Brilliant episode thankyou Preston and Tim. Engaging, informative and illuminating. More than that, I was inspired. The Bible is a gift, indeed. Thanks again :)
The NASB 2020 is definitely NOT wooden or clunky. I use it all the time having trialed over time both the ESV (which is more stilted than NASB 2020) and CSB. The NASB (2020) I find both accurate and a pleasure to read. Regards from UK
Great session, I really like Tim, and follow him. I like the straight forward commentary. I also have 3 translations handy to compare if necessary as I read and study. As I grow in my faith I do like having the different translations available as I study.
31:30 Does the ESV have a complementarian bias? Of course it does. I understand not wanting to project and make assumptions, but with translations, we know how difficult some of the texts are. In order to convey meaning into our language, the translators have to make a decision. The ESV consistently renders passages that are favorable to a complementarian understanding. I don't agree personally with most of those moves, but I believe the translators have been sincere in their efforts. But that's still bias, in a sense.
Definitely agree, ESV has a complementarian bias, though I think it's not as bad as many people on social media make it seem if we look at the underlying Hebrew and Greek. It's there but there is also justification for it, even if I don't entirely agree with the justification and wish they had been more neutral. Also I think many translations have some kind of bias (e.g. NRSV and especially NRSVue have a huge bias in almost the opposite direction to the ESV, but I still like the NRSV as a translation). In the end, there's no perfect translation. Every translation has its faults. But as the KJV translators said, we can still consider a man handsome in general despite some scars on his face. We can still trust most of our English Bible translations as generally reliable despite their shortcomings. And we can always refer back to the original Hebrew and Greek.
If English Bible translations were Star Wars characters... 😅 * ESV = Yoda. Knowledgeable and wise, comes from a long and venerable heritage (Tyndale-KJV), but often talks backwards. * NASB = C3PO. Technically precise, popular with fellow robotic eggheads, but too literal-minded and woodenly awkward. NASB 2020 is C3PO with a smooth talking chip installed, so less wooden, but also more suspicious. * LSB = K3PO. A different shade or color of C3PO in a land far, far away, i.e. Southern California, but every once in a while throws in a foreign or exotic sounding word and becomes obsessively consistent in repeating the exact same word over and over again as if it's glitching. * NET = R2D2. Said to be the robot's robot (the translator's translation), plugs in and interfaces with the latest tech, but most people don't really use it, per se, they only use it for its technical tools (NET notes). * CSB/HCSB = Mace Windu. Boldly willing to take risks, even if it breaks with tradition (e.g. John 3:16, Rom 3:25), has a strong fan base within certain factions (SBC), but otherwise less popular than one might think. * NIV = Han Solo. Broadly popular, plain spoken and easy to follow, effectively gets the job done without any fancy acrobatics, but sometimes seems to be shady and may be smuggling illicit pronouns. * NLT = Ewoks. Communicates with simple expressions, not the most technically proficient, but heart is in the right place and once in a while pleasantly surprises everyone. * KJV = Darth Vader. Once thought to be the chosen one, speaks in an authoritative voice, but took a turn to the dark side when it began lording it over anyone who doesn't fall in line with the only true imperial text, the KJV Only. * NKJV = Dark Helmet. On the one hand, it's a new and improved Vader. On the other hand, it looks like Vader lite. * NRSV/NRSVue = Kylo Ren. Let the past die, forward thinking and progressive, but lack of faith is disturbing. * Biblical Hebrew and Greek = Chewbacca. The most powerful warrior in terms of brute strength, but a bit woolly sounding to most people and as such needs a translator to understand.
When do you think we will get a Critical Text Bible based on the Septuagintal Text Type for the Old Testament ? Now that we know that the Septuagint Texts are based on a much older Hebrew than the Masoretic.
It's interesting how some of these translation debates really come down to debates about whether, essentially, we should preserve more antique English usage. For instance, Preston notes that his mind was blown when he discovered that the "so" in John 3:16 was a "mistranslation" and that really something like, "in this way" should be substituted to get at the real meaning. But that was a normal usage of "so" at the time The King James was translated and for hundreds of years thereafter! It's still in OED, relatively high-up the list of potential meanings, and not pegged as outdated.The proponents of keeping the "so" there are only partly making a pragmatic argument (that the Church should have a lingua franca for its most powerful/well-known verses and ideas). It's also just fine to translate it in this manner and the Church should be able to preserve the meaning of the most well-known sentence in the English language. When I heard the "in this way" point made, years ago, I thought, "huh, interesting- that's not how I'd been taught to read it. But it makes sense and you can use the word "so" that way, after all".
I will probably use my 1988 NIV till the day I die (assuming the pages survive - already re-bound it once). Had I been born in an earlier time, I would probably feel the same way about the KJV (beautiful translation). But I know exactly what the strengths of my NIV are: clarity of thought & smooth English wording. I also know its weaknesses: because some thought-interpretation is read into the wording, I have to be sure to double-check the underlying words to make sure they actually parallel in the original. It's a great place to start a serious study. But the more wooden translations are valuable too and I use my ESV and NASB frequently as cross references. We're blessed to have so many good translations. Just an aside on the Holman Christian Standard Bible: this was one of the few versions that I actively dislike; not because it's inaccurate, but because it doesn't flow at the sentence-to-sentence level. It's as if each verse were translated by people isolated in different rooms and no one bothered to check if they formed cohesive paragraphs. It's a purely stylistic issue I take with it. It's clearly not the one for me 😅 But again, we're so blessed in the English-speaking world to have so many excellent translations. We shouldn't complain too much.
May I suggest giving a look at the BSB translation (short for Berean Standard Bible)? I grew up with a NIV84 myself, but the small print of the one I got stops me from digging into it these days. The changes made in the 2011 update never sat right with me, especially with Biblica going around the internet taking down digital uploads of the original 1984 version. This is where the BSB comes in. It leans a little more word-for-word while maintaining the NIV84's general translation philosophy, it reads like what a proper update to the NIV84 should have been, and manages to punch above it's weight given it's small translation team. The cherry on top? It's in the public domain, meaning if you have the time, materials, and patience, you could print your own copies either yourself, or through a book printing service. Please consider checking specific verses against your NIV copy, and see how you like it.
What the original text says and what it means can be two different things many parts of the translation of a Bible. I think the ESV has a pretty good balance between the 2 and NIV net and the CSB.
The Geneva Bible (Textus Receptus) was the 1st Bible to include chapters and verses, which I love because the Bible IS NOT a book, it is the WORDS OF GOD
I definitely prefer KJV because of Acts 8:37 and Mark 16:9-20. I enjoy the language and it causes me to pay attention closely and use a Strong's. The codex vaticanus and the codex sinaiticus are the underlying codices for all translations. The KJV had the apocrypha and the two aforementioned codices have much of the apocrypha in it. Those codices have many issues between each other
The ESV and the NLT make better choices when using dead sea scrolls and they also seem to be in line with the original context of the authors. It seems like some translations stick to Masoretic text even after the DSS would give us a better understanding. Why? Look at verses like: Deuteronomy 32:8 (sons of God vs sons of Israel. Israel didn't even exist yet and this points back to Babel), 32:43 bow down to him all gods, Lev 16:8 Azazel (demon vs scapegoat). Check out Dr. Michael Heisers work on the Divine Council worldview, Ancient Near East and Second Temple period contexts. When studying the Ancient Near East context and the second temple peroid I have found that some of these renderings are correct in the ESV and NLT and totally missed in many translations. But the ESV is also not perfect. Studying the original languages along with other resources from those periods is helpful to understand what the original authors and original readers would have understood.
Also the LSB is super interesting in its use of Yahweh instead of the LORD. It also is more consistent in context in areas like John 15. Compare "cleans" to "prunes" in John 15:2-3. I think using "cleans" in both verses connects the verses better to communicate more clearly. They do this all over the LSB. It's very helpful.
I like Tim and his channel. Very likable guy. Great Bible videos. Thought he gave a little bit of a pass to the ESV; their complementarian bias seems like an easy one to me.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Brilliant episode thankyou Preston and Tim. Engaging, informative and illuminating. More than that, I was inspired. The Bible is a gift, indeed. Thanks again :)
Really well done video, very entertaining! I love hearing about bible translations. I usually have 6 translations open on my desk when I read😄
The NASB 2020 is definitely NOT wooden or clunky. I use it all the time having trialed over time both the ESV (which is more stilted than NASB 2020) and CSB. The NASB (2020) I find both accurate and a pleasure to read.
Regards from UK
Great session, I really like Tim, and follow him. I like the straight forward commentary. I also have 3 translations handy to compare if necessary as I read and study. As I grow in my faith I do like having the different translations available as I study.
31:30 Does the ESV have a complementarian bias? Of course it does. I understand not wanting to project and make assumptions, but with translations, we know how difficult some of the texts are. In order to convey meaning into our language, the translators have to make a decision. The ESV consistently renders passages that are favorable to a complementarian understanding. I don't agree personally with most of those moves, but I believe the translators have been sincere in their efforts. But that's still bias, in a sense.
Definitely agree, ESV has a complementarian bias, though I think it's not as bad as many people on social media make it seem if we look at the underlying Hebrew and Greek. It's there but there is also justification for it, even if I don't entirely agree with the justification and wish they had been more neutral.
Also I think many translations have some kind of bias (e.g. NRSV and especially NRSVue have a huge bias in almost the opposite direction to the ESV, but I still like the NRSV as a translation).
In the end, there's no perfect translation. Every translation has its faults. But as the KJV translators said, we can still consider a man handsome in general despite some scars on his face. We can still trust most of our English Bible translations as generally reliable despite their shortcomings. And we can always refer back to the original Hebrew and Greek.
Re. Romans 12 the ESV just follows the RSV (in line with the KJV).
If English Bible translations were Star Wars characters... 😅
* ESV = Yoda. Knowledgeable and wise, comes from a long and venerable heritage (Tyndale-KJV), but often talks backwards.
* NASB = C3PO. Technically precise, popular with fellow robotic eggheads, but too literal-minded and woodenly awkward. NASB 2020 is C3PO with a smooth talking chip installed, so less wooden, but also more suspicious.
* LSB = K3PO. A different shade or color of C3PO in a land far, far away, i.e. Southern California, but every once in a while throws in a foreign or exotic sounding word and becomes obsessively consistent in repeating the exact same word over and over again as if it's glitching.
* NET = R2D2. Said to be the robot's robot (the translator's translation), plugs in and interfaces with the latest tech, but most people don't really use it, per se, they only use it for its technical tools (NET notes).
* CSB/HCSB = Mace Windu. Boldly willing to take risks, even if it breaks with tradition (e.g. John 3:16, Rom 3:25), has a strong fan base within certain factions (SBC), but otherwise less popular than one might think.
* NIV = Han Solo. Broadly popular, plain spoken and easy to follow, effectively gets the job done without any fancy acrobatics, but sometimes seems to be shady and may be smuggling illicit pronouns.
* NLT = Ewoks. Communicates with simple expressions, not the most technically proficient, but heart is in the right place and once in a while pleasantly surprises everyone.
* KJV = Darth Vader. Once thought to be the chosen one, speaks in an authoritative voice, but took a turn to the dark side when it began lording it over anyone who doesn't fall in line with the only true imperial text, the KJV Only.
* NKJV = Dark Helmet. On the one hand, it's a new and improved Vader. On the other hand, it looks like Vader lite.
* NRSV/NRSVue = Kylo Ren. Let the past die, forward thinking and progressive, but lack of faith is disturbing.
* Biblical Hebrew and Greek = Chewbacca. The most powerful warrior in terms of brute strength, but a bit woolly sounding to most people and as such needs a translator to understand.
When do you think we will get a Critical Text Bible based on the Septuagintal Text Type for the Old Testament ? Now that we know that the Septuagint Texts are based on a much older Hebrew than the Masoretic.
Newrome press is almost done with their Septuagint based Orthodox bible
You did a great job selling egalitarianism and liberalism under the guise of discussing the Bible. Excellent work forwarding the cause!
Started KJV then NIV landed on CSB because I understand it and enjoy reading it.
It's interesting how some of these translation debates really come down to debates about whether, essentially, we should preserve more antique English usage. For instance, Preston notes that his mind was blown when he discovered that the "so" in John 3:16 was a "mistranslation" and that really something like, "in this way" should be substituted to get at the real meaning. But that was a normal usage of "so" at the time The King James was translated and for hundreds of years thereafter! It's still in OED, relatively high-up the list of potential meanings, and not pegged as outdated.The proponents of keeping the "so" there are only partly making a pragmatic argument (that the Church should have a lingua franca for its most powerful/well-known verses and ideas). It's also just fine to translate it in this manner and the Church should be able to preserve the meaning of the most well-known sentence in the English language. When I heard the "in this way" point made, years ago, I thought, "huh, interesting- that's not how I'd been taught to read it. But it makes sense and you can use the word "so" that way, after all".
I will probably use my 1988 NIV till the day I die (assuming the pages survive - already re-bound it once). Had I been born in an earlier time, I would probably feel the same way about the KJV (beautiful translation). But I know exactly what the strengths of my NIV are: clarity of thought & smooth English wording. I also know its weaknesses: because some thought-interpretation is read into the wording, I have to be sure to double-check the underlying words to make sure they actually parallel in the original.
It's a great place to start a serious study.
But the more wooden translations are valuable too and I use my ESV and NASB frequently as cross references.
We're blessed to have so many good translations.
Just an aside on the Holman Christian Standard Bible: this was one of the few versions that I actively dislike; not because it's inaccurate, but because it doesn't flow at the sentence-to-sentence level. It's as if each verse were translated by people isolated in different rooms and no one bothered to check if they formed cohesive paragraphs. It's a purely stylistic issue I take with it. It's clearly not the one for me 😅
But again, we're so blessed in the English-speaking world to have so many excellent translations. We shouldn't complain too much.
May I suggest giving a look at the BSB translation (short for Berean Standard Bible)?
I grew up with a NIV84 myself, but the small print of the one I got stops me from digging into it these days. The changes made in the 2011 update never sat right with me, especially with Biblica going around the internet taking down digital uploads of the original 1984 version.
This is where the BSB comes in. It leans a little more word-for-word while maintaining the NIV84's general translation philosophy, it reads like what a proper update to the NIV84 should have been, and manages to punch above it's weight given it's small translation team. The cherry on top? It's in the public domain, meaning if you have the time, materials, and patience, you could print your own copies either yourself, or through a book printing service.
Please consider checking specific verses against your NIV copy, and see how you like it.
for me it’s all of the good ones like Dr Mark Ward suggested. But my go to nowadays is the NASB 2020
What the original text says and what it means can be two different things many parts of the translation of a Bible. I think the ESV has a pretty good balance between the 2 and NIV net and the CSB.
Pastor Tim is solid and the real deal.
The Geneva Bible (Textus Receptus) was the 1st Bible to include chapters and verses, which I love because the Bible IS NOT a book, it is the WORDS OF GOD
Kjv, Nkjv, Nasb 95, and csb. I use and love them all.
I definitely prefer KJV because of Acts 8:37 and Mark 16:9-20.
I enjoy the language and it causes me to pay attention closely and use a Strong's.
The codex vaticanus and the codex sinaiticus are the underlying codices for all translations.
The KJV had the apocrypha and the two aforementioned codices have much of the apocrypha in it.
Those codices have many issues between each other
The ESV and the NLT make better choices when using dead sea scrolls and they also seem to be in line with the original context of the authors. It seems like some translations stick to Masoretic text even after the DSS would give us a better understanding. Why? Look at verses like: Deuteronomy 32:8 (sons of God vs sons of Israel. Israel didn't even exist yet and this points back to Babel), 32:43 bow down to him all gods, Lev 16:8 Azazel (demon vs scapegoat). Check out Dr. Michael Heisers work on the Divine Council worldview, Ancient Near East and Second Temple period contexts. When studying the Ancient Near East context and the second temple peroid I have found that some of these renderings are correct in the ESV and NLT and totally missed in many translations. But the ESV is also not perfect. Studying the original languages along with other resources from those periods is helpful to understand what the original authors and original readers would have understood.
Also the LSB is super interesting in its use of Yahweh instead of the LORD. It also is more consistent in context in areas like John 15. Compare "cleans" to "prunes" in John 15:2-3. I think using "cleans" in both verses connects the verses better to communicate more clearly. They do this all over the LSB. It's very helpful.
I like Tim and his channel. Very likable guy. Great Bible videos. Thought he gave a little bit of a pass to the ESV; their complementarian bias seems like an easy one to me.
LSB and NKJV and ESV-onliest for me. Oh, and I’ll be buried with my KJV.
Grudem is complementarian. He did that work with Piper “ discovering biblical manhood in womanhood”
David Bentley Hart’s translation of the New Testament (2nd Edition) is the best by a country mile.
The chapter and verse breaks don't always make sense to me either.
You skipped the NKJV!
In defense of the NASB (2020): But we say today (re 1 Cor 15:13) “man up”, and everyone - both sexes- are ok with it!
Regards from the UK
Nkjv
The NIV. BEST EVER. Number 1 selling bible in allllllll of creation! Of course, I'm an NIVonliest.