll tell you why because all these modern translations are all about the Vatican church slowly leading people into a one world religion as doctrines change. That’s why they keep pumping them out
All the verses are there-typically they're in footnotes, which I think is a bit pathetic. At least bracket them into the text, like they typically do Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11. And I think it's only the Jehovah's Witness Bible that denies Christ's Diety, all the rest (as far as I know) assert Christ as Lord and God.
Some of these translations are based on different manuscripts, but the content in the “missing” verses is, for the most part, still found elsewhere in the Bible, especially with the Gospels.
@@thelearningmethod By "the Jehovah's Witness Bible" I think you mean the "New World Translation". Most infamously, it renders the first verse of John's Gospel as, "In the beginning was a God".
Comment your thoughts below!
The Passion Translation shouldn’t be counted as a translation at all. It was all done by one person who had no experience in translation of biblical texts. The best you could call it is a Biblical commentary and many would call it much worse (heretical).
Very true!
I appreciate the effort, but it really does feel like you're saying the exact same thing for most of them. The best way to understand the translations is to understand their relationships to each other. If you would have covered these versions in chronological order, you could have indicated these relationships more clearly.
For instance, it's helpful to know that the RSV is essentially a revision of the KJV (albeit more directly an update of the 1881-1901 revision efforts), while the NRSV and ESV are two alternative revisions of the RSV with two very different attitudes about gender-inclusive language.
I was starting to think he might’ve been using chat GTP to write this
1:14 the ASV is not the same as the NASB. The ASV was in 1901.
It's just so great we have all these translations that preserve accuracy and reliability and balance literal accuracy and modern readability!
Who wrote this script 😭
Oh my God you're just saying the same words over and over again
Probably chatgpt
Why didn’t you include Douay-Rheims
Because I’ve never heard of it -- might do a part 2 😉
@@paintrevealer1 ok 👍
do people even read the scripts they generate through chatgpt before feeding them into an ai voice generator
Amazing
Thank you
If you’re not going to do “every” Bible Translation, then don’t claim to do so. Very biased.
would've been good to compare as those between niv and kjv sound exactly the same
I read KJV and KJV of Bible those versions
This sounds like ai.
It is.
It is, the voice and the text behind it. Garbage channel.
No shit
So basically everything other than the KJV is just there to be "faithful to the original manuscripts but also being readable". Aren't there any differences between each book? There's a reason some people prefer NIV or ESV compared to other books, why didn't you delve into that?
Thank you! I was thinking the same thing. Way to go all out, paint revealer.
There’s even better reasons why some only prefer the kjv that actually understand the sources of manuscripts and prior English translations before the kings James. There are two different kinds of kjv only people. There are the ones that just say so for the sake of saying so because of tradition and there’s the ones that are actually educated on the history of all the manuscripts and translations. I find it hilarious how so many Christians say these modern translations are the most accurate yet if that was the case why are they all sourced and translated from manuscripts that sat in the Vatican library for years and years never used collecting dust until just recently. Not to mention it’s a fact those manuscripts keep getting changed and copied. While the manuscripts that the kings James and prior English translations were done with manuscripts that have been preserved used and unchanged. I’ll tell you why because all these modern translations are all about the Vatican church slowly leading people into a one world religion as doctrines change. That’s why they keep pumping them out
Finally someone explained it. 👏
Thanks
Terrible. NLT for accuracy?????? Come on. Don’t ever use it. No reason to.
The NLT Is faaaaaaaaaaaaaar better than the NIV and some other Bibles.
@@---zc4qt if you read just to do something sure
I wonder why many of these have missing verses and others deny the deity of Jesus Christ.
All the verses are there-typically they're in footnotes, which I think is a bit pathetic. At least bracket them into the text, like they typically do Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11.
And I think it's only the Jehovah's Witness Bible that denies Christ's Diety, all the rest (as far as I know) assert Christ as Lord and God.
Some of these translations are based on different manuscripts, but the content in the “missing” verses is, for the most part, still found elsewhere in the Bible, especially with the Gospels.
@@thelearningmethod By "the Jehovah's Witness Bible" I think you mean the "New World Translation". Most infamously, it renders the first verse of John's Gospel as, "In the beginning was a God".
@@evercar5769 There is no good reason to remove a bible verse and you should be ashamed of yourself for defending it.
ua-cam.com/video/NAqeYqp0-7o/v-deo.htmlsi=651eTqM3TV7_V-3L
The kings James was first published in 1609 and revised in 1611