I appreciate you taking the effort to put this video out. I have been wanting to understand the different translations better so I can have a better more accurate understanding. Thank you!
Thank you for actually answering the question (and answering rightly) when so many similar videos dance around and offer suggestions based on the reader and what style of reading. It is frustrating to see a title like this then have someone recommend 5-6 different translations.
Great Video. I’m curious though: What about the Geneva 1960 version? How would that compare to the Interlinear or the NASV? I sincerely would appreciate your opinion on that.
Have you seen the Revised Geneva Translation? It's an easier read then the old 1560 Geneva. As far as the newer RGT goes it's formal equivalence like the NASB and the MEV and of course the Interlinear. It's not hard to read like the interlinear, but maintains the old English style of writing without the old words.
I don't have an opinion on the NET Bible yet, mainly because I haven't read or used it. Thank you for drawing my attention to it, when I get time I'll check it out.
@@faithministries62 I have an ESV and an NASB. My theological persuasion is conservative Wesleyan-Arminian. My church affiliation is Free Methodist, which is evangelical, adhering to early Methodism conceived by John Wesley. I like Dr. Dallas Willard's teaching on practical holiness. I also have an NRSV which has the Apocrypha.
Agreed! The Bible is our road map to God. LSB is my current preference. I am also using the Tanakh for the OT. I love using word-for-word translation and love exploring them all.
Generally speaking the “most accurate” translation is usually considered the NASB 95 though it’s a bit of a stiff read. If your a divisive person who just wants to argue text all the time (as many people are today) I would suggest the NKJV because it will give you the TR text with non-bias footnotes for both the critical and majority text variants.
This is very well done. Thank you for the blessing. I am part Jewish, but a believer in Jesus. I read the Complete Jewish Bible, but back it up with an older NASB. I can read the Hebrew OT and Greek NT, but in discussing scripture with people who do not know these languages, I have to use my CJB and NASB.
A.W. Tozer said something like, "...the job of the scholar is to get at the meaning of the Text, as originally given. Once that meaning is discovered, the scholar's job is over. He must never sit in judgement on what is written." I am going on memory!
Having served in the ministry of Bible Translation, there are three components that translators attempt to balance, accuracy, clarity and naturalness. Is literal accuracy the best of it becomes too difficult to read or easy to read but not as accurate? It is a struggle to fine the right words and phrases to achieve a good balance since many languages do not have direct word for word connections. Proof of the struggle are the 100+ English versions, each with different perspectives or choices. The real tragedy is the thousands of languages with no scripture.
Thank you very much for this video, I have had the Interlinear Bible and Exhaustive Strongs Concordance for almost 30 years and have also, all of the bibles you listed, I am sure you have found, such as I, that modern Bibles tend to shy away from a few key words and thus, the true meaning of the word is lost. As much as I love my Strongs Concordance, I have found a flaw inasmuch as it sometimes bases the "meaning" on common use in the Scriptures. I therefore have a couple of other Hebrew & Greek dictionary for cross referencing. Thayers is also numbered to Strongs. A classic word that would FLIP the Christian doctrine 180 degrees is the word "Torment" as in Rev (They will be tormented day and night) Please take the time to research this word. My baseline is that God is PERFECT LOVE and Jesus is Gods PERFECT WORD. Therefore, understanding the TRUE meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words is not only important, it is a MUST.
@@faithministries62 I agree, When it comes to faith there is no truth because faith is not a pathway to truth, people will pick the one that gives them the most comfort.
How do you feel about the First American Standard version having the personal name of God, Jehovah, replaced in every scripture it appeared in the Hebrew text, some 6,000 times. But then under pressure from different councils because of the trinity doctrine they removed it upon revision and reverted to the practice of the authorized KJ version and removed Gods personal name from his own Holy book, useing the titles of Lord or God in capital letters instead for all 6,000 times it appeaed in scripture? How do you think Jehovah himself felt about having his name removed from the Bible. And how are people supposed to come to know him if they don't even know his name? Just a thought. But everywhere the tetragramiton appears in scripture, Gods Name should be there. How can you draw close to anyone if you don't even know their name? Where all Worship and all credit and praise is given to Gods son Jesus Christ and not to his Father Jehovah God. Reading a Bible with Gods name restored to every place it originally appeared in the Hebrew text like the NWT gives one a whole new appreciation for Who God truly is, his love for his people in ancient times, why he was hurt so badly when they turned to the worship of Other false Gods, and shows how valuable the ransom sacrifice of his only begotten son was, and the position of the son to the father. Imagine, all these translations leave the names of all the false dieties like Baal. Dagon, Tamuz, and Marduk in the Bible, but the remove the personal name of almighty God Jehovah from his own book. 🙄
I use to be a KJV only guy, but changed my tune after reading some of the other translations. As long as they are seeking our LORD and Saviour Jesus the Christ. It doesn’t really matter what version you read. From the different versions I have read so far. My preferred translation is the Geneva 1599.
"We need an accurate Bible". But you just said there are many versions and even the ones you suggested, are your suggestion. So basically, I am left with nothing. Although, I do thank you for the very informative video.
The epistle of jude is an obvious place holder for enoch, at least first enoch although the other 2 enochs are more mysterious. The nephilim who were the watchers are not only mentioned in jude and gen 6 but also deuteronomy 32:8 and possibly job
So the issue you have is a modern version can not violate the copyright of another modern bible under copyright. Thus is a version renders a verse perfectly, it is by default the only "bible" which can do so.
Oliver Cromwell said Bible translations should stop because it was a racket among other things and the work was already completed in the King James Holy Bible . And he put hanging as the punishment for disobeying that law. It should still stand, rhere would be a lot less confusion
Jason DeBuhn's "Truth in Translation" is the definitive comparison of the most widely distributed bibles. You'd be surprised at the conclusion of the BEST translation... check it out.
@@charlesblackburn1195 NWT is attacked by those who don’t know Greek and Hebrew, mainly theologians, priests and pastors, because it reads differently than what they’re use. However, those who do know Greek and Hebrew, scholars and academics, praise the NWT for its textual accuracy and lack of bias.
@@craiglittle7367 Interesting how you fawning JW apologists produce selective, out of context quotes to support your bogus NWT, a version supposedly translated by a group of men who were neither Greek or Hebrew scholars. What you predictably failed to mention was Jason BeDuhn's damning condemnation of the arbitrary insertion of the name 'Jehovah' into the New Testament. Yet you laughably claim it to be 'the most accurate and honest!! If you'd bothered to read his book instead of citing favourable excerpts which Watchtower has long used as propaganda, then you'd know he wrote: *"By moving beyond translation of the Greek to an interpretation, the translator ventures from the bedrock of the text to the shifting sands of opinion-and that’s a risky move to make…For the NWT to gain wider acceptance and prove its worth over its competitors, its translators will have to rethink the handling of these verses, and they may find that that rethinking needs to extend to the use of “Jehovah” in the New Testament at all.“* Jason BeDuhn - Truth in Translation, Page 175,176 How do you explain this Craig? We are all eagerly awaiting your insightful response.
@@RiskeFactor You mean the "translation" created by a group of men, none of whom were Greek or Hebrew scholars? Little wonder your organisation is known as the low IQ cult. 🤣
The King James Bible is a miracle in and of itself. For 250 years it was all there was for the English speaker. Therefore, at worst it is equal to or better than the rest. Imagine getting to heaven and seeing all the people the KJV has brought to salvation and telling them your Bible was no good.
Saying the kjv is no good is different than saying it's not the most accurate. Anyone who's done even just a little bit of research knows the kjv isn't the most accurate
Depends on which manuscripts are used. There is the Masoretic text which the KJV goes by and there is the Alexandrian texts which all modern translations use. The NASV is most accurate to the Alexandrian.
I lost respect for NASB's pretentious claim of being the most accurate translation when they only put the correct translation of Zachariah 13:6 in a footnote.
The Greek word in question (from the Septuagint) is, poikilos (pronounced poy-kee-los) which means motley, that is various in character-diverse, manifold. It can also mean variety. Unless this garment was able to adjust it's length it had to have been of many colors or as some interpretations have it, many bands. Folks, please do your own research. I have the Septuagint on E-Sword. I also have Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament on Bible Analyzer. I also have Westcott and Hort's book "The Original Greek" on Google Books. All of these are free materials. I don't fault the gentleman that put a lot of hard work and study into this video. But he's trusting what others have written. Please read and study for yourself.
Well if you think about it the King James Bible was predominantly the main one for several hundred years and served Christianity just fine, there wasn't all this questioning of Bible versions that you see today, which in my opinion has only divided everyone and the churches, you go in the average Christian church today and everyone has different versions with them and you can't even all read together anymore
I just discovered that the verse I John 5:7 in the King James version is missing in many others: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." Now I am suspicious of versions that omit this critical truth.
Just look at how Zachariah 13:6 is translated to see the superiority of the KJV. KJV translates it correctly. The other main translations only put the correct translation in a footnote. Reserving for a footnote that the Hebrew actually states, "Between his hands." Why not do what the KJV does and put the correct translation in the actual text?????!!!!!
The question should be, "Which translation convicts the soul the most and draws one to a closer walk with Christ?" The view of morality and purity is viewed differently among readers of different translations, and this is a problem.
412 years of KJV beauty ,of poetic majesty, and Antioch Masonic accuracy as opposed to modern translations coming out every decade for copyright profits
This one that translates the word sperms=fruits and seeds not legumes.That was that Daniel asked, uncooked food for human made from the Creator.There's no cooking in nature.
CSB from Southern Baptist Convention is most accurate, and I've reviewed them all. I use the study version. I use the word "accurate" lightly since all versions are derived from King James version, which King James modified the original version of Geneva Bible.
Being accurate verbally or even dynamically does not mean that a translation is accurate in meaning. The culture, idioms, legends and presumptions of the time must be fully understood in order to avoid giving false translations.
This is why “knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.” I would think that what matters most is, first and foremost, how does your version of the Scriptures deal with / treat the person and work of Jesus.
I think the KJV 1611 It really doesn't matter it's the word of God that came to us and we should be joyful that it did that the Jews reject Jesus as their messiah
I believe that it's in amongst the word for word Bibles. Some people criticize it because it's based on the Textus Receptus Greek, like the KJV, while others think that's a good thing. Given that the OT is from Hebrew, we find that The Interlinear has Genesis 1:1 as "In the beginning created God the heavens and the earth", while the Young's reads "In the beginning of God’s preparing the heavens and the earth". The AMPC is the closest to that translation with: "In the beginning God (prepared, formed, fashioned, and) created the heavens and the earth." It's not an easy read, but good as a comparison with other formal equivalent translations, and which tries to bring out some of the other meanings of the Hebrew and Greek words.
Are you interested in which Bible translations were the biggest sellers in 2022? Than check out my latest video here: ua-cam.com/video/wVw3usGULbY/v-deo.html
@@kingston163Yes, the Calvinist pope John MacArthur has a Study Bible using the ESV. I eventually threw it into the recycle bin due to JMac’s numerous erroneous interpretations.
This question cannot be answered. “Most accurate” does not mean “most substantively accurate transcription of the Holy Spirit’s intended communications to the original writer,” it means “which modern version is closest to the originally produced document.” We don’t have any originally produced writings of any biblical books, so, this question cannot possibly be answered. If it means the former, we equally cannot know, because we didn’t hear the Holy Spirit communicate that language to its writer. Hope that helps. If you guys have any more questions about logic lemme know.
Word for word nearest equivalency is not the same thing as accuracy. If someone does not understand an idiom, a pun, an allusion, a rhyme, or an alliteration, then full accuracy has not been achieved in conveying the meaning. There are many literary and verbal devices that convey meaning. These cannot be measured by evaluating formal equivalence. "Literalness" is not the same concept as "accuracy". Believe it or not, a dynamic approach for a given sentence can sometimes be more accurate than a formal equivalent translation. By the way, the KJV was an excellent translation, but many might be surprised to find that Paul never once actually wrote, "God forbid!" This phrase was a dynamic equivalent used to convey the impact of the Greek idiom that was used. He actually wrote something more literally translated as "not let it become." The English equivalent doesn't have the proper impact, so the KJV translators used a non-literal translation to achieve better accuracy in understanding Paul's strong opposition to what he was refuting. The excellent translation from 400 years ago sometimes used a dynamic equivalence approach. Their goal was accuracy.
First of all, why do you have so many versions of the Bible and why is the Bible a collection of writings that were written over a period of many centuries by VARIOUS AUTHORS?
@@johnmurdock5710The KJV has an error in the seventh commandment and removed all references to tyrants (because King James didn’t like them) and added references to witches (again because King James didn’t like them). The KJV also reflects scribal errors in the Greek reference texts - including errors in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament that deviated from the original Hebrew in a number of respects.
The real question is, why are there so many translations? We are told over and over the bible is the unalloyed word of God. If that is so, how can there be different versions? What's more likely is that the various bibles are not the word of God, but the words of humans. That would explain it.
Accuracy to the time of the writing and language of those people would be a Accurate Version .... Readability isn't as important as Accuracy... Flesh and Blood Beings From Another Place Made Us ... That is the Only Possible Conclusion .. So Accuracy is Very Very Important.. Because it's Not A Novel ... it's A Bibliography
Faith minisrtry the NASB is an erroneous translation, they say it's the most accurate translation, it might be accurate to the erroneous Alexandrian texts, but it's not accurate to the true Greek texts. The most accurate translation, is the NKJV. And if you knew the Bible, you would know it.
The KJV is the accurate version, but the NIV has brought a lot of people closer to our Lord. Many churches in our area use the NIV, as it is very easy to understand. I was raised with the KJV. Now this may sound a bit off, but when I discovered the NIV, it really took it to a level that I could understand a lot easier. Yes, there are differences, but isn't bringing people closer to God the most important thing?
Why some have problems with Reasoned eclecticism. I John 5:7 is found in a majority of the Latin, but not the Greek so out it goes. Good will towards men Doxology in Matthew Without cause God manifest in the flesh Are a majority in the Greek but not in the Latin, so out they go The PA and Mark 16:9-20 are a majority in both the Greek and Latin so out they go. Even the “not yet” found in the two of the earliest(P66.P75) in John 7:8 some throw out. If as an orthodox Christian you don't see a problem, what would you see as a problem?
I would refer you to a LSB bible. where the stuff you say is missing is there in brackets with a note on it being added or taken away in earlier versions.
@@jamessheffield4173 I would refer you to the scholar Dr. James White since he has studied the manuscripts and mistakes and so fourth. He points out that a lot of mistakes are just that mistakes where they accidentally add something they think should be there but it's a memory from a different book. Than there is the mistakes where the scribes think they are fixing a mistake but in fact making an error. Though I will say I am just in the beginning of my lesson through the manuscripts and historical data. It's pretty interesting.
@@ashtin5392 I would suggest you read John William Burgon and Wilbur Pickering. Blessings. Are the gospels legends? Another point is that on that view you would have to regard the accounts of the Man as being legends. Now, as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever else the Gospels are they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing. They are not artistic enough to be legends. From an imaginative point of view they are clumsy, they don’t work up to things properly. Most of the life of Jesus is totally unknown to us, as is the life of anyone else who lived at that time, and no people building up a legend would allow that to be so. Apart from bits of the Platonic dialogues, there are no conversations that I know of in ancient literature like the Fourth Gospel. There is nothing, even in modern literature, until about a hundred years ago when the realistic novel came into existence. In the story of the woman taken in adultery we are told Christ bent down and scribbled in the dust with His finger. Nothing comes of this. No one has ever based any doctrine on it. And the art of inventing little irrelevant details to make an imaginary scene more convincing is a purely modern art. Surely the only explanation of this passage is that the thing really happened? The author put it in simply because he had seen it. C.S. Lewis, "What Are We to Make of Jesus Christ?" (1950)
@@jamessheffield4173 I would say the Gospel is not legend at all. Thanks for the references, I will definitely look into some of the books to read. Probably start with the Revision Revised.
@@planatano_ Actually, history records that he was exceptionally intelligent, and especially gifted in language usage. And was strangled and burned at the stake for his dedication to creating an English translation in defiance of the Realm.
@@planatano_ no I think a lot of people these days are just idiots, the English in the King James is extremely easy to read and memorize, I don't know why everybody keeps crying about it
re. Gen 37:3 - Yosef's coat of many colors. I'm looking at the Hebrew here for פַּס (which is פַּסִּֽים (plural) in the text): 1. a word to indicate decorative needlework on valuable garments 2. a tunic of pieces of various colors 3. a tunic reaching to ankles So we are not sure what the Hebrew word means. In this case it wasn't a matter of choosing the LXX over the MT (Masoretic text).
Looking at three translations and their footnotes - as you say it's not clear as to what the garment was like. ESV footnote: And he made him a robe of many colours. (See Septuagint, Vulgate; or (with Syriac) a robe with long sleeves. The meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain) NASB 1995: and he made him a varicolored tunic (or full length robe) NET and he made a special tunic for him. (It is not clear what this tunic was like, because the meaning of the Hebrew word that describes it is uncertain. The idea that it was a coat of many colors comes from the Greek translation of the OT. An examination of cognate terms in Semitic suggests it was either a coat or tunic with long sleeves (cf. NEB, NRSV), or a tunic that was richly embroidered (cf. NIV). It set Joseph apart as the favored one.)
Keep to kjv for verbal inspiration which modern ones lack Jesus spoke in parables so they wouldnt understand The elect are drawn to Christ Without understanding scripture..that comes afterwards!
i love this kind of video it wont matter which one you use if you believe Jesus is god or part of a trinity or when you die you go to heaven or hell and you don't believe that there will be a resurrection instead of trying to say wich bible is best how about you teach whats actually in it and thus be helpful cos it doesn't matter what one you use if you still don't follow whats in it
@edcarson3113 then why does nobody openly claim authorship of the Gospels? They're all anonymously written yet we know who authored the Books of Tanakh.
Yeah just give me the king James Bible. It was able to figure out in second Samuel 21:19 that David kill goliath.... The new American standard or any of the newer versions fail.
NASB came out in 1971 not 1995 by lockman foundation actually started this work in 1954 by 54 of the best scholars both Hebrew and Greek. The 1995 is only and up dated version it has it's fault's Been studying the scriptures for over 40 years I'll take the 1971 version over the 1995 The KJV is my second choice
Unfortunately none of these bibles have the original sacred name of our Creator and or his Son. And nobody seems to find this odd. How can believers be so blind?
none if we are going on matching it to real earth and human history. The bible has a 6300 year old universe with stories that are proven to never have happened
If you don't see Yahweh, Gehenna, Hades, Tartarus or Sheol in your Bible it's not a good translation. Some words need to be kept in the original language so as not to be confused with modern ideas.
Don't want to assume but you didn't mention how the New American Standard is translated from Roman Catholic manuscripts that were copies of Alexandrian texts found in Alexandria, Egypt. Of which there is zero record in God's word of any church ministry there. You also didn't mention how the KJV was translated from copies of manuscripts found in Antioch, Corinth. Which there is clearly a record of the church ministry there. And also where the disciples were first called Christians.
Which is the most accurate? Question is, which is the perfect Bible? The 1611 is God’s perfect book. All other versions come from the Vatican and should be trashed. I make no apologies about my statement.
1611 KJV is the Gold Standard...Hands Down! 47 of the BEST HEBREW and Greek Scholars were divided into six groups. Three for the OT, Two for the NT, and One for the Apocrypha...Assembled at Oxford, Cambridge, and Westminster.
The scholars who made the original KJV translation had no more than eight ancient documents to work from, which limited their accuracy. Since then, nearly 5,500 others have been discovered, which have contributed to a much better understanding of the originals.
@@Kevin_Beach So you're saying the Creator of ALL things have no Power over his Word??? Is there anything to hard for The Most High God??? God Preserved His Word, As it is Written! Newly found unsubstantiated manuscripts have caused nothing but Spookism and the quality of so called New Translation Bibles are in the gutter!
@@Kevin_Beach You must be a card carrying member of the Bible Destruction Group, American Anti-Bible Society, Freethinkers of America (Atheists). The Bible and so called Christianity are TWO different things and America don't do anything the Bible say do, but the complete opposite!
According to the latest Dr Michael Heiser, the foremost Greek and Hebrew scholar ever...the ESV is the most accurate and understood. I grew up KJV and yall need to understand it has a lot of flaws. Ones you aren't told.
Did you still answer why the Roman Catholic Bible is different than the ones Protestants use? God is peaking to me through His Word but one shouldn’t ignore the historical fact ancient humans “voted” on which books to include. So, right wingers who argue that he BIBLE is the literal word of God that is not open to interpretation is just false.
Many new Bible translations leave out the word “Begotten.” Everywhere it’s applied to the name of Christ, or the being, or the person of Christ. In all the New Testament, those translators don’t believe His Diety, in the sense of the Virgin Birth. And these new bibles are but a springboard for their modernism, “their ultra modernistic concepts.” They rip the word “Begotten” out of the texts where it applies to Christ. Jesus is not the only son of God, but He is the Only Begotten Son of God. THOSE NEW BIBLES ARE UTTERLY UNRELIABLE FROM START TO FINISH!
Quick answer: KJV. It is the only version that is the closest to the Greek and Latin translation and it is the oldest of all the versions. But more importantly, to understand the Bible, one need the Holy Spirit to give the understanding. Man without the Holy Spirit can not FULLY understand the Bible. The Bible is spiritual. It was given to the writers thru the Spirit of the Lord. So to understand…one needs the Spirit of the Lord. Two examples: 1. When Pharaoh had the dream of the famine that was soon to come, he did not understand the dream. But when Joseph was asked to interpret it, he acknowledge that it was the Spirit of the Lord that would give the understanding. 2. When Nebuchadnezzar had the dream of the empires in the form of a man, he didn’t understand it. But it was Daniel, who thru the Spirit of the Lord, gave him the understanding of the dream.
Are you joking? When you said the KJV was the oldest English translation, I spit out my coffee. Why are KJVO so ignorant? You forgot about the Bishops Bible, Tyndale, Geneva, and their various iterations.
@@jwatson181 when did Daren say the KJB was the oldest english translation? Maybe you should slowly read the comment so you won't missed read and spit your coffee in someone face 😉
@@hudsontd7778 read the 1st paragraph slowly. Based upon your reading comprehension, I recommend the message Bible for you. Please leave the KJV for advanced readers.
None can deny that we’re saved by faith. I’m not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation, to everyone that believeth, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is revealed the righteousness of God from faith unto faith: even as it is written, the just, or the righteous shall live by faith. (ROMANS 1:16-17). It is NEVER a case of salvation by faith only! Unfortunately, some of the modern translations of the bible have mistranslated (ROMANS 1:17) and have put into the scripture there, “their own denominational doctrine” that we are saved by “faith only.” This is not in the original text! And any translation that so renders (ROMANS 1:17) has done so erroneously. WE’RE SSVED BY FAITH, BUT NOT BY FAITH ONLY! By works we’re justified, and not by faith only. As we read in (JAMES 2:24)
Stick with the King James - God's word preserved for the English speaking people. Psa 12:6-7 "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."
Are you saved why would you think think that the neural translation is easier to read are you born with the spirit because the spirit of God will lead you and God you if you pray and ask him to give you understanding don't depend on another translation other translation stick with the king's version
Unfortunately, it is a horrible “translation” that has been written to conform to the doctrine of the JW church. Jesus and God are one! Jesus is the Word not “A” god. He is God. Check out the ESV, NASB, OR NKJV to get some real truth!
KJV: 1. Isa 34:7 unicorns 2. Mat 28:19 original doesn’t include “holy ghost,” which trinitarianism added in to justify its theory; all 9 other NT references to baptism are only “in the name of Jesus Christ”; noting the word “name” in the original is not even plural, as it should be, if there were three persons in whose names baptism should occur 3. Luk 14:26 Jesus tells followers to “hate” their parents 4. No one uses thou thine thy etc anymore, nor were those words used in 1611-era. It’s an aggravating version to read. 5. 1Thess5:22 “kind” materially mistranslated as “appearance” 6. *THE WORST* IJohn5:7-8 “…these three agree” adulterated as “… these three are one” to support trinity theory; *no other version* has the language “are one” 7. General logical unsustainability. The OT and NT are translated into all the languages of the world. Any wording suggesting that the KJV “is the most correct,” e.g., not only forgets that there were 4 early versions of the KJV, but, that all linguistic translations are inferior to it, a statement too encompassing to be affirmed. The bible does not make the statement “the bible is infallible” or “inerrant.” It is “breathed by God,” 2Tim3:16, but God does not pin the credibility of his communications to the 40 bible writers and hundreds of subsequent translators, because he knew they’d err in producing his communications into writing. That’s why there are no verses saying its infallible. Contrast this with the Quran 53:2, where “allah” claims his quran is inerrant where in fact it’s more full of clear obvious errors than joe biden’s brain is full of holes. Lots of people say this or that version is the most correct. They even like to say “if you don’t endorse this translation you’re demonic,” or the like. It makes them feel holy. Frankly, no statements about a version being the best are even possibly provable! How do you like them apples🍎🦄
@@chriscuomo9334 makes a coherent argument for why one version of the Bible isn’t necessarily better than another version and then promptly torpedoes their arguments by taking cheap shots at a politician who has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I’m sure that this person is not only NOT Chris Cuomo, but is also not qualified to discuss how many holes there may or may not be in Joe Biden’s brain. But since they decided to go low, I’ll play! Has anyone here ever actually read a transcript of a Trump speech? The man cannot put together a complete, coherent sentence, let alone tell anything that resembles the truth. That’s your boy! A lying, womanizing, narcissistic egomaniac with delusions of grandeur whom evangelical preachers claim was anointed by God to lead our nation into the white Christian nationalist nation that God intended. Y’all are messed up!
I appreciate you taking the effort to put this video out. I have been wanting to understand the different translations better so I can have a better more accurate understanding. Thank you!
Thank you for actually answering the question (and answering rightly) when so many similar videos dance around and offer suggestions based on the reader and what style of reading. It is frustrating to see a title like this then have someone recommend 5-6 different translations.
A great presentation. it's nice to see another Aussie doing this critical analysis.
Great talk on the translations of the Bible. i really like your library.
I heard the John Nelson Darby English translation to be very good.
@@Landis_Grant I have not seen that version, but I do have his commentary set in my library.
Excellent! Thank you Sir! 🙏🏻
You made the case quite clear. Thank you for your love of God and for your fellowman.
Great Video. I’m curious though: What about the Geneva 1960 version? How would that compare to the Interlinear or the NASV? I sincerely would appreciate your opinion on that.
Have you seen the Revised Geneva Translation? It's an easier read then the old 1560 Geneva. As far as the newer RGT goes it's formal equivalence like the NASB and the MEV and of course the Interlinear. It's not hard to read like the interlinear, but maintains the old English style of writing without the old words.
The most accurate Bible would be in the original languages.
that's true
And not the King James version 😊😂😂😂❤😎
Not true.
What is your opinion of the NET Bible, edited by Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary?
I don't have an opinion on the NET Bible yet, mainly because I haven't read or used it. Thank you for drawing my attention to it, when I get time I'll check it out.
@@faithministries62 I have an ESV and an NASB. My theological persuasion is conservative Wesleyan-Arminian. My church affiliation is Free Methodist, which is evangelical, adhering to early Methodism conceived by John Wesley. I like Dr. Dallas Willard's teaching on practical holiness. I also have an NRSV which has the Apocrypha.
Agreed! The Bible is our road map to God.
LSB is my current preference. I am also using the Tanakh for the OT. I love using word-for-word translation and love exploring them all.
LSB is better than NASB95, and NASB95 is better than NASB2020 👍
Generally speaking the “most accurate” translation is usually considered the NASB 95 though it’s a bit of a stiff read. If your a divisive person who just wants to argue text all the time (as many people are today) I would suggest the NKJV because it will give you the TR text with non-bias footnotes for both the critical and majority text variants.
This is very well done. Thank you for the blessing. I am part Jewish, but a believer in Jesus. I read the Complete Jewish Bible, but back it up with an older NASB. I can read the Hebrew OT and Greek NT, but in discussing scripture with people who do not know these languages, I have to use my CJB and NASB.
Yes I too enjoy reading the CJB
@Steven Kirchner I learned them in a Bible school many years ago. Today, it is possible to learn them online.
@@seriouslyiknowhowtoread Misquoting rabbis is not my problem. Misquoting God is.
If I may ask what is CJB stands for. 🤭☺️
@@robertsharonbonaretti2525 Complete Jewish Bible.
A.W. Tozer said something like, "...the job of the scholar is to get at the meaning of the Text, as originally given. Once that meaning is discovered, the scholar's job is over. He must never sit in judgement on what is written." I am going on memory!
Having served in the ministry of Bible Translation, there are three components that translators attempt to balance, accuracy, clarity and naturalness. Is literal accuracy the best of it becomes too difficult to read or easy to read but not as accurate? It is a struggle to fine the right words and phrases to achieve a good balance since many languages do not have direct word for word connections. Proof of the struggle are the 100+ English versions, each with different perspectives or choices. The real tragedy is the thousands of languages with no scripture.
Thank you very much for this video, I have had the Interlinear Bible and Exhaustive Strongs Concordance for almost 30 years and have also, all of the bibles you listed, I am sure you have found, such as I, that modern Bibles tend to shy away from a few key words and thus, the true meaning of the word is lost. As much as I love my Strongs Concordance, I have found a flaw inasmuch as it sometimes bases the "meaning" on common use in the Scriptures. I therefore have a couple of other Hebrew & Greek dictionary for cross referencing. Thayers is also numbered to Strongs. A classic word that would FLIP the Christian doctrine 180 degrees is the word "Torment" as in Rev (They will be tormented day and night) Please take the time to research this word. My baseline is that God is PERFECT LOVE and Jesus is Gods PERFECT WORD. Therefore, understanding the TRUE meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words is not only important, it is a MUST.
That's like asking which brand of porridge the three bears were eating.
But there's always ones that's just right for each of us
@@faithministries62 I agree, When it comes to faith there is no truth because faith is not a pathway to truth, people will pick the one that gives them the most comfort.
How do you feel about the First American Standard version having the personal name of God, Jehovah, replaced in every scripture it appeared in the Hebrew text, some 6,000 times. But then under pressure from different councils because of the trinity doctrine they removed it upon revision and reverted to the practice of the authorized KJ version and removed Gods personal name from his own Holy book, useing the titles of Lord or God in capital letters instead for all 6,000 times it appeaed in scripture? How do you think Jehovah himself felt about having his name removed from the Bible. And how are people supposed to come to know him if they don't even know his name? Just a thought. But everywhere the tetragramiton appears in scripture, Gods Name should be there. How can you draw close to anyone if you don't even know their name? Where all Worship and all credit and praise is given to Gods son Jesus Christ and not to his Father Jehovah God. Reading a Bible with Gods name restored to every place it originally appeared in the Hebrew text like the NWT gives one a whole new appreciation for Who God truly is, his love for his people in ancient times, why he was hurt so badly when they turned to the worship of Other false Gods, and shows how valuable the ransom sacrifice of his only begotten son was, and the position of the son to the father. Imagine, all these translations leave the names of all the false dieties like Baal. Dagon, Tamuz, and Marduk in the Bible, but the remove the personal name of almighty God Jehovah from his own book. 🙄
I use to be a KJV only guy, but changed my tune after reading some of the other translations.
As long as they are seeking our LORD and Saviour Jesus the Christ. It doesn’t really matter what version you read.
From the different versions I have read so far. My preferred translation is the Geneva 1599.
Do u know if there's a Red Letter edition of the Geneva bible?
this is a dangerous mindset. the version definitely matters.
@@judah7505 so true, but I'm sure the Geneva is fine, it's probably 99% the same as KJ being that they're close to the same time period.
@@judah7505 KJV only is a cult stay away from them types of people.
Spoken like a true minion of the Devil.
I use the 1611 King James Version/New King James Version parallel Bible which seems difficult to obtain these days but which I find very useful!
"We need an accurate Bible". But you just said there are many versions and even the ones you suggested, are your suggestion. So basically, I am left with nothing. Although, I do thank you for the very informative video.
After much research...NEW AMERICAN STANDARD IS BEST BIBLE TRANSLATION!!!!!..by far....the best
The epistle of jude is an obvious place holder for enoch, at least first enoch although the other 2 enochs are more mysterious. The nephilim who were the watchers are not only mentioned in jude and gen 6 but also deuteronomy 32:8 and possibly job
The question SHOULD BE: What are the manuscripts that God preserved?
So the issue you have is a modern version can not violate the copyright of another modern bible under copyright. Thus is a version renders a verse perfectly, it is by default the only "bible" which can do so.
oh...I meant to mention that accurate and literal aren't necessarily synonymous.
That's so very true
Oliver Cromwell said Bible translations should stop because it was a racket among other things and the work was already completed in the King James Holy Bible .
And he put hanging as the punishment for disobeying that law.
It should still stand, rhere would be a lot less confusion
Have you seen the Cepher, the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, the Ethiopian Bible, the Catholic Bible, the Book of Yahweh Bible
Jason DeBuhn's "Truth in Translation" is the definitive comparison of the most widely distributed bibles. You'd be surprised at the conclusion of the BEST translation... check it out.
@@charlesblackburn1195
NWT is attacked by those who don’t know Greek and Hebrew, mainly theologians, priests and pastors, because it reads differently than what they’re use.
However, those who do know Greek and Hebrew, scholars and academics, praise the NWT for its textual accuracy and lack of bias.
@@craiglittle7367 Interesting how you fawning JW apologists produce selective, out of context quotes to support your bogus NWT, a version supposedly translated by a group of men who were neither Greek or Hebrew scholars.
What you predictably failed to mention was Jason BeDuhn's damning condemnation of the arbitrary insertion of the name 'Jehovah' into the New Testament. Yet you laughably claim it to be 'the most accurate and honest!! If you'd bothered to read his book instead of citing favourable excerpts which Watchtower has long used as propaganda, then you'd know he wrote:
*"By moving beyond translation of the Greek to an interpretation, the translator ventures from the bedrock of the text to the shifting sands of opinion-and that’s a risky move to make…For the NWT to gain wider acceptance and prove its worth over its competitors, its translators will have to rethink the handling of these verses, and they may find that that rethinking needs to extend to the use of “Jehovah” in the New Testament at all.“* Jason BeDuhn - Truth in Translation, Page 175,176
How do you explain this Craig? We are all eagerly awaiting your insightful response.
I like the NWT 1984 reference edition.
@@RiskeFactor You mean the "translation" created by a group of men, none of whom were Greek or Hebrew scholars? Little wonder your organisation is known as the low IQ cult. 🤣
@craiglittle7367 And as expected. No response. Your silence on these intractable and embarrassing facts, tells us all we need to know.
The King James Bible is a miracle in and of itself. For 250 years it was all there was for the English speaker. Therefore, at worst it is equal to or better than the rest.
Imagine getting to heaven and seeing all the people the KJV has brought to salvation and telling them your Bible was no good.
Amen glory to God
Wasn't the Geneva Bible before it and literally caused King James to have his version made?
Saying the kjv is no good is different than saying it's not the most accurate.
Anyone who's done even just a little bit of research knows the kjv isn't the most accurate
@@JeffersonDavis412 Absolutely and Amen brother!
Depends on which manuscripts are used. There is the Masoretic text which the KJV goes by and there is the Alexandrian texts which all modern translations use. The NASV is most accurate to the Alexandrian.
I lost respect for NASB's pretentious claim of being the most accurate translation when they only put the correct translation of Zachariah 13:6 in a footnote.
The Greek word in question (from the Septuagint) is, poikilos (pronounced poy-kee-los) which means motley, that is various in character-diverse, manifold. It can also mean variety.
Unless this garment was able to adjust it's length it had to have been of many colors or as some interpretations have it, many bands.
Folks, please do your own research. I have the Septuagint on E-Sword. I also have Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament on Bible Analyzer. I also have Westcott and Hort's book "The Original Greek" on Google Books. All of these are free materials.
I don't fault the gentleman that put a lot of hard work and study into this video. But he's trusting what others have written. Please read and study for yourself.
How do you like E-Sword? There are plenty of free apps, but I have been looking for a good copy of the Septuagint.
Big fan of the fake line of manuscripts are you?
@@edcarson3113 which ones do you mean?
If the nasb uses nestle. I set it aside. Only use is for occasional reference.
Well if you think about it the King James Bible was predominantly the main one for several hundred years and served Christianity just fine, there wasn't all this questioning of Bible versions that you see today, which in my opinion has only divided everyone and the churches, you go in the average Christian church today and everyone has different versions with them and you can't even all read together anymore
I just discovered that the verse I John 5:7 in the King James version is missing in many others:
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
Now I am suspicious of versions that omit this critical truth.
Subsrcibed!
Just look at how Zachariah 13:6 is translated to see the superiority of the KJV.
KJV translates it correctly. The other main translations only put the correct translation in a footnote. Reserving for a footnote that the Hebrew actually states, "Between his hands."
Why not do what the KJV does and put the correct translation in the actual text?????!!!!!
The question should be, "Which translation convicts the soul the most and draws one to a closer walk with Christ?" The view of morality and purity is viewed differently among readers of different translations, and this is a problem.
I was converted in 1973 reading the Jerusalem Bible, a Roman Catholic translation.
412 years of KJV beauty ,of poetic majesty, and Antioch Masonic accuracy as opposed to modern translations coming out every decade for copyright profits
King James version.
This one that translates the word sperms=fruits and seeds not legumes.That was that Daniel asked, uncooked food for human made from the Creator.There's no cooking in nature.
CSB from Southern Baptist Convention is most accurate, and I've reviewed them all. I use the study version. I use the word "accurate" lightly since all versions are derived from King James version, which King James modified the original version of Geneva Bible.
Nasb is more accurate than the CSV
The Bible and the Spirit which God gives each believer.
I have Septuagint for Old Testament. I read New Testament from Douay Rheims.
Being accurate verbally or even dynamically does not mean that a translation is accurate in meaning. The culture, idioms, legends and presumptions of the time must be fully understood in order to avoid giving false translations.
This is why “knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.” I would think that what matters most is, first and foremost, how does your version of the Scriptures deal with / treat the person and work of Jesus.
I think the KJV 1611 It really doesn't matter it's the word of God that came to us and we should be joyful that it did that the Jews reject Jesus as their messiah
The Holy Spirit is the best translation of the scriptures
Where does the Young's literal fall on the scale?
I believe that it's in amongst the word for word Bibles. Some people criticize it because it's based on the Textus Receptus Greek, like the KJV, while others think that's a good thing. Given that the OT is from Hebrew, we find that The Interlinear has Genesis 1:1 as "In the beginning created God the heavens and the earth", while the Young's reads "In the beginning of God’s preparing the heavens and the earth". The AMPC is the closest to that translation with: "In the beginning God (prepared, formed, fashioned, and) created the heavens and the earth." It's not an easy read, but good as a comparison with other formal equivalent translations, and which tries to bring out some of the other meanings of the Hebrew and Greek words.
I like the NWT
No such thing as a most accurate bible translation. The question is which translation method is the best?
Are you interested in which Bible translations were the biggest sellers in 2022? Than check out my latest video here: ua-cam.com/video/wVw3usGULbY/v-deo.html
One more opinion. The Alexandrian-based bibles, in my opinion, utilize much older Greek texts. I really like them. The ESV is especially readable.
Old does NOT mean better. The ESV was produced to fit in with Calvinist Tulip thinking.
@@kingston163 Then that lends the idea that newer may not be better either. I currently use most often the Revised Standard Version of 1951.
@@kingston163 🤣🤣 tulip thinking
My bible reads that the alexandrians were messed up. Why would i want their input in my bible?
@@kingston163Yes, the Calvinist pope John MacArthur has a Study Bible using the ESV. I eventually threw it into the recycle bin due to JMac’s numerous erroneous interpretations.
This question cannot be answered.
“Most accurate” does not mean “most substantively accurate transcription of the Holy Spirit’s intended communications to the original writer,” it means “which modern version is closest to the originally produced document.” We don’t have any originally produced writings of any biblical books, so, this question cannot possibly be answered. If it means the former, we equally cannot know, because we didn’t hear the Holy Spirit communicate that language to its writer.
Hope that helps. If you guys have any more questions about logic lemme know.
@@thevulture5750 okey dokey. I think the KJV uses the word unicorn several times.
also, it added language "are one" in 2 Pet.
KJV for me.
beautiful language, not the most accurate though....
Word for word nearest equivalency is not the same thing as accuracy. If someone does not understand an idiom, a pun, an allusion, a rhyme, or an alliteration, then full accuracy has not been achieved in conveying the meaning.
There are many literary and verbal devices that convey meaning. These cannot be measured by evaluating formal equivalence.
"Literalness" is not the same concept as "accuracy".
Believe it or not, a dynamic approach for a given sentence can sometimes be more accurate than a formal equivalent translation.
By the way, the KJV was an excellent translation, but many might be surprised to find that Paul never once actually wrote, "God forbid!" This phrase was a dynamic equivalent used to convey the impact of the Greek idiom that was used. He actually wrote something more literally translated as "not let it become." The English equivalent doesn't have the proper impact, so the KJV translators used a non-literal translation to achieve better accuracy in understanding Paul's strong opposition to what he was refuting.
The excellent translation from 400 years ago sometimes used a dynamic equivalence approach. Their goal was accuracy.
The Ethiopian Bible
First of all, why do you have so many versions of the Bible and why is the Bible a collection of writings that were written over a period of many centuries by VARIOUS AUTHORS?
ALL English translations have mistakes.,
The kjv does not
@@johnmurdock5710The KJV has an error in the seventh commandment and removed all references to tyrants (because King James didn’t like them) and added references to witches (again because King James didn’t like them).
The KJV also reflects scribal errors in the Greek reference texts - including errors in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament that deviated from the original Hebrew in a number of respects.
You are right all transactions have mistakes. Especially the KJV
The real question is, why are there so many translations? We are told over and over the bible is the unalloyed word of God. If that is so, how can there be different versions? What's more likely is that the various bibles are not the word of God, but the words of humans. That would explain it.
Accuracy to the time of the writing and language of those people would be a Accurate Version .... Readability isn't as important as Accuracy... Flesh and Blood Beings From Another Place Made Us ... That is the Only Possible Conclusion .. So Accuracy is Very Very Important.. Because it's Not A Novel ... it's A Bibliography
Right or wrong good to know and remember that the kjv is the legal version of the Bible.
NASB is still the most accurate, but not perfect. Take a look at The Emphasized Bible by C.B. Rotherham. It is accurate, but difficult to read.
Check out my video on the Emphasised Bible: ua-cam.com/video/mtN-fO-erpA/v-deo.html
If you didn't come to the conclusion that the King James is 100% accurate English translation you willfully ignored truth.
I read that translation but your comment is really ignorant.
Faith minisrtry the NASB is an erroneous translation, they say it's the most accurate translation, it might be accurate to the erroneous Alexandrian texts, but it's not accurate to the true Greek texts.
The most accurate translation, is the NKJV. And if you knew the Bible, you would know it.
Which bible is the most accurate?
The one that helps nimrod build his tower.
And.....its gone
The KJV is the accurate version, but the NIV has brought a lot of people closer to our Lord. Many churches in our area use the NIV, as it is very easy to understand. I was raised with the KJV. Now this may sound a bit off, but when I discovered the NIV, it really took it to a level that I could understand a lot easier. Yes, there are differences, but isn't bringing people closer to God the most important thing?
Why some have problems with Reasoned eclecticism.
I John 5:7 is found in a majority of the Latin,
but not the Greek so out it goes.
Good will towards men
Doxology in Matthew
Without cause
God manifest in the flesh
Are a majority in the Greek but not in the Latin,
so out they go
The PA and Mark 16:9-20 are a majority in both the Greek
and Latin so out they go.
Even the “not yet” found in the two of the earliest(P66.P75) in John 7:8
some throw out.
If as an orthodox Christian you don't see a problem,
what would you see as a problem?
I would refer you to a LSB bible. where the stuff you say is missing is there in brackets with a note on it being added or taken away in earlier versions.
@@ashtin5392 If added, would love to meet the ninja scribes who added them to thousands of texts without being caught. Blessings.
@@jamessheffield4173 I would refer you to the scholar Dr. James White since he has studied the manuscripts and mistakes and so fourth. He points out that a lot of mistakes are just that mistakes where they accidentally add something they think should be there but it's a memory from a different book. Than there is the mistakes where the scribes think they are fixing a mistake but in fact making an error. Though I will say I am just in the beginning of my lesson through the manuscripts and historical data. It's pretty interesting.
@@ashtin5392 I would suggest you read John William Burgon and Wilbur Pickering. Blessings.
Are the gospels legends?
Another point is that on that view you would have to regard the accounts of the Man as being legends. Now, as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever else the Gospels are they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing. They are not artistic enough to be legends. From an imaginative point of view they are clumsy, they don’t work up to things properly. Most of the life of Jesus is totally unknown to us, as is the life of anyone else who lived at that time, and no people building up a legend would allow that to be so. Apart from bits of the Platonic dialogues, there are no conversations that I know of in ancient literature like the Fourth Gospel. There is nothing, even in modern literature, until about a hundred years ago when the realistic novel came into existence. In the story of the woman taken in adultery we are told Christ bent down and scribbled in the dust with His finger. Nothing comes of this. No one has ever based any doctrine on it. And the art of inventing little irrelevant details to make an imaginary scene more convincing is a purely modern art. Surely the only explanation of this passage is that the thing really happened? The author put it in simply because he had seen it.
C.S. Lewis, "What Are We to Make of Jesus Christ?" (1950)
@@jamessheffield4173 I would say the Gospel is not legend at all. Thanks for the references, I will definitely look into some of the books to read. Probably start with the Revision Revised.
The 1599 GENEVA BIBLE is my favorite, with the Tyndale 1537 New Testament is 2nd.
tyndale is crazy😭
@@planatano_ Actually, history records that he was exceptionally intelligent, and especially gifted in language usage. And was strangled and burned at the stake for his dedication to creating an English translation in defiance of the Realm.
@@makarov138 ik but i think its crazy cuz its pretty hard to read
@@planatano_ That Old English and font is a challenge to be sure.
@@planatano_ no I think a lot of people these days are just idiots, the English in the King James is extremely easy to read and memorize, I don't know why everybody keeps crying about it
re. Gen 37:3 - Yosef's coat of many colors.
I'm looking at the Hebrew here for פַּס (which is פַּסִּֽים (plural) in the text):
1. a word to indicate decorative needlework on valuable garments
2. a tunic of pieces of various colors
3. a tunic reaching to ankles
So we are not sure what the Hebrew word means. In this case it wasn't a matter of choosing the LXX over the MT (Masoretic text).
Looking at three translations and their footnotes - as you say it's not clear as to what the garment was like.
ESV footnote: And he made him a robe of many colours. (See Septuagint, Vulgate; or (with Syriac) a robe with long sleeves. The meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain)
NASB 1995: and he made him a varicolored tunic (or full length robe)
NET and he made a special tunic for him. (It is not clear what this tunic was like, because the meaning of the Hebrew word that describes it is uncertain. The idea that it was a coat of many colors comes from the Greek translation of the OT. An examination of cognate terms in Semitic suggests it was either a coat or tunic with long sleeves (cf. NEB, NRSV), or a tunic that was richly embroidered (cf. NIV). It set Joseph apart as the favored one.)
Keep to kjv for verbal inspiration which modern ones lack
Jesus spoke in parables so they wouldnt understand
The elect are drawn to Christ
Without understanding scripture..that comes afterwards!
i love this kind of video it wont matter which one you use if you believe Jesus is god or part of a trinity or when you die you go to heaven or hell and you don't believe that there will be a resurrection instead of trying to say wich bible is best how about you teach whats actually in it and thus be helpful cos it doesn't matter what one you use if you still don't follow whats in it
ESV or NASB.
ur crazy
The bad news is: A translation ceases to be the word of G-d.
Not that the Greek was ever the word of G-d.
That's just nonsense fella. Go and sit in the corner.
@edcarson3113 then why does nobody openly claim authorship of the Gospels?
They're all anonymously written yet we know who authored the Books of Tanakh.
You may want to lose the huge shield icon from your videos -- blocking your own content is not helpful.
Yeah just give me the king James Bible. It was able to figure out in second Samuel 21:19 that David kill goliath.... The new American standard or any of the newer versions fail.
The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures is the most accurate Bible on this planet earth, and they are free.
The King James Bible is the most accurate
NASB came out in 1971 not 1995 by lockman foundation actually started this work in 1954 by 54 of the best scholars both Hebrew and Greek. The 1995 is only and up dated version it has it's fault's Been studying the scriptures for over 40 years I'll take the 1971 version over the 1995 The KJV is my second choice
Thanks for that
Unfortunately none of these bibles have the original sacred name of our Creator and or his Son. And nobody seems to find this odd.
How can believers be so blind?
Is Jesus dying everyday or He died once for ever....
none if we are going on matching it to real earth and human history. The bible has a 6300 year old universe with stories that are proven to never have happened
If you don't see Yahweh, Gehenna, Hades, Tartarus or Sheol in your Bible it's not a good translation. Some words need to be kept in the original language so as not to be confused with modern ideas.
Don't want to assume but you didn't mention how the New American Standard is translated from Roman Catholic manuscripts that were copies of Alexandrian texts found in Alexandria, Egypt. Of which there is zero record in God's word of any church ministry there.
You also didn't mention how the KJV was translated from copies of manuscripts found in Antioch, Corinth. Which there is clearly a record of the church ministry there. And also where the disciples were first called Christians.
I put away my NIV as it is more of a paraphrased Bible and now the NKJV is my favorite.
NKJV is nice but probably the best translations are the ESV, NASB95, and the NIV. The NIV really isn’t a paraphrased Bible at all.
Which is the most accurate? Question is, which is the perfect Bible? The 1611 is God’s perfect book. All other versions come from the Vatican and should be trashed. I make no apologies about my statement.
Learn Koine Greek.
1611 KJV is the Gold Standard...Hands Down! 47 of the BEST HEBREW and Greek Scholars were divided into six groups. Three for the OT, Two for the NT, and One for the Apocrypha...Assembled at Oxford, Cambridge, and Westminster.
NIV and ESV are Missing verses!
The scholars who made the original KJV translation had no more than eight ancient documents to work from, which limited their accuracy. Since then, nearly 5,500 others have been discovered, which have contributed to a much better understanding of the originals.
@@Kevin_Beach So you're saying the Creator of ALL things have no Power over his Word??? Is there anything to hard for The Most High God??? God Preserved His Word, As it is Written! Newly found unsubstantiated manuscripts have caused nothing but Spookism and the quality of so called New Translation Bibles are in the gutter!
@@Kevin_Beach You must be a card carrying member of the Bible Destruction Group, American Anti-Bible Society, Freethinkers of America (Atheists). The Bible and so called Christianity are TWO different things and America don't do anything the Bible say do, but the complete opposite!
@@Kevin_Beach ROFL
According to the latest Dr Michael Heiser, the foremost Greek and Hebrew scholar ever...the ESV is the most accurate and understood. I grew up KJV and yall need to understand it has a lot of flaws. Ones you aren't told.
Did you still answer why the Roman Catholic Bible is different than the ones Protestants use? God is peaking to me through His Word but one shouldn’t ignore the historical fact ancient humans “voted” on which books to include. So, right wingers who argue that he BIBLE is the literal word of God that is not open to interpretation is just false.
New World Translation is the most accurate and least biased English translation available.
@@charlesblackburn1195
That’s exactly right Charles.
Are there different Bibles or different translations? To me they are all the same. I use the KJV.
Many new Bible translations leave out the word “Begotten.”
Everywhere it’s applied to the name of Christ, or the being, or the person of Christ.
In all the New Testament, those translators don’t believe His Diety, in the sense of the Virgin Birth.
And these new bibles are but a springboard for their modernism, “their ultra modernistic concepts.”
They rip the word “Begotten” out of the texts where it applies to Christ.
Jesus is not the only son of God, but He is the Only Begotten Son of God.
THOSE NEW BIBLES ARE UTTERLY UNRELIABLE FROM START TO FINISH!
Quick answer: KJV. It is the only version that is the closest to the Greek and Latin translation and it is the oldest of all the versions.
But more importantly, to understand the Bible, one need the Holy Spirit to give the understanding. Man without the Holy Spirit can not FULLY understand the Bible. The Bible is spiritual. It was given to the writers thru the Spirit of the Lord. So to understand…one needs the Spirit of the Lord.
Two examples:
1. When Pharaoh had the dream of the famine that was soon to come, he did not understand the dream. But when Joseph was asked to interpret it, he acknowledge that it was the Spirit of the Lord that would give the understanding.
2. When Nebuchadnezzar had the dream of the empires in the form of a man, he didn’t understand it. But it was Daniel, who thru the Spirit of the Lord, gave him the understanding of the dream.
Are you joking? When you said the KJV was the oldest English translation, I spit out my coffee. Why are KJVO so ignorant? You forgot about the Bishops Bible, Tyndale, Geneva, and their various iterations.
@@jwatson181 when did Daren say the KJB was the oldest english translation?
Maybe you should slowly read the comment so you won't missed read and spit your coffee in someone face 😉
@@hudsontd7778 read the 1st paragraph slowly. Based upon your reading comprehension, I recommend the message Bible for you. Please leave the KJV for advanced readers.
@@jwatson181 You left out the Wycliffe Bible which is older than all of those you listed :)
@@misternewman1576 thank you!
None can deny that we’re saved by faith.
I’m not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation, to everyone that believeth, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
For therein is revealed the righteousness of God from faith unto faith: even as it is written, the just, or the righteous shall live by faith.
(ROMANS 1:16-17).
It is NEVER a case of salvation by faith only!
Unfortunately, some of the modern translations of the bible have mistranslated (ROMANS 1:17) and have put into the scripture there, “their own denominational doctrine”
that we are saved by “faith only.”
This is not in the original text!
And any translation that so renders (ROMANS 1:17) has done so erroneously.
WE’RE SSVED BY FAITH, BUT NOT BY FAITH ONLY!
By works we’re justified, and not by faith only. As we read in (JAMES 2:24)
KJV 1611
Authorized KJV..... end of story.
Stick with the King James - God's word preserved for the English speaking people. Psa 12:6-7 "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."
I like the New World Translation, it's easier to understand. And it does not contradict like the King James Version does.
Problem is it is a corrupt translation.
Are you saved why would you think think that the neural translation is easier to read are you born with the spirit because the spirit of God will lead you and God you if you pray and ask him to give you understanding don't depend on another translation other translation stick with the king's version
@@bazzer7772 according to who?
Huh?
Unfortunately, it is a horrible “translation” that has been written to conform to the doctrine of the JW church. Jesus and God are one! Jesus is the Word not “A” god. He is God. Check out the ESV, NASB, OR NKJV to get some real truth!
None
BLAH BLAH .You should know our KJV Authorized translation is the one we should use.
KJV:
1. Isa 34:7 unicorns
2. Mat 28:19 original doesn’t include “holy ghost,” which trinitarianism added in to justify its theory; all 9 other NT references to baptism are only “in the name of Jesus Christ”; noting the word “name” in the original is not even plural, as it should be, if there were three persons in whose names baptism should occur
3. Luk 14:26 Jesus tells followers to “hate” their parents
4. No one uses thou thine thy etc anymore, nor were those words used in 1611-era. It’s an aggravating version to read.
5. 1Thess5:22 “kind” materially mistranslated as “appearance”
6. *THE WORST* IJohn5:7-8 “…these three agree” adulterated as “… these three are one” to support trinity theory; *no other version* has the language “are one”
7. General logical unsustainability. The OT and NT are translated into all the languages of the world. Any wording suggesting that the KJV “is the most correct,” e.g., not only forgets that there were 4 early versions of the KJV, but, that all linguistic translations are inferior to it, a statement too encompassing to be affirmed.
The bible does not make the statement “the bible is infallible” or “inerrant.” It is “breathed by God,” 2Tim3:16, but God does not pin the credibility of his communications to the 40 bible writers and hundreds of subsequent translators, because he knew they’d err in producing his communications into writing. That’s why there are no verses saying its infallible. Contrast this with the Quran 53:2, where “allah” claims his quran is inerrant where in fact it’s more full of clear obvious errors than joe biden’s brain is full of holes.
Lots of people say this or that version is the most correct. They even like to say “if you don’t endorse this translation you’re demonic,” or the like. It makes them feel holy. Frankly, no statements about a version being the best are even possibly provable!
How do you like them apples🍎🦄
@@chriscuomo9334 makes a coherent argument for why one version of the Bible isn’t necessarily better than another version and then promptly torpedoes their arguments by taking cheap shots at a politician who has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I’m sure that this person is not only NOT Chris Cuomo, but is also not qualified to discuss how many holes there may or may not be in Joe Biden’s brain. But since they decided to go low, I’ll play! Has anyone here ever actually read a transcript of a Trump speech? The man cannot put together a complete, coherent sentence, let alone tell anything that resembles the truth. That’s your boy! A lying, womanizing, narcissistic egomaniac with delusions of grandeur whom evangelical preachers claim was anointed by God to lead our nation into the white Christian nationalist nation that God intended. Y’all are messed up!
@nousername good for you. I will see you in heaven, my brother in Christ.
Love ❤️ ✝️
@@chriscuomo9334 And that is what God called us to do. You made a case, then refused to dispute and instead gave a blessing w/ brotherly love.