I have the KJV, NKJV, and NASB. But I just LOVE reading my NLT. I can breeze right through with perfect understanding. I use the others for study, but of course I have to read them slow because they can be hard to understand sometimes.
Luke 4:4 (New American Standard version) 4And Jesus answered him, "It is written, '(A)MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE.'" Luke 4:4 (King James Bible) 4And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. “but by every word of God”. Gone from NASV The NASV is not a trustworthy translation.
Matthew 9:13 (New American Standard Bible) 13"But go and learn (A)what this means: '(B)I DESIRE COMPASSION, [a]AND NOT SACRIFICE,' for (C)I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners." Matthew 9:13 (King James) 13But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. “to repentance”. Vanished, Gone from NASV, NIV, etc! Repentance is Jesus' requirement for forgiveness. Jesus wants all sinners to repent! No repentance ---> no salvation.
Thank you for giving the NET some love! I discovered it because of their full translation notes and have really enjoyed their faithful, but fresh approach to the translation.
This video explains translation in an easy-to-understand way. This is an absolutely MUST SEE video for every Bible reader, most especially for those who believe or have been told that they have in their possession the only accurate English translation. After viewing the entire video, I agree with Mark Strauss' statement at 2m:9s; "... use more than one translation..." When I'm studying my Bible, I use the KJV, NKJV, and the ESV, which are meant to be word-for-word translations. I will now include within my studies the NIV and NLT, both thought-for-thought translations. Thank you for this video.
I've been an ESV, NASB and KJV reader for the most part, but now I am exploring CSB and finding it very readable and giving me more understanding of the text.
John 7:8 (New American Standard version) 8"Go up to the feast yourselves; I do not go up to this feast because (A)My time has not yet fully come." John 7:8 (King James Bible) 8Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast: for my time is not yet full come. “Yet” Removed from NASV! COMMENT: By omitting the word 'yet' the NASV makes Jesus who is God and the Saviour a liar, because he did later go up to the feast. (John 7:10)
A point many seem to lose sight of along the way is that there is NO such thing as an inspired translation. God decided that eons ago when he inspired men to write both Testaments in their respective original languages. I'm a Spanish speaker, I live in Argentina. I visit a local prison once or twice a week and share the Gospel with the inmates there. I would never dream of taking a formal word for word translation there, half of the prison population is semi-literate. Even if I personally read word for word (Spanish) translations out loud to them, they most probably wouldn't understand them. We hand out and use idiomatic translations to the inmates there. In that context, they're a real blessing. On the other hand, when I get to preach on Sundays, I use the more formal word for word translations to prepare the messages. I personally have numerous translations (both in English and Spanish) that cover the whole translation spectrum and enjoy all of them. I truly praise God for the abundance of translations we have today.
Please consider Acts 26:14. 1. The Lord speaks to Paul in HEBREW with the very words of God. That's INSPIRED. 2. Luke writes this account in GREEK as the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS. That's INSPIRED! 3. That's a PERFECT TRANSLATION because they're BOTH INSPIRED!
Don’t worry the KJV idol worship in the US is much like the Heretic NAR and Steven Anderson. A purely American invention. Keep bringing the Gospel to those in need my brother.
Which Spanish bible would be best for use in Mexico? My husband & I are moving there next year, & I would like to have a good translation in everyday Spanish for witnessing & such. There’s a pueblo across the highway from where we’ll be living, so it needs to be basic Mexican. I don’t even speak Mexican. The Spanish I speak is Costa Rican, after living there for several years. I will need to learn the Mexican dialect. My husband is from Nicaragua. Thanks
@@RUT812 depends in your church and how strong your Spanish is. I use the RV 1960 but it is like KJV (old spanish) so it is the most popular among Spanish speakers. But if your Spanish is not that strong, I would get a Spanish /English parallel or NVI. Moving from RV 1960 to NIV or NKJV was easy, but to NLT was too difficult because the paraphrase made it weird, keep this in mind if choosing a parallel. RV and Nkjv is based on the same majority text so it is a great pair.
0:00 Which Translation Should I Use? 2:40 Two Basic Philosophies 3:53 Most Popular Versions Today 5:07 What Makes a Translation Accurate? 5:45 Why Do We Need Translation? 6:24 Semantic Range of Meaning 9:27 Context is the Answer 9:55 Retain the Meaning, Not the Form 14:15 The Gender Inclusive Debate 17:23 Idioms in Their Context 19:51 Idioms in the Bible 22:37 Collocations in Translation 29:39 Conclusion
I prefer the more literal or critical translations. For NT I prefer the NJKV Nelson Publishers. For the OT I prefer the ESV because of their translation practice of comparing both the Hebrew Text with the Septuagint for agreement.
I find this discourse quite useful. I know some christian leaders that quote scriptures from different translations to gain knowledge based on the context of the Word, now I understand better, why they do so....Thanks Prof!
Yes, Strongs is a excellent resource for gaining better understanding of both Old and New Testaments. There are several newer Bible Dictionaries but, if you are just starting out in your Bible study a Strongs will serve you well!
One thing I will say about Strongs, the definitions of the Hebrew and Greek words are just the basic lemmas. It does not give the full semantic range for the words, nor does it address the grammar.
Well I think this is fantastic. And I mean that literally! Can't really understand all the negative comments below. God has the ability to get His message through despite using human beings. He has provided the Bible in so many ways that we have no excuses left.
Is Dr. Strauss arguing that idioms that are in the text but which are not shared by the receptor-language should be avoided?? Amos 4:6's reference to "cleanness of teeth" can be understood just fine by thoughtful readers without dumbing it down. At some point one should say, "Let's not be afraid to teach the reader some expressions that may be new to him."
I don't think he's arguing that at all. I think the main purpose of his point about idioms is to justify the existence of dynamic equivalence translations to those who only see value in formal equivalence translations. As he said at the beginning of the video, the best translation to use is to use *more than one*. There is value, as you said, in learning idioms of the past, but there is also value in having the Bible as a cohesive story in today's language.
I am very old, study the Bible a lot, and use the KJV though I am aware of its many weaknesses. If I pick up a different translation, I look for some parts that are key to me.
The NIV is a horrible translation. If I wanted clarification I would not go to any modern translation. They are different not updated language. I would go to my knees and ask God to reveal what is already there in perfect English. I would go back over the context read over and over. If I see a word I don't understand I'll use a dictionary. That's about it. God is reaceler of secrets. The key to understanding the Bible is the fear of the Lord, which is the BEGINNING of understanding, wisdom and knowledge.
Brilliant! I use NASB 1977 for Exegesis (GK/Heb study), and the CSB for just everyday reading, anywhere, ie home/church. I also consult the NET daily, and check other of my many bible translations when needed. I often read the Bible in Arabic, very rich!
John 7:8 (New American Standard version) 8"Go up to the feast yourselves; I do not go up to this feast because (A)My time has not yet fully come." John 7:8 (King James Bible) 8Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast: for my time is not yet full come. “Yet” Removed from NASV! COMMENT: By omitting the word 'yet' the NASV makes Jesus who is God and the Saviour a liar, because he did later go up to the feast. (John 7:10)
@@ColonelEmpire As a Baptist, I've heard this mantra many times, you are badly mistaken. The brothers of Jesus wanted Him to go with them at THAT very time and day publicly, but Jesus said NO. They left and went without Jesus. A few days later Jesus went ALONE and privately. There is a reason for it. The NASB is correct, there is no omission or lies of Jesus in the narrative. You like all other KJV people are in error of the facts. God bless.
@@robertrodrigues7319 You obviously are mistaken.... Jesus did not go up a few days later... Read the text... The NASV is Satan's masterpiece... You are in error.... Verses which have been corrupted in the NASV. Remember that these texts are from the KJB and the words or phrases in bold type indicate where the NASV has twisted or deleted God's Word. ***Read Deuteronomy 4:2; Proverbs 30:5,6 & Revelation 22:18, 19*** Luke 4: 4: And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, *but by every word of God* . Luke 4: 8: And Jesus answered *and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan* : for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Matt.25: 13: Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour *wherein the Son of man cometh* Matt.27: 35: And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: *that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots* Mark 6: 11: And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. *Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city* Mark 13: 14: But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, *spoken of by Daniel the prophet* , standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains. John 7: 8: Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up *yet* unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. ***COMMENT: By omitting the word 'yet' the NASV makes the Saviour a liar, because he did later go up to the feast. (John 7:10)*** John 3: 15: That whosoever believeth in him *should not perish* , but have eternal life. COMMENT: This is an extremely powerful verse. It guarantees that whoever believes in Jesus (identified in verse 14) should not perish but have eternal life. But what do the NASV translators make of this verse? They mutilate it by deleting the words 'should not perish.' Then they inject uncertainty by using the word 'may.' There is no assurance here, no divine guarantee or promise. Instead, 'the believer… MAY in him have eternal life;' implying thereby that he 'May Not!' Rom.14: 10: But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat *of Christ* . Colossians 3: 6: For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh *on the children of disobedience* 1 Timothy 3: 16: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: *God* was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. COMMENT: *The word God has been changed to He* This is an attack on a cardinal truth namely that Jesus Christ is God incarnate; that is, God in human flesh! To replace the word God with He is a corruption of the text. It casts doubt on the divinity of Jesus Christ. John 1:1-3, 14 1 John 4: 3: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus *Christ is come in the flesh* is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. COMMENT: the word Christ means 'the anointed One, the Messiah! In this verse the NASV omits the fact that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, the anointed of God, the Christ! Indeed whenever the word 'Christ' is omitted from its rightful place in a modern translation, the fact that He is the Messiah, the anointed of God, is being silently denied. 1 Corinthians 5: 7: Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed *for us* . Colossians 1: 14: In whom we have redemption *through his blood* , even the forgiveness of sins: 1 Peter 4: 1: Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered *for us* in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin. The NASV is Satan's masterpiece.... It is a corrupt English translation that comes from corrupted manuscripts (Siniaticus, VATICANus & the Septuagint) Fruit from poisonous wells....
@@robertrodrigues7319 LOL LOL You have been bested by one of your betters!!! You are the fool... You lose... You are like your daddy! He showed up in Genesis 3:1.... "...yeah hath God said...?" God promised to keep his words pure throughout EVERY generation even this generation... I have His preserved words in English! The King James Bible... You don't... Your modern English version is full of mistakes....
I use a number of Bibles side-by-side for comparison to include the KJV, ESV, NASB, NET, and NLT. I also like the Amplified. When pushed, I used the original Greek and translate myself. If you're a "newbie" to the Bible, I recommend the NLT (kids, teens, or non-academics) or the ESV (educated adults). Toss "The Message" into the trash.
Your American translations are kinda bad. NIV, KJV and ESV are probably the closest but still biased. If I had to choose an English translation I'd pick the NIV. I just checked out The Message and it's hilarious.
NLT is my main go to version, but I have recently just been reading online in the NRSV, NASB and ESV. I like these 4 versions and there is a lot of flow with understanding scripture a lot easier.
I use all the ones you mentioned cept the KJV cause there are so many dead words and English that doesn’t make sense within the KJV now. I also like to reference the HCSB as well. This is coming from a guy who was raised KJVO until I was 25, lol
Perhaps you could assist me? .... I grew up on the 1984 New World Translation Jehovah Witness Bible .... The copyright ran out on that print ... And I left in 2013 - 14 ... I read your 1984 NIV and am ok with it .. But use the Doubleday Jerusalem Bible 1966 ... Do you have a version in equivalent to that? Thanks .... Selah Salem Agape Zeteo ... I would like to find a way to update that 1984 NWT without the 2013 version
There are so many bible versions in Christianity. In Judaism by contrast there are only about 5 or 6 translations total. My temple mostly uses the original JPS from 1917...alongside the Hebrew. I have a baptist friend who prefers the 1985 JPS Tanakh...most of his congregation has no idea he's teaching from a Jewish translation when he isn't quoting the NT. The reason I use JPS the most is because when the translation committee didn't know for certain what the Hebrew, meant they literally tell you in a footnote every time.
Christo Chaney I recommend giving this a listen as well as sharing it with your friend: Lesson 8 - The Septuagint: www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/searchthescriptures/introduction_to_the_bible_lesson_8_the_septuagint Lesson 9 - The Canon Part 1: www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/searchthescriptures/introduction_to_the_bible_lesson_9_the_canon_part_1 Lesson 10 - The Canon Part 2: www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/searchthescriptures/introduction_to_the_bible_lesson_10_the_canon_part_2
I have a collection of Bibles , That includes the JPS . Not too familiar with the Jewish selection of scripture but I'm interested in a snapshot of the Hebrew scripture before and after the masoretic text and the counsel of jamnia . I am a Catholic and I recognize the opportunity available to Christians of a before and after picture offered by Catholics before the masoretic text and Protestants having an after shot of the latter masoretic text . All that I know at this point is that the JPS doesn't add up , to these before and after pics of scripture . No alarm though nobody else does either . I have read dozens of Bibles hundreds of times and the trend that I see is that after the Greek and Latin Bibles groups change words or meaning to distance themselves from other groups , giving themselves a distinct theology while at the same time not validating the theology of other groups . To only compare Protestant scripture to Protestant scripture is mostly pointless because even though Protestants disagree and even call some versions " Catholic or Orthodox " ... I promise that there are marks that make these Bibles distinctly Protestant . But to stay focused , I have some real questions about the masoretic text .
I think I would like kind of a doubly Amplified translation of the Bible, so NONE - or as little as possible - of the meaning gets lost in translation.
IDK The Word made flesh is the perfect Word of God. Have you ever thought about how the majority of people in the world do not speak or read in English? If God shows no partiality then why would He be partial to English speakers? And if English has changed and keeps changing then is it possible for there to be a point when most English readers wouldn't understand the KJV? And if the process of translating requires understanding of the language of origin and the language being translated into then are you saying that scholars have not grown at all in understanding Hebrew or Greek in 400 years?
All the KJVOs in here I’d like to point you to Mark Ward’s UA-cam channel and his book titled “Authorized: The use and Misuse of the KJV” really good stuff from a very humble guy.
Post a link to Mark Ward’s YT channel regardless. OTOH you’re quite the optimist to expect a KJVO would have the guts to watch that or any other YT vid that says ANYTHING that infers much less blatantly say something negative about their beloved KJ TRANSLATION
Post a link to Mark Ward’s YT channel regardless. OTOH you’re quite the optimist to expect a KJVO would have the guts to watch that or any other YT vid that says ANYTHING that infers much less blatantly say something negative about their beloved KJ TRANSLATION
Post a link to Mark Ward’s YT channel regardless. OTOH you’re quite the optimist to expect a KJVO would have the guts to watch that or any other YT vid that says ANYTHING that infers much less blatantly say something negative about their beloved KJ TRANSLATION
Post a link to Mark Ward’s YT channel regardless. OTOH you’re quite the optimist to expect a KJVO would have the guts to watch that or any other YT vid that says ANYTHING that infers much less blatantly say something negative about their beloved KJ TRANSLATION
I'm a KJV Bible Believer christian, I watch him, and he is only one more scholar trying to make it in the youtube business of modern christian liberal scholars! Don't give him a time of the day. Is funny that this scholars look the same, they try to sound smart and looking like authorities in Christianity. With their fair speeches that deceive many. They don't compromise. They are full of knowledge, but poor in spiritual knowledge. KJV people are brutaly honest about the times we current living in, that's what make us weird, we really talking what's going on in this world. We are willing to die for Jesus this scholars not. Zondervan is a wicked big publisher company as Thomas Nelson and others. If what base our opinions in the KJV is only about KJV we would change the Bible right out the way. You know nothing my friend, you know nothing.
I think studying Japanese helps me take for granted that word translation is far more like comparing venn diagrams (or semantic range) than two cells in an excel sheet. Japanese even has a word for marking context in conversation, called the 'topic particle'. It takes twice as long to learn Japanese to the same level as Greek, which takes twice as long as to learn Spanish, yet even though Spanish and French are fast to learn, because they're actually quite similiar to English compared to Hebrew, Greek and Japanese- yet Mark Strauss is still able to make the case that Spanish and French which share something 40-60% root vocabulary with English that they can't be translated like an excel sheet. The only exception to this is very concrete words from the same time zone and location... the color red even if it doesn't sound the same might mean the same range of red... but it might not. This is not just a Greek/Hebrew to English problem, it's a Language to Language problem PERIOD. The fact that English speakers have so many translations to compare is a blessing really, some languages have one, or given there are 7000 languages extant today, I'm sure for some, it's none. It's wild to me that atheists I've met are confused by the Bible and assume that means God doesn't exist because the Bible doesn't make sense to them... yet they at most read two English translations without context of who it was written to or by, yet if they did the same with Les Misérables or Plato or Sun Tzu in a college class they'd have a very hard time passing a class that does a literary study of the text in English translation, let alone not be able to comprehend it in the original language. If you don't drop your first language assumptions when reading a text written in another language good darn luck understanding it without banging your head against a wall for 10 years straight, even if you're studying something from contemporary times and cultural or technological assumptions that you even recognize.
As a former King James Only advocate, this information is crucial for all Christians to know and understand. After studying this topic quite meticulously I can honestly say my go to translations are the NASB, ESV, HCSB and an Interlinear, specifically based on the Alexandrian Text-Type since I have come to find out that Textus Receptus as well as the entire Byzantine Text-type are no older than the 10th century except for Codex Alexandrinus (only the Gospels read Byzantine while the rest of the NT reads Alexandrian) and perhaps a couple more that I can’t remember in the moment. I find it also important to study the idiomatic meanings to certain kinds of phrases used in Scripture as we have to make sure that we are not reading what we call today a figure of speech and imposing a literal understanding onto the text.
There are translations done better than others. Zhis teaching gives a nice general understanding of what makes them different. I have a controver with many who translate Mat. 17:20 whot the words little faith. When Jesus clearly said unbelief. Even the context determines that he must have said unbelief. Some scholars have gone through great length to show some very glaring inconsistency in different translations. It is good also to remember that sone text differ from From the TR , texus receptus, to the other manuscripts now beeing used, so some key verses totally omitted.
@@johnhamilton286 You do know the only thing that was perfect was the original autographs written by the authors right? Everything after that was copied by men and translated by men. We have very reliable translations such as the LSB, NASB95, ESV, NKJV, KJV that are more literal but then we also have other great translations such as the HCSB, NET, NIV and NET that translate a little more towards the meaning. But we know from all of this we have God’s word. There is no one perfect English translation. Even the KJV1611 translators said in the preface of the 1611 that a better translation could be and should be attained when more and better manuscripts become available.
I will never use the NIV for one simple reason. When it first came out and I read the introduction, it said something to the effect that because the term Lord of Hosts no longer has any meaning for modern readers, we have translated it as Sovereign Lord which means the same thing as He who is sovereign over the hosts of heaven. It does not at all mean the same thing. The proper thing to do was a footnote explaining the meaning of Lord of Hosts instead of changing God’s revelation of Himself. And if the translators play so fast and loose with one of God’s titles, what else have they taken liberty with?
MT 19:16,17 "Good" before Master is omitted. In addition to that, the phrase "Why callest thou me good?" is changed to "Why askest thou me concerning the good?" Good Master is correct and Jesus responded to show the young man that only one was good and that one was God. The conclusion should have been obvious. Since Jesus was good he was necessarily God. The omission and change destroys the intended testimony to the Deity of Christ.
I believe your misunderstanding why these parts of the verses were left out. It is not some grand conspiracy, but simply because on analysing the various manuscripts for the New Testament, they realize that various different text types did not have them. They still acknowledge different readings in their footnotes. Either way, Jesus does preach that people who trust in riches will find it hard to enter the kingdom of heaven, in most trusted versions, including the NIV.
interesting and makes sense, but the main thing that should be of concern to anyone is which manuscript is being translated... the translation is only as good as the 'original.' i.e., if you are using corrupt manuscripts, your translation is not worth much. unfortunately, i was duped into believing that all Bibles have the same source documents so did not realize there are 'phony bibles' out there, thereby causing me to study RSV and NIV for 30+ years. i was devastated when i found out that i had been reading, memorizing, absorbing a counterfeit... a catholic Bible. still, i am grateful for GOD's insight into this issue. HE led me to the KJV.
Praise God in Christ Jesus. I too was led away from KJV thinking they were all the same but God by his word taught to me by one who also seen the confusion after thirty years. Led me back to the KJV in which it dispelled the confusion of God word....amen
Seeing a lot of ignorant KJV onlyist comments. The KJV is good but it is not perfect. Nor is it the best translation for today's readers. This is a great video for explaining the challenges of translating one language to another. My personal favorite is the NLT. It accurately conveys what is said in a readable and understandable way.
Brother I don't care what you choose to believe, or what you choose not to believe; but keep in mind you're talking about our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, calling them all ignorant shows somebody is certainly ignorant, but definitely not them. Your philosophy of sticking to all different versions is fine, and their belief in KJV as the perfect Word of God is fine. I have never found anywhere in God's Word where God commands us to condemn or to berate or to mock, etc. those that believe God has kept His Word perfect in one book (KJV). Why I know of many people that are NIV only, many that are NASB only, I don't care though, they're not hurting anyone, nor are they hurting the body of Christ. It always amazes me how stubborn people can be, I'll always see people go after kjv only folks, but not those that are NIV only, or NASB only. If you're going to go after them, be fare and just, go after all of them or not at all.
@@SpotterVideo I'm just asking you to be specific because there is a lot of misinformation on the internet about Cyprian, and his supposed quotes that allegedly reflect the Textus Receptus. I have access to the multi-volume 'Ante-Nicene Fathers'. I have also dealt with people who have made this claim but so far no one has been able to really support their assertion. What did Cyprian specifically say, or quote, that reflects a TR reading? I'm simply asking you to back up your claim.
@@johnmcafee6140 In Cyprian's letter titled "On the Unity of the Church" he said... [The Lord says, "I and the Father are one," and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, "And these three are one." ] Please look it up for yourself, if you have access to his writings.
@@SpotterVideo Yes I have access to his writings because I have encountered this misinformation in the past and I wanted to be informed. I pretty much knew where this was headed. You are claiming that Cyprian supports the TR’s reading in 1 John 5. The Cyprian argument in favor of 1 John 5:7 is based on a bizarre treatise he wrote (and rewrote several times) titled “De catholicae ecclesiae unitate 6”. Here is the entire passage in question, read it for full context: "The Lord warns, saying, ‘He who is not with me scattereth.’ He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, "I and the Father are one;" and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," And these three are one." And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills? He who does not hold unity does not hold God's law, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation." Did you catch it? Notice the only thing he writes that pertains to 1 John 5:7 is the phrase, "And these three are one". The problem this creates is that this phrase isn't disputed. It appears in *ALL* the earliest manuscripts and modern Bibles. The disputed phrase is, "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost", and Cyprian *NEVER* quotes it anywhere. One of the great historical problems regarding the Comma as authentic is how it escaped ALL Greek witnesses for a millennium and a half. It seems like KJV onlyists just heard someone say Cyprian quoted 1 John 5:7 and assumed it was true without checking any sources. The same is true with most all KJVO claims of support from the Church Fathers. If you would take the time to do some real research (I'm talking books, not internet.) you will find that most claims of this sort are based on such strained parallels and suppositions that they defy credulity.
The NIV always seems to throw out the idiomatic baby with the bathwater, which is why I don't bother consulting it. Let's look at that example from Amos 4.6 again: “I gave you also cleanness of teeth in all your cities" (NASB). “I gave you empty stomachs in every city" (NIV) Why not something that captures the style and the meaning of the original idiom, I ask? The Common Jewish Bible handles it pretty well by saying, "I made your teeth clean of food in all your cities," but if that's still not clear enough, how about, "I gave you nothing to chew in all your cities" or something to that effect? It evokes the teeth-based idiom rather than forcing a completely non-Semitic stomach-related idiom onto the Hebrew text, and it's not likely to be misunderstood by most people, either. So too, the example from Luke 15.20 isn't the greatest advertisement for the NLT. Sure, "fell upon his neck" may be a bit obscure, but "embraced him" dilutes the exact mental picture that the parable provides. The NIV's rendering, "threw his arms around him," is also inadequate, but by making a slight modification to the NIV's phrasing, the HCSB offers an ideal solution: "threw his arms around his neck." A good literary translation that favors functional equivalence isn't impossible. The Revised English Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible prove that. Unfortunately, the NIV, NABRE, CEB, NET, and other such "mediating" translations seem dead-set on blandness.
Notice Jesus quoted from the Septuagint: In Mark 7:6-7, Jesus quotes the LXX of Isaiah 29:13 when he says, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’" Also, in the Septuagint, Amos 4:6 says "And I will give you DULLNESS of teeth in all your cities and want of bread...." Was Jesus wrong in quoting from the Septuagint and for the disciples to use it? Protestant authors Archer and Chirichigno list 340 places where the New Testament cites the Septuagint but only 33 places where it cites from the Masoretic Text rather than the Septuagint (G. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, 25-32). Would the Septuagint be labeled a corrupt translation/version? I don't disagree that God's written Word is being corrupted by modern Christianity self-help gospel and by politically correct translations, but the 1984 NIV is not one of them. (Although not affecting any doctrinal change, the later NIV's (among other translations) are playing fiddle to modern social sensitivity issues and that's where I draw a line.) Relating directly to the post above: The use of "cleanness of teeth" made me think God gave everyone pearly whites. We just don't have that saying in America. I had no idea what he meant, the NASB didn't help me. The NIV "empty stomachs" translation got me closer to understanding, and the translation I use (not NIV) has "I also have scheduled food shortages for you in all your cities", I felt that conveyed the idea even more so. Basically, God called for famine. I get it now. I feel the Luke 15:20 argument of "threw his arms around his neck" vs. "threw his arms around him" is a hair-splitting non-issue. The Jewish Orthodox Bible has "and fell upon his neck", so do I take this literally "FELL upon his neck"? What to do here? Give me a difference in translation or manuscript where any doctrine has been affected. We seem to be overly critical where we don't need to be and less where we do, like straining at a gnat but swallowing the camel. I'm absolutely sure God can use and does use most translations to bring people to himself. The Holy Spirit convicts me well enough using the version I have (it's not the NIV) and has given me no indication over 41 years that the translations I have used were corrupt and he's not silent I can definitely assure you. So whether God speaks through the Septuagint, the NIV, the NASB or the ____fill in the blank, he's bringing people to himself. Let him be the judge. (That last statement does not mean that I don't have a preference and don't avoid translations I don't like reading and I DO think some translations are not close enough to the original to be trusted.)
Very interesting lecture. I use KJV for study. I also use the NASB and YLT NTL. I have just bought the MEV. I have around 50 Bibles There is something I dislike about many of the modern Bibles and that centres on John 3:16. They replace Only begotten with Only or Unique. The Lord is not the Only Son of God, There are many but only one begotten., He is the only begotten Son of God (Mono-Genesis). They take this I believe because Isaac is called Abrahams only begotten. Well Abraham had many sons including the ones from his concubines.. The one thing they all had in common was they were all begotten. So why get rid of the word begotten and use the word only? They also use Greek mythology.
My recommendation is a modern spelling of tyndale new testament, the Matthew bible, the great bible, or the October [new] testament aka new Matthew bible.
I use to think that. I have a 1537 matthews bible Facsimile that I reference every once in while. Tyndale did contribute a lot to what we have today, the KJV. But, after much research, study, and confirmations thru many brothers and sisters, I believe the KJV is God's preserved Word, purified 7 times. There is none other like it.
Rob012 Your opinions are a gross distortion of THE TRUTH! The irrefutable Psalms 12 and “Preservation” truth. So many believe the FALSE notion that Psalms 12:6-7 is a proof passage for “preservation” of God’s word ONLY for the KJ. They would be right if and only if the Psalmist wrote in English. But the Psalmist wrote in ancient Hebrew. The Psalms 12 truth... You can read about the first attempt at the FALSE application of Psalm 12:6-7 and the first proponent of KJ onlyism from a book written in 1930 by a Seventh Day Adventist, Benjamin G. Wilkinson. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_G._Wilkinson His book* went nowhere. However two others, James Jasper Ray and the other a Baptist preacher - David Otis Fuller, plagiarized his* work - nearly half of Fuller’s “Which Bible” is Wikinson’s* work w/ no reference to him*. By the way, today, Dr D. A. Waite, another King James Only-ist that can’t debate the KJ only position to save his life, distributes Wilkinson’s book, “Our Authorized Bible Vindicated.” Doesn’t make sense to me being Dr Waite is Jesus-loving pastor who does not support the SDA heresies. DA Waite m.ua-cam.com/video/-fWbJH-LRSc/v-deo.html Peter Ruckman* liked the (false) Psalms 12 theory because it promoted what he wanted to hear, COMPLETELY ignoring the Hebrew, who passed it along to his “disciples” and such. Larry is willing to follow SDAs, that’s ok by me. I’m not goin’ there - you can! This is a FALSE application of an incomplete passage. I fear for the person who sinned by “cherry picking” Vs 6-7 from the complete Psalms 12:5-7. Doing so derives a meaning different than God intended. He* displayed his naïvety not knowing the Hebrew rules (or ignoring them) about nouns & pronouns - the genders MUST match just like Italian or Spanish. READ THIS CAREFULLY, quoted from YOUR translation: 5 “For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.” All nouns are masculine 6 The words of the Lord are pure words*: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven** times**. Noun is female* 7 Thou shalt keep them***, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them*** from this generation for ever.” ***pronoun male gender Psalms 12:5 & 7 is about the people in V5, NOT the words in V6. ** this does not apply to the 8 or 9 number of English translations that preceded the KJ as no matter how you count them, it doesn’t jive. Several I’ve debated was so cultic to insist “Gender doesn’t matter.” Try telling that to an Italian, Spaniard, Frenchman, and the modern language of Israel. To deny gender matters is GROSS & willful IGNORANCE of the truth. That’s the irrefutable Psalms 12 truth - kinda blows your preservation proof passage theory that is specific ONLY to the KJ. In reality God preserved His Word right through the English translations of today. Either He preserves His Word in ALL translations or in NONE - NO middle ground. You can no more prove divine favoritism than a perfect translation.
Rob012 Your opinions are a gross distortion of THE TRUTH! The irrefutable Psalms 12 and “Preservation” truth. So many believe the FALSE notion that Psalms 12:6-7 is a proof passage for “preservation” of God’s word ONLY for the KJ. They would be right if and only if the Psalmist wrote in English. But the Psalmist wrote in ancient Hebrew. The Psalms 12 truth... You can read about the first attempt at the FALSE application of Psalm 12:6-7 and the first proponent of KJ onlyism from a book written in 1930 by a Seventh Day Adventist, Benjamin G. Wilkinson. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_G._Wilkinson His book* went nowhere. However two others, James Jasper Ray and the other a Baptist preacher - David Otis Fuller, plagiarized his* work - nearly half of Fuller’s “Which Bible” is Wikinson’s* work w/ no reference to him*. By the way, today, Dr D. A. Waite, another King James Only-ist that can’t debate the KJ only position to save his life, distributes Wilkinson’s book, “Our Authorized Bible Vindicated.” Doesn’t make sense to me being Dr Waite is Jesus-loving pastor who does not support the SDA heresies. DA Waite m.ua-cam.com/video/-fWbJH-LRSc/v-deo.html Peter Ruckman* liked the (false) Psalms 12 theory because it promoted what he wanted to hear, COMPLETELY ignoring the Hebrew, who passed it along to his “disciples” and such. Larry is willing to follow SDAs, that’s ok by me. I’m not goin’ there - you can! This is a FALSE application of an incomplete passage. I fear for the person who sinned by “cherry picking” Vs 6-7 from the complete Psalms 12:5-7. Doing so derives a meaning different than God intended. He* displayed his naïvety not knowing the Hebrew rules (or ignoring them) about nouns & pronouns - the genders MUST match just like Italian or Spanish. READ THIS CAREFULLY, quoted from YOUR translation: 5 “For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.” All nouns are masculine 6 The words of the Lord are pure words*: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven** times**. Noun is female* 7 Thou shalt keep them***, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them*** from this generation for ever.” ***pronoun male gender Psalms 12:5 & 7 is about the people in V5, NOT the words in V6. ** this does not apply to the 8 or 9 number of English translations that preceded the KJ as no matter how you count them, it doesn’t jive. Several I’ve debated was so cultic to insist “Gender doesn’t matter.” Try telling that to an Italian, Spaniard, Frenchman, and the modern language of Israel. To deny gender matters is GROSS & willful IGNORANCE of the truth. That’s the irrefutable Psalms 12 truth - kinda blows your preservation proof passage theory that is specific ONLY to the KJ. In reality God preserved His Word right through the English translations of today. Either He preserves His Word in ALL translations or in NONE - NO middle ground. You can no more prove divine favoritism than a perfect translation.
Rob012 Your opinions are a gross distortion of THE TRUTH! The irrefutable Psalms 12 and “Preservation” truth. So many believe the FALSE notion that Psalms 12:6-7 is a proof passage for “preservation” of God’s word ONLY for the KJ. They would be right if and only if the Psalmist wrote in English. But the Psalmist wrote in ancient Hebrew. The Psalms 12 truth... You can read about the first attempt at the FALSE application of Psalm 12:6-7 and the first proponent of KJ onlyism from a book written in 1930 by a Seventh Day Adventist, Benjamin G. Wilkinson. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_G._Wilkinson His book* went nowhere. However two others, James Jasper Ray and the other a Baptist preacher - David Otis Fuller, plagiarized his* work - nearly half of Fuller’s “Which Bible” is Wikinson’s* work w/ no reference to him*. By the way, today, Dr D. A. Waite, another King James Only-ist that can’t debate the KJ only position to save his life, distributes Wilkinson’s book, “Our Authorized Bible Vindicated.” Doesn’t make sense to me being Dr Waite is Jesus-loving pastor who does not support the SDA heresies. DA Waite m.ua-cam.com/video/-fWbJH-LRSc/v-deo.html Peter Ruckman* liked the (false) Psalms 12 theory because it promoted what he wanted to hear, COMPLETELY ignoring the Hebrew, who passed it along to his “disciples” and such. Larry is willing to follow SDAs, that’s ok by me. I’m not goin’ there - you can! This is a FALSE application of an incomplete passage. I fear for the person who sinned by “cherry picking” Vs 6-7 from the complete Psalms 12:5-7. Doing so derives a meaning different than God intended. He* displayed his naïvety not knowing the Hebrew rules (or ignoring them) about nouns & pronouns - the genders MUST match just like Italian or Spanish. READ THIS CAREFULLY, quoted from YOUR translation: 5 “For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.” All nouns are masculine 6 The words of the Lord are pure words*: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven** times**. Noun is female* 7 Thou shalt keep them***, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them*** from this generation for ever.” ***pronoun male gender Psalms 12:5 & 7 is about the people in V5, NOT the words in V6. ** this does not apply to the 8 or 9 number of English translations that preceded the KJ as no matter how you count them, it doesn’t jive. Several I’ve debated was so cultic to insist “Gender doesn’t matter.” Try telling that to an Italian, Spaniard, Frenchman, and the modern language of Israel. To deny gender matters is GROSS & willful IGNORANCE of the truth. That’s the irrefutable Psalms 12 truth - kinda blows your preservation proof passage theory that is specific ONLY to the KJ. In reality God preserved His Word right through the English translations of today. Either He preserves His Word in ALL translations or in NONE - NO middle ground. You can no more prove divine favoritism than a perfect translation.
It's not a matter of translation. It's a matter of the source. Anyone can make an excellent translation of a bad book. What bible do you trust to be the pure words of God?
@@brianholly3555 He does. It's called the Holy Spirit that dwells inside the heart of the believers. If one is not saved, they will not fully understand the words of His book.
all these translation examples in which the speaker tries to demonstrate that there is no such thing as a "literal" rendering, may be easily demonstrated in everyday practical speech languages of our time, but are not much worth when it comes to translating the NT, ... they are mostly hypothetical, and do not represent the text of the NT very good... a "literal" rendering of the NT text is indeed possible in most cases... for example, in Luke, where we find some of the finest Greek language of the first century... is the Greek language of St Luke koine "street" language, everyday speech language, spoken by most people in koine Greek, as Luke wrote it...?? i do not think so... is the Greek of the Epistle to the Hebrews written in the kind of language most "unlearned" people spoke on the street in the first century...? i do not think so... let's look at Luke 4.36b Τίς ὁ λόγος οὗτος = "what word [is] this?" ... this sentence so rendered into English is a perfectly "literal" rendering of the Greek, in that context, of that passage... sometimes logos may mean something other than "word" or "speech", but does that mean that it is not to to be translated "literal" within its context...? of course not... literal rendering is literal rendering within each context... that a word may have more than one meaning, does not do away with that....
The modern versions are using the Critical Greek text which was produced by Westcott and Hort in 1881. These two guys were not true believers. They worshipped Mary, promoted their seance club, adored Darwin and loved his message. They hated the textus receptus of which the KJV uses. The modern versions change doctrine. They breed doubt with their ever-changing versions. God promised to preserve His Word. PSALM 12:6,7 KJV
All translations are good, but some are just a little better than others. If there is a particular scripture that interests me, I use biblehub.com to compare many translations at once, and see why if there are large discrepancies. Another issue in some bibles like the King James Bible is that it promotes the trinity over the original writings and intended thoughts of the writers, and that is because the churches have deviated from Gods word since the 3rd and 4th centuries and substitute it for pagan ideals and false traditions that have permeated into Christianity, such as Christmas, Easter, The Cross and The Trinity Which is widely and independently documented. The Churches have become the new unfaithful Israel of old in that everything that the church teaches has become false. It even goes to blatantly say to its followers, they are not pagan, they are Christian teachings and celebrations, when in fact they are fully pagan and not from gods word. For example, the substitution of the name Jehovah to Lord, God, or any other title is there to purposely promote the Trinity and not the truth of Gods word and only serves the devil who is misleading the entire world. The link below is a short video of this point. www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/VODBibleTeachings/docid-502014331_1_VIDEO The New World Translation of the bible has set out to make the most accurate translation as I will link several short videos you can watch to prove this at the very bottom. Another way it has tried to do this is by adding the name Jehovah back to its original laces which appears in the manuscripts provided. By doing this it Solidifies the proof that Jesus is not God, and that the only true God Jehovah is not part of a trinity. Another such instance is on the subject of the Cross or Crucifix. The Greek word generally translated “cross” is stau·rosʹ. It basically means “an upright pale or stake.” The Companion Bible points out: “[Stau·rosʹ] never means two pieces of timber placed across one another at any angle . . . There is nothing in the Greek of the [New Testament] even to imply two pieces of timber.” In several texts, Bible writers use another word for the instrument of Jesus’ death. It is the Greek word xyʹlon. (Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; Galatians 3:13; 1 Peter 2:24). This word simply means “timber” or “a stick, club, or tree.” The word cross was introduced to English in the tenth century as the term for the instrument of the torturous execution of Christ (gr. stauros', xy'lon), gradually replacing rood, ultimately from Latin crux, via Old Irish cros. Originally, both "rood" and "crux" referred simply to any "pole," the later shape associated with the term being based in church tradition, rather than etymology. I have also listed some independent sources which will verify this: The Washington Post: www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the-cross/2017/04/14/dae63c1a-1fa8-11e7-be2a-3a1fb24d4671_story.html Encyclopaedia Britannica.com: www.britannica.com/topic/cross-religious-symbol You will see that the same crosses used in Egyptian worship is used by many false Christians churches today. ABC NEWS: abcnews.go.com/GMA/jesus-christ-died-cross-scholar/story?id=11066130 Symbol Dictionary.com: symboldictionary.net/?p=2044 Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ CrossEncyclopaedia.com: www.encyclopedia.com/philosophy-and-religion/christianity/christianity-general/cross You may say there is also plenty of proof that the Cross is not similar or does not denote the same pagan god's but the true god in the bible? But if that is the case and Jesus was not Crucified, then why use this symbol at all. Why not use the symbol of an upright pole than the Cross? To ignore this fact is to ignore the accuracies of the scriptures. Romans 3:13 is accurately translated here by New World translation and the New International Version as - "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole." In fact of the over 20 translations of Romans 3:13, only the New Living Translation translates it with the word cross, the others accurately use word pole or tree.... biblehub.com/galatians/3-13.htm Acts 5:30 also defines the way Jesus died was on a tree. Of the above 29 translations, only 6 pro Trinity bibles use the word cross. biblehub.com/acts/5-30.htm I commend these bible translations for accurately using the original text and not the traditional pagan understanding. However, in Ephesians 2:16 New World Translation (NWT) translates this scripture using the words "torture stake", but the same other 29 bibles above all translate this with the word "cross" or "crucifix". And only the Jubilee Bible 2000 translates it with the added Greek word stake, when it translates it this way: "and to reconcile both with God by the cross {Gr. stauros - stake} in one body, having slain the enmity thereby;". biblehub.com/ephesians/2-16.htm And again the same 29 translations above all translate 1Corrinthians 1:18 with the words "Cross" or crucifix", and again the Jubilee Bible 2000 puts in (Stake) as per Ephesians 2:16 above., but the NWT is the only one that translates it using the words torture stake and not mention the cross or crucifix in any of its translations.... In fact there are many scriptures in the above 29 translations that inaccurately include the words cross or crucifix to promote a false doctrine and idol of pagan gods perpetuated by the Church. Unfortunately it doesn't make the it right, and unfortunately many who honest hearted persons have come to believe this lie as the truth when it is not and are being mislead. As promised, here are some short videos that you or any one else will see to what extent the Jehovah's Witnesses go through to accurately translate the bible. www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/VODBibleTranslations/docid-502014271_1_VIDEO The ancient manuscripts: www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/VODBibleTranslations/docid-502018464_1_VIDEO The love in truthful translations: www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/VODBibleTranslations/docid-502016501_1_VIDEO Previous pioneers of bible translators: www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/VODBibleTranslations/docid-502017151_1_VIDEO Correcting latin translations: www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/VODBibleTranslations/docid-502017151_1_VIDEO
@Jane Dough Hi Jane... That is why some translations are better than others. I use biblehub.com to compare many scriptures with many bibles at once. I am sure that you will also find this tool useful. In addition to the information about the Cross from my last comment I thought that the following would interest you. Jehovah is God's name translated into English. It is pronounced differently in many countries because of their consonants and vowels. No one knows exactly what the pronunciation is, because people stopped using it out of superstitious beliefs as taught by the religious leaders, who replaced God's name Jehovah with Elohim meaning God, and Adonay' meaning Lord, and as a result the pronunciation was lost forever over time. Many have argued and gotten nowhere. However, the bible records God’s name Jehovah some 7000 times. And the bible writers recorded that name in the bible, and used God’s name and identified it as the name of the only true God. No matter how it is pronounced today we to should not stop using this name as it praises the one and only true God, and separates him from the multitudes of pagan god's. King David even wrote songs about God’s name in Psalms 69:30 it reads “I will praise the name of God with a song, and will magnify Him with thanksgiving”. - New King James Version. Psalms 86:12 also reads “I shall confess to you, Lord Jehovah, my God, from my whole heart and I shall glorify your Name to eternity!” - Aramaic Bible in Plain English As someone who knew God intimately, Jesus used God’s name many times. It is recorded for us throughout the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Unfortunately you would not know that as many bibles have removed God’s name Jehovah from the bible to support the trinity. Interestingly, nowhere in the bible does Jesus say he is God, or calls himself Jehovah. Jesus said in Matthew 6:9 (in what is known as the Lord’s Prayer), first and foremost when praying before praying about anything else first, Jesus said: “In this manner, therefore, pray: Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be Your name”. Then in verse 10 “Your kingdom come. Your will be done On earth as it is in heaven.” - New King James Version. Since we don’t commonly use the word Hallowed today, another translation reads it this way “You should pray like this: Our Father in heaven, help us to honour your name”. - Contemporary English Version. We cannot honour God’s name if we don’t use it, or remove it from the bible. In fact, that is the precise reason why we don’t know the exact pronunciation of God’s name, because people stopped using it. Jesus made it a priority to teach people about God’s name throughout his ministry. Mark 12:28 to 30 says “And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The LORD (Jehovah Deu 6:4 ) our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the LORD(Jehovah Deu 6:5; Jos 22:5 ) thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. However in the original manuscripts the word Lord does not exist and was added instead of Jehovah, and should actually be translated as “One of the scribes who had come up and heard them disputing, knowing that he had answered them in a fine way, asked him: “Which commandment is first of all?” Jesus answered: “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah, and you must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind and with your whole strength.’” - New World Translation. Today there are only 4 bibles which translate this verse with the name Jehovah. The two above and the other is the Aramaic Bible in Plain English and the Devine Name King James Bible. The rest preferring to use Lord instead of Jehovah. At the end of his ministry Jesus said in John 17:25 &26 “O righteous Father! The world has not known You, but I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me. And I have declared to them Your name, and will declare it, that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them” - New King James Version. Jesus loved his Father and God Jehovah and declared his name to all who would listen. Unlike Jesus, all bibles commonly available today substitute the name Jehovah for Lord in Romans 10:13, with the exception of the New World Translation, and the recently released Divine Name King James Bible and the Aramaic bible in Plain English which reads “For “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.” Verse 14 includes why it is important to use God’s name “However, how will they call on him if they have not put faith in him? How, in turn, will they put faith in him about whom they have not heard? How, in turn, will they hear without someone to preach?” - New World Translation. Certainly this name is most important name in the bible. Why? Because it is the most used name there. It is the name of our God as he himself proclaims in Isiah 42:8 “I am Jehovah, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise unto graven images” - American Standard Version. Since Jesus used, proclaimed and taught his followers to pray to the God which that name belongs to, it makes sense that the name YHWY or more commonly Jehovah translated into English is there in the New Testament as well as the old. This link explains why the Fouad manuscripts were so important in the returning Gods name back into the bible in the Greek Scriptures. www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/VODBibleTranslations/docid-502018464_1_VIDEO. The new Devine Name King James bible has set to correct a serious error by returning God’s name back in its 7000 places. As the forward in the Divine Name King James Bible reads “The translators of the Authorized King James Version of the Bible the translators knew that God’s name is Jehovah and put it in the Bible in 4 places and in over 6000 places put LORD where they could see God's name. There are now thousands upon thousands of ancient hand written copies of the Bible that clearly show where God's name appears in the Bible”. You can read both the New World Translation and the Divine Name King James Bible on line it online at www.jw.org/en/& www.dnkjb.net/ I love this quote from the publishers of the Divine Name King James Bible (DNKJB). “One only need to keep in mind that the King James Bible is known for the liberty its translators took when choosing how to express God's name without really using it. Imagine any great autobiography where the name of the key person was removed”. Also, “We have kept in mind our brother scribes from ancient times as we worked and endeavoured to be as meticulous as they. Whatever our costs have been, the results we believe transforms the King James Bible into a word far more comprehensible, with Jehovah's name in the text do the work of eliminating the source of countless contradictions that the word LORD has caused. We make no apology for saying that The Divine Name King James Bible is merely saying what the King James Bible should have been saying for the last 400 years”. dnkjb.net/faq_dnkjb_online.htm#official_dnkjb The translation of the Tetragrammaton YHWY in the original manuscripts does not translate to Lord. Lord is a title, where YHWH is God’s name, and most commonly this translates to Jehovah in English. Like Jesus, the apostles and bible writers we should follow their dedication in preserving God’s name and use it as instructed, with honour and with the aim to sanctifying it. If God put his name in the bible it must be there for a purpose, after all 2Timmothy 3:16 reads “Everything in the Scriptures is God's Word. All of it is useful for teaching and helping people and for correcting them and showing them how to live” - Contemporary English Version. For an explanation to why YHWH is translated to Jehovah in English please see these short videos: www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/VODBibleTranslations/pub-wmt_3_VIDEO . www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/VODBibleTranslations/docid-502017151_1_VIDEO . This link explains why the Fouad manuscripts were so important in the returning Gods name back into the Greek Scriptures in the bible. www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/VODBibleTranslations/docid-502018464_1_VIDEO.
Ah, like the New King James or Young's Literal Translation, or the Geneva Bible, or die Lutherbibel, or Schlachter 2000 or the Reina Valera Antigua etc. etc. etc.
God is not the author of confusion over 230 translations since 1881 started with the RSV yet there is more unsaved people in America today than ever before.wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Matt 7:20 King James Bible AV1611
One big problem with modern Bible translations is found in Luke 24:47. In that scripture the KJV reads "and that repentance AND remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations beginning at Jerusalem." The modern translations change the word AND into FOR. That is a problem because repentance and remission of sins is two separate events. Repentance takes care of the lifestyle and remission of sins takes care of the record. The new translations are saying by that scripture that repentance is for the remission of sins which is not correct. Hence, (KJV) Matthew 26:28, Luke 24:47, Acts 2:38, 22:16.
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." -Revelation 22:18-19 KJV This is why you should ONLY trust the KJV. God didn't put those words in there by accident. -JSA
I am a King James Bible believer I don't agree in saying that there is no perfect translation. The King James Bible is the perfect inspired Words of God. Thank you
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. The NIV perverts John 3:16 into a LIE! JOHN 3:16: The NIV reads, "For God so loved the world that he gave his ONE AND ONLY SON, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" Jesus was NOT "the one and only son" - Adam is called the "son of God" in Luke 3:38, there are "sons of God" in Job 1:6 and Christians are called "sons of God" in Phil 2:15, I John 3:2- but Jesus was the "ONLY BEGOTTEN SON"! By removing the critical word "BEGOTTEN" - The NIV perverts John 3:16 into a LIE! The NIV does the same in John 1:14, 1:18, and 3:18.
WHY THE KING JAMES BIBLE IS SO BELOVED BY FUNDAMENTALISTS THOUGH IT'S SO INACCURATE Neo Evangelicals (what we used to call Fundamentalists) keep insisting there is such a thing as "The Bible," which they call "The Word of God." They would have everyone believe it was dictated by God to men who simply wrote down God's words, flawlessly. They also say every single word in what they present to their converts as a single volume book, written 411 years ago in what-is-now-antiquated-and-very-difficult-for-most-people-to-understand English, was divinely inspired. If they could, they'd leave it right there, and because most people in their churches never bother once to question any further, they assume what they were told to believe is true. So, when these people hear or read a different bible that has "changes" in it or which "leaves things out," it's understandably confusing. It's often only at this time they are finally told the Bible was not actually written in Old English, but was translated from the ancient languages of Greece and the Hebrew spoken by the ancient, Jewish people. Should they begin asking questions, the leaders of these relatively new believers resort to several fall back positions to keep their flocks believing there is still only one, perfect English bible--the King James Version. One of their tricks is to say, "Oh, but the Greek and Hebrew texts used by the King James translators are the only true bible, the Textus Receptus." Sounds pretty inspired, right? After all, if it's in Latin, that's gotta be divinely inspired, yeah? Sorry, but the term "textus receptus" is just a line found in the introduction to a printed edition of the Greek New Testament in the late 1500s by a printer who wanted to sell his books so, naturally, he made it sound like his edition was error free by simply saying it was! But it wasn't! There were several printed editions of the New Testament, for example, that came out since the first one by a guy named Erasmus about the same time Luther began the Protestant Reformation in 1517. His first edition was rather sloppily done, since he was in a hurry to get it done before another printed edition (known as the Polyglot) came out first. But none of the printed Greek New Testaments of the 16th and early 17th Centuries were all that great, since they relied on hand-written Greek texts which had to be borrowed from universities who were rather stingy with what they had, and what they had, for the most part, dated after the end of the first millennium! Here's the thing to understand--all the books we think of as "The" Bible, are a collection of books that varied from one religious body to another--Catholic, Orthodox, Old Protestant, Later Protestant and so on--but NONE of those books are still around! Every single bible "book", all written in ancient languages that are now all dead, were lost to the ravages of history! All we have today are copies of them, that is, copies of copies of copies! It's true that there are 1000s of these copies, but MANY of them are just little scraps of "paper," written on papyrus or, sometimes, vellum and occasionally on some pottery. Sadly, we don't even have any complete versions of the oldest copies of the Bible until we get to 2 and 3 centuries after the originals were all lost! And these 1000s of texts are DIFFERENT! Over all those centuries, the copyists made a lot of mistakes or decided to add things or take some things out. Some had really bad handwriting. Some were copied from an earlier copy that had all sorts of notes scribbled on the side (like some people do with their bibles today) but the copyists didn't think it mattered which parts they was copying, so they just included them in the main body of the text of new copy (the fancy name for this is an "interpolation")! And then there was the problem of not hearing properly what was said as one guy was reading aloud from an earlier copy, and the listening copyist got the word wrong, or lost his place (This was the ancient version of a copy machine, in what was called a "scriptorium," that made it slightly less expensive to make copies of any particular document, since they ALL had to be done BY HAND!) So, what to do, if you REALLY want to know what the Bible originally said? Well, you can just believe whatever it is your preacher or teacher tells you which printed book IS THE Bible, and just ignore the fact that he was specifically trained to uphold the MAN-MADE DOCTRINES his church denomination or sect or mega-church, wants you to believe...or you can rely on REAL SCHOLARS who from REAL UNIVERSITIES who don't really care about doctrinal implications and, consequently, are going to give you the best translations from the best (oldest and most reliable) copies archeologists have discovered. They way they do this is the same way real scholars, like detectives, take all copies of ancient documents--from the Iliad and Odyssey to Beowulf--applying the disciplines of the Textual and Contextual Criticism, to sort out as many of the errors as possible in order to arrive at what was most likely in the original writings (autographs). After this, it falls to unprejudiced, biblical and historical scholars to make sense of what the original bible texts said. Trouble is, almost all Neo Evangelical preachers and teachers are not interested in finding out what the bible originally said, much less, what the writers of those original documents intended their words to mean, and even far less, what all of their original words and intentions, put together, mean for us today! Instead, they're goal is to ensure they get more converts to believe what they're told to believe, and to do what they're told to do, very often, just to serve the interests of their very wealthy and powerful political allies. This is why anyone who really wants to know what the original Bible had to say should avoid translations (like the NASB) or faux translations (like the Living Bible), issued by "Christian" publishing houses. These heavily skewed versions of the bible are specifically designed to promote certain man-made doctrines...and to make no small amount of money in the process! Rick Lannoye, author of www.amazon.com/Rightly-Dividing-Word-Properly-Interpret/dp/B091LSMD9N Are you a victim of bible abuse? Get help at ricklannoye.com/contact
Facts: there are hundreds of variant versions of Christian Bibles none match each other or the original koine Greek NT Papyrus or Hebrew Tanakh or Dead sea scrolls.... The NIV at least points out additions to the NT not found in koine Greek. But ignores changes made to Hebrew Bible such as Isaiah 7:14 "virgin" insertion.
I guess you don't believe that God can preserve his word, and that there isn't an enemy of God who is doing everything in his power to corrupt the Word of God.
The reality is, most will go to a translation which can be used, by it's ambiguous language, to support what they want the truth to be rather than what the bible is actually teaching. Case in point. Most bible translations used today in English other than the King James version were printed after 1952. What is significant about that year. In 1950 the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures was released and immediately met with sever criticism. The biggest argument against it was that the NWT had put God's original name in places where the writer was quoting from an old testament verse that contained that name. In 1952 a conference was held by bible publishers on how to combat the NWT and prevent people from looking at it. While there has never been a comprehensive study of the NWT and it's adherence to accurate Greek and Hebrew translation, the version was attacked, not on the basis of faulty translation but on the fact that it didn't support the teachings of the church as much as the older KJV did. The fake news about it was that it was changed to support the Jehovah's Witness teaching. This false statement was made to cause a distrust of it and prevent people from even considering it. So it was decided that in order to preserve the idea of a trinity, for example, which putting God's name where it belongs would lead to confusion on this point, from now on, God's name would appear no where. The idea was to promote church doctrine regardless of whether it agreed with the bible or not. Showing that accurate translation was not their goal. When looking at most all modern English translations, you find that they are in reality, revisions of the KJV and not translations at all. While a better understanding of some Greek and Hebrew words can lead to a better understanding of what the writer was saying, the KJV was used as the basis for all later versions. This can be seen by how they will mistranslate words or verses in the exact same places that the KJV does. For instance, one example can be found at Matthew 24:3 where we find the Apostles asking what will be the sign of Jesus "coming" Greek "erkominon". Problem is, the Greek word used there is "parosia" which translates literally as "standing along side" or as the NWT and Youngs translation states, "presence". Denoting the idea that he has arrived and is standing along side, not that he is on his way but has not yet arrived, as the word coming implies. Every other version makes this same mistake. Showing that they are not actually translating from the Hebrew and Greek. But in reality updating the language of the KJV and doing so in a way to preserve doctrine and not the words of the writers.
I feel very sorry for this man. He has made his own scholarship his final authority. Does he not understand that all manuscripts themselves are copies of copies. The real question each Bible student must answer for themselves is do they feel the book they have in hand was inspired by God? If it was it will not relegate Jesus Christ to a mere servant at Acts 3:13, 26. It will not make the same mistake at Heb 3:16. It will totally agree with itself at each and every scripture.
It's not inaccurate to say Jesus was a servant because he was. He was God's servant and His Son. The NIV doesn't hide the fact that Jesus was God's Son. You are nit picking at variations in translational texts. A son can also be a servant to his father, case in point; the prodigal son asked his father to let him be a servant in his house.
I'll admit that though my Bible reading is from the 1611, I have been harsh on the KJV-onlyists. Now, there are nut jobs like Sam Gipp and Ruckman who have truly insane ideas about the 1611, but not all are so militant. I'm starting to think I have no use for other translations. I know of a church which has changed their Bible translation three times in about 5 years. It has a HUGE congregation...🤔. To me, I would not only be questioning the spiritual condition of the pastor, but openly questioning the reasons as well. I'm also curious why we have had over 200 different translations since 1881. I know there were bible translations before the KJV, but the differences in those in comparison to the ones now are light years away. This whole "English changes" argument is more of an excuse than a reason for new translations every couple of years. Our language doesn't change so fast that I feel the need to buy the latest dictionary every couple of years to converse with another-ridiculous. I think the real reason is to cloud the water to the point of total confusion where they will all be combined into an ecumenical version which suits everyone who desires to make God's word say what they want it to.
Well. Some translations try to factor in the solar system, evolution, gravity, etc. They also are meant to accommodate the women's movement and lbgt. So you have to also consider some books have also been excluded to accommodate these concepts.
@@Logos1000 really. Wow. Well those are versions that start the first verse with saying, Heavens plural in the first verse. The scriptures originally taught the earth was stationary. There's a firmament between us and God. The sun, moon, and stars go around us. I don't accept teachings such as solar system. Planets and aliens. That's unscriptural. The book of Enoch goes into more detail.
COMPARISON CHART Characteristic TYRUS TYRE (Book of Ezekiel) (History, geographical) An island? Yes, 27:4 No, (Lk 6:17) 24 hour destruction by Yes, 26 No Invasion, earthquakes, tsunamis Inhabited today? No, 26:20 Yes Ships by fir trees of Syria Yes, 27:5 No, cedar Import purple dye of Syria Yes, 27:16 No, main export Import purple dye of Cyprus Yes, 27:7 No, main export Imported cedar from Lebanon Yes, 27:5 No, in Lebanon Rebuilt after destruction No, 27:36 Yes, beautiful Being searched for Yes, 26:21 No Disappeared into sea Yes, 26:19 No Exists today No, 26:21, 27:36 Yes Island surface washed away Yes, 26:4 No Located at entry of sea Yes, 27:3 No Defeated by Nebuchadrezzar Yes, 26:7-12 No Incomprehensible gold & silver Yes, 28:4-5 No AKA bible nickname Renowned City, 26:17 Crowning City, Is 23:8
God didn't say after he saved you through the King James Bible to go look for another bible to get a different understanding when you receive the Holy Spirit hes the one that leads you and guide you in the old truth
Mk 10:24 "for them that trust in riches" is left out. This is a very glaring doctrinal error. It is not hard to enter into the kingdom of God (salvation is a free gift through faith in Jesus Christ) but it is hard for those who trust in riches to trust Christ alone for salvation. Their God is their wealth and it is no more compatible with Christ than Dagon was with the Ark of God (see 1 Sam. 5:1-5).
It is best to study multiple translations alongside each other, this method has made my study flow a lot better.
I have the KJV, NKJV, and NASB. But I just LOVE reading my NLT. I can breeze right through with perfect understanding. I use the others for study, but of course I have to read them slow because they can be hard to understand sometimes.
The fact that the word "begotten" has been wrongfully removed from John 3:16 should be enough reason for every Christian to reject their NLT.
Luke 4:4 (New American Standard version)
4And Jesus answered him, "It is written, '(A)MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE.'"
Luke 4:4 (King James Bible)
4And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
“but by every word of God”. Gone from NASV
The NASV is not a trustworthy translation.
Matthew 9:13 (New American Standard Bible)
13"But go and learn (A)what this means: '(B)I DESIRE COMPASSION, [a]AND NOT SACRIFICE,' for (C)I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
Matthew 9:13 (King James)
13But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
“to repentance”. Vanished, Gone from NASV, NIV, etc! Repentance is Jesus' requirement for forgiveness. Jesus wants all sinners to repent! No repentance ---> no salvation.
@@ColonelEmpire The fact that KJ adds 1 John 5:7 is enough to reject it....
and yes, I'm exaggerating, but I'm using your logic.
Thank you for giving the NET some love! I discovered it because of their full translation notes and have really enjoyed their faithful, but fresh approach to the translation.
This video explains translation in an easy-to-understand way. This is an absolutely MUST SEE video for every Bible reader, most especially for those who believe or have been told that they have in their possession the only accurate English translation. After viewing the entire video, I agree with Mark Strauss' statement at 2m:9s; "... use more than one translation..." When I'm studying my Bible, I use the KJV, NKJV, and the ESV, which are meant to be word-for-word translations. I will now include within my studies the NIV and NLT, both thought-for-thought translations. Thank you for this video.
Amen!
I use six😊
I've been an ESV, NASB and KJV reader for the most part, but now I am exploring CSB and finding it very readable and giving me more understanding of the text.
Same here!
John 7:8 (New American Standard version)
8"Go up to the feast yourselves; I do not go up to this feast because (A)My time has not yet fully come."
John 7:8 (King James Bible)
8Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast: for my time is not yet full come.
“Yet” Removed from NASV!
COMMENT: By omitting the word 'yet' the NASV makes Jesus who is God and the Saviour a liar, because he did later go up to the feast. (John 7:10)
A point many seem to lose sight of along the way is that there is NO such thing as an inspired translation. God decided that eons ago when he inspired men to write both Testaments in their respective original languages.
I'm a Spanish speaker, I live in Argentina. I visit a local prison once or twice a week and share the Gospel with the inmates there. I would never dream of taking a formal word for word translation there, half of the prison population is semi-literate. Even if I personally read word for word (Spanish) translations out loud to them, they most probably wouldn't understand them. We hand out and use idiomatic translations to the inmates there. In that context, they're a real blessing. On the other hand, when I get to preach on Sundays, I use the more formal word for word translations to prepare the messages. I personally have numerous translations (both in English and Spanish) that cover the whole translation spectrum and enjoy all of them. I truly praise God for the abundance of translations we have today.
May the good Lord continue to bless your ministry; that answer is the same as mine.
Please consider Acts 26:14.
1. The Lord speaks to Paul in HEBREW with the very words of God. That's INSPIRED.
2. Luke writes this account in GREEK as the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS. That's INSPIRED!
3. That's a PERFECT TRANSLATION because they're BOTH INSPIRED!
Don’t worry the KJV idol worship in the US is much like the Heretic NAR and Steven Anderson. A purely American invention. Keep bringing the Gospel to those in need my brother.
Which Spanish bible would be best for use in Mexico? My husband & I are moving there next year, & I would like to have a good translation in everyday Spanish for witnessing & such. There’s a pueblo across the highway from where we’ll be living, so it needs to be basic Mexican. I don’t even speak Mexican. The Spanish I speak is Costa Rican, after living there for several years. I will need to learn the Mexican dialect. My husband is from Nicaragua. Thanks
@@RUT812 depends in your church and how strong your Spanish is. I use the RV 1960 but it is like KJV (old spanish) so it is the most popular among Spanish speakers. But if your Spanish is not that strong, I would get a Spanish /English parallel or NVI. Moving from RV 1960 to NIV or NKJV was easy, but to NLT was too difficult because the paraphrase made it weird, keep this in mind if choosing a parallel. RV and Nkjv is based on the same majority text so it is a great pair.
0:00 Which Translation Should I Use?
2:40 Two Basic Philosophies
3:53 Most Popular Versions Today
5:07 What Makes a Translation Accurate?
5:45 Why Do We Need Translation?
6:24 Semantic Range of Meaning
9:27 Context is the Answer
9:55 Retain the Meaning, Not the Form
14:15 The Gender Inclusive Debate
17:23 Idioms in Their Context
19:51 Idioms in the Bible
22:37 Collocations in Translation
29:39 Conclusion
Thankyou so much
THANK YOU!!! VERY BEST, CLEAREST, TRUTHFULL EXPLAINATION I’VE EVER HEARD!!! And I have listened to HUNDREDS!!!
There's now also the Legacy Standard Bible to add to the mix.
I prefer the more literal or critical translations. For NT I prefer the NJKV Nelson Publishers. For the OT I prefer the ESV because of their translation practice of comparing both the Hebrew Text with the Septuagint for agreement.
1. CSB study bible
2. NASB NIV KJV AMP
parallel bible
3. NLT chronological life application bible
4. The above three bibles are all you will ever need
You named about 6 bibles if you want to be technical about it though...
NET is a must have.
In my main translation, it is important for me to be able to see how portions of scripture refer to the words and phrases of other parts of scripture.
I find this discourse quite useful. I know some christian leaders that quote scriptures from different translations to gain knowledge based on the context of the Word, now I understand better, why they do so....Thanks Prof!
This was taught very well and clearly shows, how valuable teaching is needed in the Church today...
''The meaning is determine by the context.''
I use the NKJV for daily reading and study, but I use the CSB for teaching. Pretty good balance that I would recommend!
Is the Strong's Concordance a good reference?
Yes, Strongs is a excellent resource for gaining better understanding of both Old and New Testaments. There are several newer Bible Dictionaries but, if you are just starting out in your Bible study a Strongs will serve you well!
One thing I will say about Strongs, the definitions of the Hebrew and Greek words are just the basic lemmas. It does not give the full semantic range for the words, nor does it address the grammar.
Well I think this is fantastic. And I mean that literally! Can't really understand all the negative comments below. God has the ability to get His message through despite using human beings. He has provided the Bible in so many ways that we have no excuses left.
@Jane Dough So no English speaking person could be saved before 1611?
Some of the “sanctimonious” will infer but will never admit people couldn’t get saved before 1611
Some of the “sanctimonious” will infer but will never admit people couldn’t get saved before 1611
Some of the “sanctimonious” will infer but will never admit people couldn’t get saved before 1611
Some of the “sanctimonious” will infer but will never admit people couldn’t get saved before 1611
Currently reading the entire NASB (1995 text) out loud. NIV is my favorite for listening.
Thank you for the video. I learned a lot. This is the best explanation I have seen in a video.
Is Dr. Strauss arguing that idioms that are in the text but which are not shared by the receptor-language should be avoided?? Amos 4:6's reference to "cleanness of teeth" can be understood just fine by thoughtful readers without dumbing it down. At some point one should say, "Let's not be afraid to teach the reader some expressions that may be new to him."
I don't think he's arguing that at all. I think the main purpose of his point about idioms is to justify the existence of dynamic equivalence translations to those who only see value in formal equivalence translations.
As he said at the beginning of the video, the best translation to use is to use *more than one*. There is value, as you said, in learning idioms of the past, but there is also value in having the Bible as a cohesive story in today's language.
This was truly an amazing video
I am very old, study the Bible a lot, and use the KJV though I am aware of its many weaknesses. If I pick up a different translation, I look for some parts that are key to me.
Get A Septuagint And A Geneva Bible Or A King James
Jesus Is God
Become Saved And Worship Jesus
The NIV is a horrible translation. If I wanted clarification I would not go to any modern translation. They are different not updated language. I would go to my knees and ask God to reveal what is already there in perfect English. I would go back over the context read over and over. If I see a word I don't understand I'll use a dictionary. That's about it. God is reaceler of secrets. The key to understanding the Bible is the fear of the Lord, which is the BEGINNING of understanding, wisdom and knowledge.
Brilliant! I use NASB 1977 for Exegesis (GK/Heb study), and the CSB for just everyday reading, anywhere, ie home/church. I also consult the NET daily, and check other of my many bible translations when needed. I often read the Bible in Arabic, very rich!
John 7:8 (New American Standard version)
8"Go up to the feast yourselves; I do not go up to this feast because (A)My time has not yet fully come."
John 7:8 (King James Bible)
8Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast: for my time is not yet full come.
“Yet” Removed from NASV!
COMMENT: By omitting the word 'yet' the NASV makes Jesus who is God and the Saviour a liar, because he did later go up to the feast. (John 7:10)
@@ColonelEmpire As a Baptist, I've heard this mantra many times, you are badly mistaken. The brothers of Jesus wanted Him to go with them at THAT very time and day publicly, but Jesus said NO. They left and went without Jesus. A few days later Jesus went ALONE and privately. There is a reason for it. The NASB is correct, there is no omission or lies of Jesus in the narrative. You like all other KJV people are in error of the facts. God bless.
@@robertrodrigues7319 You obviously are mistaken.... Jesus did not go up a few days later... Read the text... The NASV is Satan's masterpiece... You are in error....
Verses which have been corrupted in the NASV. Remember that these texts are from the KJB and the words or phrases in bold type indicate where the NASV has twisted or deleted God's Word. ***Read Deuteronomy 4:2; Proverbs 30:5,6 & Revelation 22:18, 19***
Luke 4: 4: And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, *but by every word of God* .
Luke 4: 8: And Jesus answered *and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan* : for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
Matt.25: 13: Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour *wherein the Son of man cometh*
Matt.27: 35: And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: *that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots*
Mark 6: 11: And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. *Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city*
Mark 13: 14: But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, *spoken of by Daniel the prophet* , standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains.
John 7: 8: Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up *yet* unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come.
***COMMENT: By omitting the word 'yet' the NASV makes the Saviour a liar, because he did later go up to the feast. (John 7:10)***
John 3: 15: That whosoever believeth in him *should not perish* , but have eternal life.
COMMENT: This is an extremely powerful verse. It guarantees that whoever believes in Jesus (identified in verse 14) should not perish but have eternal life. But what do the NASV translators make of this verse? They mutilate it by deleting the words 'should not perish.' Then they inject uncertainty by using the word 'may.' There is no assurance here, no divine guarantee or promise. Instead, 'the believer… MAY in him have eternal life;' implying thereby that he 'May Not!'
Rom.14: 10: But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat *of Christ* .
Colossians 3: 6: For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh *on the children of disobedience*
1 Timothy 3: 16: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: *God* was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
COMMENT: *The word God has been changed to He* This is an attack on a cardinal truth namely that Jesus Christ is God incarnate; that is, God in human flesh! To replace the word God with He is a corruption of the text. It casts doubt on the divinity of Jesus Christ. John 1:1-3, 14
1 John 4: 3: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus *Christ is come in the flesh* is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
COMMENT: the word Christ means 'the anointed One, the Messiah! In this verse the NASV omits the fact that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, the anointed of God, the Christ! Indeed whenever the word 'Christ' is omitted from its rightful place in a modern translation, the fact that He is the Messiah, the anointed of God, is being silently denied.
1 Corinthians 5: 7: Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed *for us* .
Colossians 1: 14: In whom we have redemption *through his blood* , even the forgiveness of sins:
1 Peter 4: 1: Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered *for us* in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin.
The NASV is Satan's masterpiece.... It is a corrupt English translation that comes from corrupted manuscripts (Siniaticus, VATICANus & the Septuagint) Fruit from poisonous wells....
@@ColonelEmpire I really have no time for your foolishness, I have debated many like you over 30 years .
@@robertrodrigues7319 LOL LOL You have been bested by one of your betters!!! You are the fool... You lose... You are like your daddy! He showed up in Genesis 3:1.... "...yeah hath God said...?"
God promised to keep his words pure throughout EVERY generation even this generation... I have His preserved words in English! The King James Bible... You don't... Your modern English version is full of mistakes....
Thanks, Mark, that was excellent. Brilliant worked examples to explain your points.
I use a number of Bibles side-by-side for comparison to include the KJV, ESV, NASB, NET, and NLT. I also like the Amplified. When pushed, I used the original Greek and translate myself. If you're a "newbie" to the Bible, I recommend the NLT (kids, teens, or non-academics) or the ESV (educated adults). Toss "The Message" into the trash.
Your American translations are kinda bad. NIV, KJV and ESV are probably the closest but still biased. If I had to choose an English translation I'd pick the NIV.
I just checked out The Message and it's hilarious.
I mostly use the NASB myself with a Greek/Hebrew key word translation section. The Message is garbage. I don't use the NIV at all.
NLT is my main go to version, but I have recently just been reading online in the NRSV, NASB and ESV. I like these 4 versions and there is a lot of flow with understanding scripture a lot easier.
I use all the ones you mentioned cept the KJV cause there are so many dead words and English that doesn’t make sense within the KJV now. I also like to reference the HCSB as well. This is coming from a guy who was raised KJVO until I was 25, lol
Perhaps you could assist me? .... I grew up on the 1984 New World Translation Jehovah Witness Bible .... The copyright ran out on that print ... And I left in 2013 - 14 ... I read your 1984 NIV and am ok with it .. But use the Doubleday Jerusalem Bible 1966 ... Do you have a version in equivalent to that? Thanks .... Selah Salem Agape Zeteo ... I would like to find a way to update that 1984 NWT without the 2013 version
How can we access the power point? Good stuff
I get this question all the time!
Thanks for the clear explanation.
So clear- thank you!
There are so many bible versions in Christianity. In Judaism by contrast there are only about 5 or 6 translations total. My temple mostly uses the original JPS from 1917...alongside the Hebrew. I have a baptist friend who prefers the 1985 JPS Tanakh...most of his congregation has no idea he's teaching from a Jewish translation when he isn't quoting the NT. The reason I use JPS the most is because when the translation committee didn't know for certain what the Hebrew, meant they literally tell you in a footnote every time.
Christo Chaney I recommend giving this a listen as well as sharing it with your friend:
Lesson 8 - The Septuagint:
www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/searchthescriptures/introduction_to_the_bible_lesson_8_the_septuagint
Lesson 9 - The Canon Part 1:
www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/searchthescriptures/introduction_to_the_bible_lesson_9_the_canon_part_1
Lesson 10 - The Canon Part 2:
www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/searchthescriptures/introduction_to_the_bible_lesson_10_the_canon_part_2
The content won’t load on any of my devices...
I have a collection of Bibles ,
That includes the JPS .
Not too familiar with the Jewish selection of scripture but I'm interested in a snapshot of the Hebrew scripture before and after the masoretic text and the counsel of jamnia .
I am a Catholic and I recognize the opportunity available to Christians of a before and after picture offered by Catholics before the masoretic text and Protestants having an after shot of the latter masoretic text .
All that I know at this point is that the JPS doesn't add up , to these before and after pics of scripture .
No alarm though nobody else does either .
I have read dozens of Bibles hundreds of times and the trend that I see is that after the Greek and Latin Bibles groups change words or meaning to distance themselves from other groups , giving themselves a distinct theology while at the same time not validating the theology of other groups .
To only compare Protestant scripture to Protestant scripture is mostly pointless because even though Protestants disagree and even call some versions " Catholic or Orthodox " ... I promise that there are marks that make these Bibles distinctly Protestant .
But to stay focused , I have some real questions about the masoretic text .
I wish I knew some of the other publications ...I have two different JPS.
Christo Chaney are you following the kabbalistic Rabbis and their yeshua??? Or are you following JESUS CHRIST???
This is a really useful video about Bible translation in general. Thank you.
I think I would like kind of a doubly Amplified translation of the Bible, so NONE - or as little as possible - of the meaning gets lost in translation.
If its not a KJV, it isn't the perfect word of God.
IDK The Word made flesh is the perfect Word of God. Have you ever thought about how the majority of people in the world do not speak or read in English? If God shows no partiality then why would He be partial to English speakers? And if English has changed and keeps changing then is it possible for there to be a point when most English readers wouldn't understand the KJV? And if the process of translating requires understanding of the language of origin and the language being translated into then are you saying that scholars have not grown at all in understanding Hebrew or Greek in 400 years?
IDK I agree
@@PaperTrailsAnimation Why does your perfect word of God Bible have Christ Jesus in "Hell"?
All the KJVOs in here I’d like to point you to Mark Ward’s UA-cam channel and his book titled “Authorized: The use and Misuse of the KJV” really good stuff from a very humble guy.
Post a link to Mark Ward’s YT channel regardless. OTOH you’re quite the optimist to expect a KJVO would have the guts to watch that or any other YT vid that says ANYTHING that infers much less blatantly say something negative about their beloved KJ TRANSLATION
Post a link to Mark Ward’s YT channel regardless. OTOH you’re quite the optimist to expect a KJVO would have the guts to watch that or any other YT vid that says ANYTHING that infers much less blatantly say something negative about their beloved KJ TRANSLATION
Post a link to Mark Ward’s YT channel regardless. OTOH you’re quite the optimist to expect a KJVO would have the guts to watch that or any other YT vid that says ANYTHING that infers much less blatantly say something negative about their beloved KJ TRANSLATION
Post a link to Mark Ward’s YT channel regardless. OTOH you’re quite the optimist to expect a KJVO would have the guts to watch that or any other YT vid that says ANYTHING that infers much less blatantly say something negative about their beloved KJ TRANSLATION
I'm a KJV Bible Believer christian, I watch him, and he is only one more scholar trying to make it in the youtube business of modern christian liberal scholars! Don't give him a time of the day. Is funny that this scholars look the same, they try to sound smart and looking like authorities in Christianity. With their fair speeches that deceive many. They don't compromise. They are full of knowledge, but poor in spiritual knowledge.
KJV people are brutaly honest about the times we current living in, that's what make us weird, we really talking what's going on in this world. We are willing to die for Jesus this scholars not.
Zondervan is a wicked big publisher company as Thomas Nelson and others.
If what base our opinions in the KJV is only about KJV we would change the Bible right out the way.
You know nothing my friend, you know nothing.
Wow what a great video; So informative thank you.
How would you know the one with the correct translation? Do you have the original writing with Matthew's handwriting?
Buen día. Muchas gracias.
¿Existe CSB Biblia en español?
Saludos desde Chile. 🇨🇱
Love this video. Easy to understand all there is to Bible translations.
I think studying Japanese helps me take for granted that word translation is far more like comparing venn diagrams (or semantic range) than two cells in an excel sheet. Japanese even has a word for marking context in conversation, called the 'topic particle'. It takes twice as long to learn Japanese to the same level as Greek, which takes twice as long as to learn Spanish, yet even though Spanish and French are fast to learn, because they're actually quite similiar to English compared to Hebrew, Greek and Japanese- yet Mark Strauss is still able to make the case that Spanish and French which share something 40-60% root vocabulary with English that they can't be translated like an excel sheet. The only exception to this is very concrete words from the same time zone and location... the color red even if it doesn't sound the same might mean the same range of red... but it might not. This is not just a Greek/Hebrew to English problem, it's a Language to Language problem PERIOD. The fact that English speakers have so many translations to compare is a blessing really, some languages have one, or given there are 7000 languages extant today, I'm sure for some, it's none. It's wild to me that atheists I've met are confused by the Bible and assume that means God doesn't exist because the Bible doesn't make sense to them... yet they at most read two English translations without context of who it was written to or by, yet if they did the same with Les Misérables or Plato or Sun Tzu in a college class they'd have a very hard time passing a class that does a literary study of the text in English translation, let alone not be able to comprehend it in the original language. If you don't drop your first language assumptions when reading a text written in another language good darn luck understanding it without banging your head against a wall for 10 years straight, even if you're studying something from contemporary times and cultural or technological assumptions that you even recognize.
I love this, and it is so facil to understand this because i am bilingual i love it.... God bless you!
As a former King James Only advocate, this information is crucial for all Christians to know and understand. After studying this topic quite meticulously I can honestly say my go to translations are the NASB, ESV, HCSB and an Interlinear, specifically based on the Alexandrian Text-Type since I have come to find out that Textus Receptus as well as the entire Byzantine Text-type are no older than the 10th century except for Codex Alexandrinus (only the Gospels read Byzantine while the rest of the NT reads Alexandrian) and perhaps a couple more that I can’t remember in the moment. I find it also important to study the idiomatic meanings to certain kinds of phrases used in Scripture as we have to make sure that we are not reading what we call today a figure of speech and imposing a literal understanding onto the text.
Brilliant.
This was awesome thank you for sharing!
The translation I choose is not my pastor's call.
Which ones you have read from Genesis to Revelation ?
There are translations done better than others. Zhis teaching gives a nice general understanding of what makes them different.
I have a controver with many who translate Mat. 17:20 whot the words little faith. When Jesus clearly said unbelief. Even the context determines that he must have said unbelief.
Some scholars have gone through great length to show some very glaring inconsistency in different translations. It is good also to remember that sone text differ from From the TR , texus receptus, to the other manuscripts now beeing used, so
some key verses totally omitted.
Thank you this video was very helpful in understanding the gender changes to the NIV.
KJV ALL THE WAY!!! Almost 40 years now!
Amen! You can't beat God's holy, pure, perfect Word!!!
You guys know he was making a joke about the kjv coming heaven right?
@@stephansotomayor9696 Yea but he meant it's the best one we know it didn't fall from the sky lol
@@johnhamilton286 You do know the only thing that was perfect was the original autographs written by the authors right? Everything after that was copied by men and translated by men. We have very reliable translations such as the LSB, NASB95, ESV, NKJV, KJV that are more literal but then we also have other great translations such as the HCSB, NET, NIV and NET that translate a little more towards the meaning. But we know from all of this we have God’s word. There is no one perfect English translation. Even the KJV1611 translators said in the preface of the 1611 that a better translation could be and should be attained when more and better manuscripts become available.
Okay I thought NASB = NAB. Learned a new lil detail
Excellent presentation, but why didn't they laugh at the jokes!!! Funny and insightful and very easy to follow!
My question is should we take away or add to the Bible?
This is a must watch video.
I will never use the NIV for one simple reason. When it first came out and I read the introduction, it said something to the effect that because the term Lord of Hosts no longer has any meaning for modern readers, we have translated it as Sovereign Lord which means the same thing as He who is sovereign over the hosts of heaven.
It does not at all mean the same thing. The proper thing to do was a footnote explaining the meaning of Lord of Hosts instead of changing God’s revelation of Himself.
And if the translators play so fast and loose with one of God’s titles, what else have they taken liberty with?
NIV where is Pharma Kia In the Galatians 519
Thank you.
MT 19:16,17 "Good" before Master is omitted. In addition to that, the phrase "Why callest thou me good?" is changed to "Why askest thou me concerning the good?" Good Master is correct and Jesus responded to show the young man that only one was good and that one was God. The conclusion should have been obvious. Since Jesus was good he was necessarily God. The omission and change destroys the intended testimony to the Deity of Christ.
I believe your misunderstanding why these parts of the verses were left out. It is not some grand conspiracy, but simply because on analysing the various manuscripts for the New Testament, they realize that various different text types did not have them. They still acknowledge different readings in their footnotes. Either way, Jesus does preach that people who trust in riches will find it hard to enter the kingdom of heaven, in most trusted versions, including the NIV.
Right on!
You may find the video teachings of Daniel Wallace helpful in regard to your comment. Please watch all of his videos.
interesting and makes sense, but the main thing that should be of concern to anyone is which manuscript is being translated... the translation is only as good as the 'original.' i.e., if you are using corrupt manuscripts, your translation is not worth much.
unfortunately, i was duped into believing that all Bibles have the same source documents so did not realize there are 'phony bibles' out there, thereby causing me to study RSV and NIV for 30+ years.
i was devastated when i found out that i had been reading, memorizing, absorbing a counterfeit... a catholic Bible. still, i am grateful for GOD's insight into this issue. HE led me to the KJV.
Finian the KJV was not given or produced by the Catholic Cult. That's a lie that Catholics spew at real believers.
Praise God in Christ Jesus. I too was led away from KJV thinking they were all the same but God by his word taught to me by one who also seen the confusion after thirty years. Led me back to the KJV in which it dispelled the confusion of God word....amen
Seeing a lot of ignorant KJV onlyist comments. The KJV is good but it is not perfect. Nor is it the best translation for today's readers. This is a great video for explaining the challenges of translating one language to another. My personal favorite is the NLT. It accurately conveys what is said in a readable and understandable way.
Brother I don't care what you choose to believe, or what you choose not to believe; but keep in mind you're talking about our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, calling them all ignorant shows somebody is certainly ignorant, but definitely not them. Your philosophy of sticking to all different versions is fine, and their belief in KJV as the perfect Word of God is fine. I have never found anywhere in God's Word where God commands us to condemn or to berate or to mock, etc. those that believe God has kept His Word perfect in one book (KJV). Why I know of many people that are NIV only, many that are NASB only, I don't care though, they're not hurting anyone, nor are they hurting the body of Christ. It always amazes me how stubborn people can be, I'll always see people go after kjv only folks, but not those that are NIV only, or NASB only. If you're going to go after them, be fare and just, go after all of them or not at all.
@@johnhamilton286 I disagree I think ignorant was the right word try talking to them they will deny facts except ones that fit there view point
I like the NET so far
awesome thanks
That really was a dead crowd.
Strauss was funny.
Early Church Father Cyprian quoted from the Textus Receptus about 250 AD.
Therefore, the modern versions from Westcott, and Hort are not the oldest.
What evidence do you have that Cyprian quoted the Textus Receptus?
@@johnmcafee6140 I have a book of his original writings, which contains his letters. He quoted 1 John 5:7 in his letter "On the Unity of the Church".
@@SpotterVideo I'm just asking you to be specific because there is a lot of misinformation on the internet about Cyprian, and his supposed quotes that allegedly reflect the Textus Receptus. I have access to the multi-volume 'Ante-Nicene Fathers'. I have also dealt with people who have made this claim but so far no one has been able to really support their assertion. What did Cyprian specifically say, or quote, that reflects a TR reading? I'm simply asking you to back up your claim.
@@johnmcafee6140 In Cyprian's letter titled "On the Unity of the Church" he said... [The Lord says, "I and the Father are one," and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, "And these three are one." ] Please look it up for yourself, if you have access to his writings.
@@SpotterVideo Yes I have access to his writings because I have encountered this misinformation in the past and I wanted to be informed. I pretty much knew where this was headed. You are claiming that Cyprian supports the TR’s reading in 1 John 5.
The Cyprian argument in favor of 1 John 5:7 is based on a bizarre treatise he wrote (and rewrote several times) titled “De catholicae ecclesiae unitate 6”. Here is the entire passage in question, read it for full context:
"The Lord warns, saying, ‘He who is not with me scattereth.’ He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, "I and the Father are one;" and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," And these three are one." And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills? He who does not hold unity does not hold God's law, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation."
Did you catch it? Notice the only thing he writes that pertains to 1 John 5:7 is the phrase, "And these three are one". The problem this creates is that this phrase isn't disputed. It appears in *ALL* the earliest manuscripts and modern Bibles.
The disputed phrase is, "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost", and Cyprian *NEVER* quotes it anywhere. One of the great historical problems regarding the Comma as authentic is how it escaped ALL Greek witnesses for a millennium and a half.
It seems like KJV onlyists just heard someone say Cyprian quoted 1 John 5:7 and assumed it was true without checking any sources.
The same is true with most all KJVO claims of support from the Church Fathers. If you would take the time to do some real research (I'm talking books, not internet.) you will find that most claims of this sort are based on such strained parallels and suppositions that they defy credulity.
The NIV always seems to throw out the idiomatic baby with the bathwater, which is why I don't bother consulting it. Let's look at that example from Amos 4.6 again:
“I gave you also cleanness of teeth in all your cities" (NASB).
“I gave you empty stomachs in every city" (NIV)
Why not something that captures the style and the meaning of the original idiom, I ask? The Common Jewish Bible handles it pretty well by saying, "I made your teeth clean of food in all your cities," but if that's still not clear enough, how about, "I gave you nothing to chew in all your cities" or something to that effect? It evokes the teeth-based idiom rather than forcing a completely non-Semitic stomach-related idiom onto the Hebrew text, and it's not likely to be misunderstood by most people, either.
So too, the example from Luke 15.20 isn't the greatest advertisement for the NLT. Sure, "fell upon his neck" may be a bit obscure, but "embraced him" dilutes the exact mental picture that the parable provides. The NIV's rendering, "threw his arms around him," is also inadequate, but by making a slight modification to the NIV's phrasing, the HCSB offers an ideal solution: "threw his arms around his neck."
A good literary translation that favors functional equivalence isn't impossible. The Revised English Bible and the New Jerusalem Bible prove that. Unfortunately, the NIV, NABRE, CEB, NET, and other such "mediating" translations seem dead-set on blandness.
I like the idea, where an expression is not translated literally, of using a footnote with the literal translation.
Notice Jesus quoted from the Septuagint: In Mark 7:6-7, Jesus quotes the LXX of Isaiah 29:13 when he says, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’"
Also, in the Septuagint, Amos 4:6 says "And I will give you DULLNESS of teeth in all your cities and want of bread...."
Was Jesus wrong in quoting from the Septuagint and for the disciples to use it?
Protestant authors Archer and Chirichigno list 340 places where the New Testament cites the Septuagint but only 33 places where it cites from the Masoretic Text rather than the Septuagint (G. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, 25-32).
Would the Septuagint be labeled a corrupt translation/version?
I don't disagree that God's written Word is being corrupted by modern Christianity self-help gospel and by politically correct translations, but the 1984 NIV is not one of them. (Although not affecting any doctrinal change, the later NIV's (among other translations) are playing fiddle to modern social sensitivity issues and that's where I draw a line.)
Relating directly to the post above: The use of "cleanness of teeth" made me think God gave everyone pearly whites. We just don't have that saying in America. I had no idea what he meant, the NASB didn't help me.
The NIV "empty stomachs" translation got me closer to understanding, and the translation I use (not NIV) has "I also have scheduled food shortages for you in all your cities", I felt that conveyed the idea even more so. Basically, God called for famine. I get it now.
I feel the Luke 15:20 argument of "threw his arms around his neck" vs. "threw his arms around him" is a hair-splitting non-issue. The Jewish Orthodox Bible has "and fell upon his neck", so do I take this literally "FELL upon his neck"? What to do here? Give me a difference in translation or manuscript where any doctrine has been affected.
We seem to be overly critical where we don't need to be and less where we do, like straining at a gnat but swallowing the camel.
I'm absolutely sure God can use and does use most translations to bring people to himself. The Holy Spirit convicts me well enough using the version I have (it's not the NIV) and has given me no indication over 41 years that the translations I have used were corrupt and he's not silent I can definitely assure you.
So whether God speaks through the Septuagint, the NIV, the NASB or the ____fill in the blank, he's bringing people to himself. Let him be the judge.
(That last statement does not mean that I don't have a preference and don't avoid translations I don't like reading and I DO think some translations are not close enough to the original to be trusted.)
ua-cam.com/video/HZG_5yl6Zaw/v-deo.html
Well, I thank God for that "blandness." Lol
Very interesting lecture. I use KJV for study. I also use the NASB and YLT NTL. I have just bought the MEV. I have around 50 Bibles There is something I dislike about many of the modern Bibles and that centres on John 3:16. They replace Only begotten with Only or Unique. The Lord is not the Only Son of God, There are many but only one begotten., He is the only begotten Son of God (Mono-Genesis). They take this I believe because Isaac is called Abrahams only begotten. Well Abraham had many sons including the ones from his concubines.. The one thing they all had in common was they were all begotten. So why get rid of the word begotten and use the word only? They also use Greek mythology.
Very good, but 'of' is not 'to', Galatians 2:7. Big difference.
Good explanation. But still not a reason to remove 16 verses from the Bible. The NIV is corrupt!
Matthew 17:21
Matthew 18:11
Matthew 23:14
Mark 7:16
Mark 9:44
Mark 9:46
Mark 11:26
Mark 15:28
Mark 16:9-20
Luke 17:36
Luke 23:17
John 5:4
Acts 8:37
Acts 15:34
Acts 24:7
Acts 28:29
Romans 16:24
None were removed! They were not in the original texts!
For another angle of approach, in part complementing what Dr. Strauss says, see ua-cam.com/video/r0140XY0H1o/v-deo.html
Best Video Best Content
My recommendation is a modern spelling of tyndale new testament, the Matthew bible, the great bible, or the October [new] testament aka new Matthew bible.
I use to think that. I have a 1537 matthews bible Facsimile that I reference every once in while. Tyndale did contribute a lot to what we have today, the KJV.
But, after much research, study, and confirmations thru many brothers and sisters, I believe the KJV is God's preserved Word, purified 7 times.
There is none other like it.
Kjv is just a translation
Rob012
Your opinions are a gross distortion of THE TRUTH!
The irrefutable Psalms 12 and “Preservation” truth.
So many believe the FALSE notion that Psalms 12:6-7 is a proof passage for “preservation” of God’s word ONLY for the KJ. They would be right if and only if the Psalmist wrote in English. But the Psalmist wrote in ancient Hebrew. The Psalms 12 truth...
You can read about the first attempt at the FALSE application of Psalm 12:6-7 and the first proponent of KJ onlyism from a book written in 1930 by a Seventh Day Adventist, Benjamin G. Wilkinson.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_G._Wilkinson
His book* went nowhere. However two others, James Jasper Ray and the other a Baptist preacher - David Otis Fuller, plagiarized his* work - nearly half of Fuller’s “Which Bible” is Wikinson’s* work w/ no reference to him*. By the way, today, Dr D. A. Waite, another King James Only-ist that can’t debate the KJ only position to save his life, distributes Wilkinson’s book, “Our Authorized Bible Vindicated.” Doesn’t make sense to me being Dr Waite is Jesus-loving pastor who does not support the SDA heresies.
DA Waite
m.ua-cam.com/video/-fWbJH-LRSc/v-deo.html
Peter Ruckman* liked the (false) Psalms 12 theory because it promoted what he wanted to hear, COMPLETELY ignoring the Hebrew, who passed it along to his “disciples” and such. Larry is willing to follow SDAs, that’s ok by me. I’m not goin’ there - you can!
This is a FALSE application of an incomplete passage. I fear for the person who sinned by “cherry picking” Vs 6-7 from the complete Psalms 12:5-7. Doing so derives a meaning different than God intended. He* displayed his naïvety not knowing the Hebrew rules (or ignoring them) about nouns & pronouns - the genders MUST match just like Italian or Spanish.
READ THIS CAREFULLY, quoted from YOUR translation:
5 “For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.”
All nouns are masculine
6 The words of the Lord are pure words*: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven** times**.
Noun is female*
7 Thou shalt keep them***, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them*** from this generation for ever.”
***pronoun male gender
Psalms 12:5 & 7 is about the people in V5, NOT the words in V6.
** this does not apply to the 8 or 9 number of English translations that preceded the KJ as no matter how you count them, it doesn’t jive.
Several I’ve debated was so cultic to insist “Gender doesn’t matter.” Try telling that to an Italian, Spaniard, Frenchman, and the modern language of Israel.
To deny gender matters is GROSS & willful IGNORANCE of the truth.
That’s the irrefutable Psalms 12 truth - kinda blows your preservation proof passage theory that is specific ONLY to the KJ. In reality God preserved His Word right through the English translations of today. Either He preserves His Word in ALL translations or in NONE - NO middle ground. You can no more prove divine favoritism than a perfect translation.
Rob012
Your opinions are a gross distortion of THE TRUTH!
The irrefutable Psalms 12 and “Preservation” truth.
So many believe the FALSE notion that Psalms 12:6-7 is a proof passage for “preservation” of God’s word ONLY for the KJ. They would be right if and only if the Psalmist wrote in English. But the Psalmist wrote in ancient Hebrew. The Psalms 12 truth...
You can read about the first attempt at the FALSE application of Psalm 12:6-7 and the first proponent of KJ onlyism from a book written in 1930 by a Seventh Day Adventist, Benjamin G. Wilkinson.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_G._Wilkinson
His book* went nowhere. However two others, James Jasper Ray and the other a Baptist preacher - David Otis Fuller, plagiarized his* work - nearly half of Fuller’s “Which Bible” is Wikinson’s* work w/ no reference to him*. By the way, today, Dr D. A. Waite, another King James Only-ist that can’t debate the KJ only position to save his life, distributes Wilkinson’s book, “Our Authorized Bible Vindicated.” Doesn’t make sense to me being Dr Waite is Jesus-loving pastor who does not support the SDA heresies.
DA Waite
m.ua-cam.com/video/-fWbJH-LRSc/v-deo.html
Peter Ruckman* liked the (false) Psalms 12 theory because it promoted what he wanted to hear, COMPLETELY ignoring the Hebrew, who passed it along to his “disciples” and such. Larry is willing to follow SDAs, that’s ok by me. I’m not goin’ there - you can!
This is a FALSE application of an incomplete passage. I fear for the person who sinned by “cherry picking” Vs 6-7 from the complete Psalms 12:5-7. Doing so derives a meaning different than God intended. He* displayed his naïvety not knowing the Hebrew rules (or ignoring them) about nouns & pronouns - the genders MUST match just like Italian or Spanish.
READ THIS CAREFULLY, quoted from YOUR translation:
5 “For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.”
All nouns are masculine
6 The words of the Lord are pure words*: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven** times**.
Noun is female*
7 Thou shalt keep them***, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them*** from this generation for ever.”
***pronoun male gender
Psalms 12:5 & 7 is about the people in V5, NOT the words in V6.
** this does not apply to the 8 or 9 number of English translations that preceded the KJ as no matter how you count them, it doesn’t jive.
Several I’ve debated was so cultic to insist “Gender doesn’t matter.” Try telling that to an Italian, Spaniard, Frenchman, and the modern language of Israel.
To deny gender matters is GROSS & willful IGNORANCE of the truth.
That’s the irrefutable Psalms 12 truth - kinda blows your preservation proof passage theory that is specific ONLY to the KJ. In reality God preserved His Word right through the English translations of today. Either He preserves His Word in ALL translations or in NONE - NO middle ground. You can no more prove divine favoritism than a perfect translation.
Rob012
Your opinions are a gross distortion of THE TRUTH!
The irrefutable Psalms 12 and “Preservation” truth.
So many believe the FALSE notion that Psalms 12:6-7 is a proof passage for “preservation” of God’s word ONLY for the KJ. They would be right if and only if the Psalmist wrote in English. But the Psalmist wrote in ancient Hebrew. The Psalms 12 truth...
You can read about the first attempt at the FALSE application of Psalm 12:6-7 and the first proponent of KJ onlyism from a book written in 1930 by a Seventh Day Adventist, Benjamin G. Wilkinson.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_G._Wilkinson
His book* went nowhere. However two others, James Jasper Ray and the other a Baptist preacher - David Otis Fuller, plagiarized his* work - nearly half of Fuller’s “Which Bible” is Wikinson’s* work w/ no reference to him*. By the way, today, Dr D. A. Waite, another King James Only-ist that can’t debate the KJ only position to save his life, distributes Wilkinson’s book, “Our Authorized Bible Vindicated.” Doesn’t make sense to me being Dr Waite is Jesus-loving pastor who does not support the SDA heresies.
DA Waite
m.ua-cam.com/video/-fWbJH-LRSc/v-deo.html
Peter Ruckman* liked the (false) Psalms 12 theory because it promoted what he wanted to hear, COMPLETELY ignoring the Hebrew, who passed it along to his “disciples” and such. Larry is willing to follow SDAs, that’s ok by me. I’m not goin’ there - you can!
This is a FALSE application of an incomplete passage. I fear for the person who sinned by “cherry picking” Vs 6-7 from the complete Psalms 12:5-7. Doing so derives a meaning different than God intended. He* displayed his naïvety not knowing the Hebrew rules (or ignoring them) about nouns & pronouns - the genders MUST match just like Italian or Spanish.
READ THIS CAREFULLY, quoted from YOUR translation:
5 “For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.”
All nouns are masculine
6 The words of the Lord are pure words*: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven** times**.
Noun is female*
7 Thou shalt keep them***, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them*** from this generation for ever.”
***pronoun male gender
Psalms 12:5 & 7 is about the people in V5, NOT the words in V6.
** this does not apply to the 8 or 9 number of English translations that preceded the KJ as no matter how you count them, it doesn’t jive.
Several I’ve debated was so cultic to insist “Gender doesn’t matter.” Try telling that to an Italian, Spaniard, Frenchman, and the modern language of Israel.
To deny gender matters is GROSS & willful IGNORANCE of the truth.
That’s the irrefutable Psalms 12 truth - kinda blows your preservation proof passage theory that is specific ONLY to the KJ. In reality God preserved His Word right through the English translations of today. Either He preserves His Word in ALL translations or in NONE - NO middle ground. You can no more prove divine favoritism than a perfect translation.
The best bible by far is the KJV, period. Always. It is 10x more poetic than any other bible, and it does not have all those theological mistakes.
It's not a matter of translation. It's a matter of the source. Anyone can make an excellent translation of a bad book. What bible do you trust to be the pure words of God?
So why does God not supply a translation?
@@brianholly3555 He does. It's called the Holy Spirit that dwells inside the heart of the believers. If one is not saved, they will not fully understand the words of His book.
all these translation examples in which the speaker tries to demonstrate that there is no such thing as a "literal" rendering, may be easily demonstrated in everyday practical speech languages of our time, but are not much worth when it comes to translating the NT, ... they are mostly hypothetical, and do not represent the text of the NT very good... a "literal" rendering of the NT text is indeed possible in most cases... for example, in Luke, where we find some of the finest Greek language of the first century... is the Greek language of St Luke koine "street" language, everyday speech language, spoken by most people in koine Greek, as Luke wrote it...?? i do not think so... is the Greek of the Epistle to the Hebrews written in the kind of language most "unlearned" people spoke on the street in the first century...? i do not think so... let's look at Luke 4.36b Τίς ὁ λόγος οὗτος = "what word [is] this?" ... this sentence so rendered into English is a perfectly "literal" rendering of the Greek, in that context, of that passage... sometimes logos may mean something other than "word" or "speech", but does that mean that it is not to to be translated "literal" within its context...? of course not... literal rendering is literal rendering within each context... that a word may have more than one meaning, does not do away with that....
The modern versions are using the Critical Greek text which was produced by Westcott and Hort in 1881. These two guys were not true believers. They worshipped Mary, promoted their seance club, adored Darwin and loved his message. They hated the textus receptus of which the KJV uses. The modern versions change doctrine. They breed doubt with their ever-changing versions. God promised to preserve His Word. PSALM 12:6,7 KJV
All translations are good, but some are just a little better than others. If there is a particular scripture that interests me, I use biblehub.com to compare many translations at once, and see why if there are large discrepancies. Another issue in some bibles like the King James Bible is that it promotes the trinity over the original writings and intended thoughts of the writers, and that is because the churches have deviated from Gods word since the 3rd and 4th centuries and substitute it for pagan ideals and false traditions that have permeated into Christianity, such as Christmas, Easter, The Cross and The Trinity Which is widely and independently documented.
The Churches have become the new unfaithful Israel of old in that everything that the church teaches has become false. It even goes to blatantly say to its followers, they are not pagan, they are Christian teachings and celebrations, when in fact they are fully pagan and not from gods word.
For example, the substitution of the name Jehovah to Lord, God, or any other title is there to purposely promote the Trinity and not the truth of Gods word and only serves the devil who is misleading the entire world. The link below is a short video of this point. www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/VODBibleTeachings/docid-502014331_1_VIDEO
The New World Translation of the bible has set out to make the most accurate translation as I will link several short videos you can watch to prove this at the very bottom. Another way it has tried to do this is by adding the name Jehovah back to its original laces which appears in the manuscripts provided. By doing this it Solidifies the proof that Jesus is not God, and that the only true God Jehovah is not part of a trinity.
Another such instance is on the subject of the Cross or Crucifix. The Greek word generally translated “cross” is stau·rosʹ. It basically means “an upright pale or stake.” The Companion Bible points out: “[Stau·rosʹ] never means two pieces of timber placed across one another at any angle . . . There is nothing in the Greek of the [New Testament] even to imply two pieces of timber.” In several texts, Bible writers use another word for the instrument of Jesus’ death. It is the Greek word xyʹlon. (Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; Galatians 3:13; 1 Peter 2:24).
This word simply means “timber” or “a stick, club, or tree.” The word cross was introduced to English in the tenth century as the term for the instrument of the torturous execution of Christ (gr. stauros', xy'lon), gradually replacing rood, ultimately from Latin crux, via Old Irish cros. Originally, both "rood" and "crux" referred simply to any "pole," the later shape associated with the term being based in church tradition, rather than etymology. I have also listed some independent sources which will verify this:
The Washington Post: www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the-cross/2017/04/14/dae63c1a-1fa8-11e7-be2a-3a1fb24d4671_story.html
Encyclopaedia Britannica.com: www.britannica.com/topic/cross-religious-symbol
You will see that the same crosses used in Egyptian worship is used by many false Christians churches today.
ABC NEWS: abcnews.go.com/GMA/jesus-christ-died-cross-scholar/story?id=11066130
Symbol Dictionary.com: symboldictionary.net/?p=2044
Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ CrossEncyclopaedia.com:
www.encyclopedia.com/philosophy-and-religion/christianity/christianity-general/cross
You may say there is also plenty of proof that the Cross is not similar or does not denote the same pagan god's but the true god in the bible? But if that is the case and Jesus was not Crucified, then why use this symbol at all. Why not use the symbol of an upright pole than the Cross? To ignore this fact is to ignore the accuracies of the scriptures.
Romans 3:13 is accurately translated here by New World translation and the New International Version as - "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole." In fact of the over 20 translations of Romans 3:13, only the New Living Translation translates it with the word cross, the others accurately use word pole or tree.... biblehub.com/galatians/3-13.htm
Acts 5:30 also defines the way Jesus died was on a tree. Of the above 29 translations, only 6 pro Trinity bibles use the word cross. biblehub.com/acts/5-30.htm I commend these bible translations for accurately using the original text and not the traditional pagan understanding. However, in Ephesians 2:16 New World Translation (NWT) translates this scripture using the words "torture stake", but the same other 29 bibles above all translate this with the word "cross" or "crucifix". And only the Jubilee Bible 2000 translates it with the added Greek word stake, when it translates it this way: "and to reconcile both with God by the cross {Gr. stauros - stake} in one body, having slain the enmity thereby;". biblehub.com/ephesians/2-16.htm
And again the same 29 translations above all translate 1Corrinthians 1:18 with the words "Cross" or crucifix", and again the Jubilee Bible 2000 puts in (Stake) as per Ephesians 2:16 above., but the NWT is the only one that translates it using the words torture stake and not mention the cross or crucifix in any of its translations....
In fact there are many scriptures in the above 29 translations that inaccurately include the words cross or crucifix to promote a false doctrine and idol of pagan gods perpetuated by the Church. Unfortunately it doesn't make the it right, and unfortunately many who honest hearted persons have come to believe this lie as the truth when it is not and are being mislead.
As promised, here are some short videos that you or any one else will see to what extent the Jehovah's Witnesses go through to accurately translate the bible. www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/VODBibleTranslations/docid-502014271_1_VIDEO
The ancient manuscripts: www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/VODBibleTranslations/docid-502018464_1_VIDEO
The love in truthful translations: www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/VODBibleTranslations/docid-502016501_1_VIDEO
Previous pioneers of bible translators: www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/VODBibleTranslations/docid-502017151_1_VIDEO
Correcting latin translations: www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/VODBibleTranslations/docid-502017151_1_VIDEO
@Jane Dough Hi Jane... That is why some translations are better than others. I use biblehub.com to compare many scriptures with many bibles at once. I am sure that you will also find this tool useful. In addition to the information about the Cross from my last comment I thought that the following would interest you.
Jehovah is God's name translated into English. It is pronounced differently in many countries because of their consonants and vowels. No one knows exactly what the pronunciation is, because people stopped using it out of superstitious beliefs as taught by the religious leaders, who replaced God's name Jehovah with Elohim meaning God, and Adonay' meaning Lord, and as a result the pronunciation was lost forever over time. Many have argued and gotten nowhere.
However, the bible records God’s name Jehovah some 7000 times. And the bible writers recorded that name in the bible, and used God’s name and identified it as the name of the only true God. No matter how it is pronounced today we to should not stop using this name as it praises the one and only true God, and separates him from the multitudes of pagan god's. King David even wrote songs about God’s name in Psalms 69:30 it reads “I will praise the name of God with a song, and will magnify Him with thanksgiving”. - New King James Version. Psalms 86:12 also reads “I shall confess to you, Lord Jehovah, my God, from my whole heart and I shall glorify your Name to eternity!” - Aramaic Bible in Plain English
As someone who knew God intimately, Jesus used God’s name many times. It is recorded for us throughout the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Unfortunately you would not know that as many bibles have removed God’s name Jehovah from the bible to support the trinity. Interestingly, nowhere in the bible does Jesus say he is God, or calls himself Jehovah.
Jesus said in Matthew 6:9 (in what is known as the Lord’s Prayer), first and foremost when praying before praying about anything else first, Jesus said: “In this manner, therefore, pray: Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be Your name”. Then in verse 10 “Your kingdom come. Your will be done On earth as it is in heaven.” - New King James Version. Since we don’t commonly use the word Hallowed today, another translation reads it this way “You should pray like this: Our Father in heaven, help us to honour your name”. - Contemporary English Version.
We cannot honour God’s name if we don’t use it, or remove it from the bible. In fact, that is the precise reason why we don’t know the exact pronunciation of God’s name, because people stopped using it.
Jesus made it a priority to teach people about God’s name throughout his ministry. Mark 12:28 to 30 says “And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The LORD (Jehovah Deu 6:4 ) our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the LORD(Jehovah Deu 6:5; Jos 22:5 ) thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. However in the original manuscripts the word Lord does not exist and was added instead of Jehovah, and should actually be translated as “One of the scribes who had come up and heard them disputing, knowing that he had answered them in a fine way, asked him: “Which commandment is first of all?” Jesus answered: “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah, and you must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind and with your whole strength.’” - New World Translation. Today there are only 4 bibles which translate this verse with the name Jehovah. The two above and the other is the Aramaic Bible in Plain English and the Devine Name King James Bible. The rest preferring to use Lord instead of Jehovah.
At the end of his ministry Jesus said in John 17:25 &26 “O righteous Father! The world has not known You, but I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me. And I have declared to them Your name, and will declare it, that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them” - New King James Version. Jesus loved his Father and God Jehovah and declared his name to all who would listen.
Unlike Jesus, all bibles commonly available today substitute the name Jehovah for Lord in Romans 10:13, with the exception of the New World Translation, and the recently released Divine Name King James Bible and the Aramaic bible in Plain English which reads “For “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.” Verse 14 includes why it is important to use God’s name “However, how will they call on him if they have not put faith in him? How, in turn, will they put faith in him about whom they have not heard? How, in turn, will they hear without someone to preach?” - New World Translation.
Certainly this name is most important name in the bible. Why? Because it is the most used name there. It is the name of our God as he himself proclaims in Isiah 42:8 “I am Jehovah, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise unto graven images” - American Standard Version.
Since Jesus used, proclaimed and taught his followers to pray to the God which that name belongs to, it makes sense that the name YHWY or more commonly Jehovah translated into English is there in the New Testament as well as the old.
This link explains why the Fouad manuscripts were so important in the returning Gods name back into the bible in the Greek Scriptures. www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/VODBibleTranslations/docid-502018464_1_VIDEO.
The new Devine Name King James bible has set to correct a serious error by returning God’s name back in its 7000 places. As the forward in the Divine Name King James Bible reads “The translators of the Authorized King James Version of the Bible the translators knew that God’s name is Jehovah and put it in the Bible in 4 places and in over 6000 places put LORD where they could see God's name. There are now thousands upon thousands of ancient hand written copies of the Bible that clearly show where God's name appears in the Bible”. You can read both the New World Translation and the Divine Name King James Bible on line it online at www.jw.org/en/& www.dnkjb.net/
I love this quote from the publishers of the Divine Name King James Bible (DNKJB).
“One only need to keep in mind that the King James Bible is known for the liberty its translators took when choosing how to express God's name without really using it. Imagine any great autobiography where the name of the key person was removed”.
Also, “We have kept in mind our brother scribes from ancient times as we worked and endeavoured to be as meticulous as they. Whatever our costs have been, the results we believe transforms the King James Bible into a word far more comprehensible, with Jehovah's name in the text do the work of eliminating the source of countless contradictions that the word LORD has caused. We make no apology for saying that The Divine Name King James Bible is merely saying what the King James Bible should have been saying for the last 400 years”. dnkjb.net/faq_dnkjb_online.htm#official_dnkjb
The translation of the Tetragrammaton YHWY in the original manuscripts does not translate to Lord. Lord is a title, where YHWH is God’s name, and most commonly this translates to Jehovah in English. Like Jesus, the apostles and bible writers we should follow their dedication in preserving God’s name and use it as instructed, with honour and with the aim to sanctifying it. If God put his name in the bible it must be there for a purpose, after all 2Timmothy 3:16 reads “Everything in the Scriptures is God's Word. All of it is useful for teaching and helping people and for correcting them and showing them how to live” - Contemporary English Version.
For an explanation to why YHWH is translated to Jehovah in English please see these short videos:
www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/VODBibleTranslations/pub-wmt_3_VIDEO .
www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/VODBibleTranslations/docid-502017151_1_VIDEO .
This link explains why the Fouad manuscripts were so important in the returning Gods name back into the Greek Scriptures in the bible. www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/VODBibleTranslations/docid-502018464_1_VIDEO.
@Jane Dough Hi Jane... I hope your well/ Which bible do you prefer using? I'd be interested to know. Thanks
Absolutely no mention of the LARGER issue of manuscript textual basis controversy (majority vs. alexandrian). Why not?
A translation based on the Textus Receptus.
...does not represent the original, inspired writings the best and was written by a Catholic.
matt 5:22 is wrong in the textus receptus btw.
Care to say how?
KJV. Amen!
Ah, like the New King James or Young's Literal Translation, or the Geneva Bible, or die Lutherbibel, or Schlachter 2000 or the Reina Valera Antigua etc. etc. etc.
God is not the author of confusion over 230 translations since 1881 started with the RSV yet there is more unsaved people in America today than ever before.wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Matt 7:20 King James Bible AV1611
100% agree AV1611 KJV is the Pure word of GOD in Christ Maria ua-cam.com/video/bcopIyZ7nZE/v-deo.html
One big problem with modern Bible translations is found in Luke 24:47. In that scripture the KJV reads "and that repentance AND remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations beginning at Jerusalem." The modern translations change the word AND into FOR. That is a problem because repentance and remission of sins is two separate events. Repentance takes care of the lifestyle and remission of sins takes care of the record. The new translations are saying by that scripture that repentance is for the remission of sins which is not correct. Hence, (KJV) Matthew 26:28, Luke 24:47, Acts 2:38, 22:16.
in NIV many verses are missing
Actually the KJV has added verses.
www.biblica.com/resources/bible-faqs/why-does-the-niv-bible-omit-or-have-missing-verses/
NLT is the same, but they add manuscripts at the bottom of Bibles in the newer translations to add them in which is nice.
Nope they are in the footnotes and in fact the KJV added them
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." -Revelation 22:18-19 KJV This is why you should ONLY trust the KJV. God didn't put those words in there by accident. -JSA
I am a King James Bible believer I don't agree in saying that there is no perfect translation. The King James Bible is the perfect inspired Words of God. Thank you
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
The NIV perverts John 3:16 into a LIE!
JOHN 3:16: The NIV reads, "For God so loved the world that he gave his ONE AND ONLY SON, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" Jesus was NOT "the one and only son" - Adam is called the "son of God" in Luke 3:38, there are "sons of God" in Job 1:6 and Christians are called "sons of God" in Phil 2:15, I John 3:2- but Jesus was the "ONLY BEGOTTEN SON"! By removing the critical word "BEGOTTEN" - The NIV perverts John 3:16 into a LIE! The NIV does the same in John 1:14, 1:18, and 3:18.
King James or Geneva
100 % amen in Christ Maria ua-cam.com/video/bcopIyZ7nZE/v-deo.html
There is only one translation that is the KJV. Others or men's interpretation
This is wrong the Kjv is not as accurate as newer translations and if you were to study church history you would know this.
KJV is named after a man: James.
Nothing lost in translation in the kjv ....
WHY THE KING JAMES BIBLE IS SO BELOVED BY FUNDAMENTALISTS THOUGH IT'S SO INACCURATE
Neo Evangelicals (what we used to call Fundamentalists) keep insisting there is such a thing as "The Bible," which they call "The Word of God." They would have everyone believe it was dictated by God to men who simply wrote down God's words, flawlessly. They also say every single word in what they present to their converts as a single volume book, written 411 years ago in what-is-now-antiquated-and-very-difficult-for-most-people-to-understand English, was divinely inspired.
If they could, they'd leave it right there, and because most people in their churches never bother once to question any further, they assume what they were told to believe is true. So, when these people hear or read a different bible that has "changes" in it or which "leaves things out," it's understandably confusing. It's often only at this time they are finally told the Bible was not actually written in Old English, but was translated from the ancient languages of Greece and the Hebrew spoken by the ancient, Jewish people.
Should they begin asking questions, the leaders of these relatively new believers resort to several fall back positions to keep their flocks believing there is still only one, perfect English bible--the King James Version. One of their tricks is to say, "Oh, but the Greek and Hebrew texts used by the King James translators are the only true bible, the Textus Receptus." Sounds pretty inspired, right? After all, if it's in Latin, that's gotta be divinely inspired, yeah?
Sorry, but the term "textus receptus" is just a line found in the introduction to a printed edition of the Greek New Testament in the late 1500s by a printer who wanted to sell his books so, naturally, he made it sound like his edition was error free by simply saying it was! But it wasn't!
There were several printed editions of the New Testament, for example, that came out since the first one by a guy named Erasmus about the same time Luther began the Protestant Reformation in 1517. His first edition was rather sloppily done, since he was in a hurry to get it done before another printed edition (known as the Polyglot) came out first.
But none of the printed Greek New Testaments of the 16th and early 17th Centuries were all that great, since they relied on hand-written Greek texts which had to be borrowed from universities who were rather stingy with what they had, and what they had, for the most part, dated after the end of the first millennium!
Here's the thing to understand--all the books we think of as "The" Bible, are a collection of books that varied from one religious body to another--Catholic, Orthodox, Old Protestant, Later Protestant and so on--but NONE of those books are still around! Every single bible "book", all written in ancient languages that are now all dead, were lost to the ravages of history! All we have today are copies of them, that is, copies of copies of copies!
It's true that there are 1000s of these copies, but MANY of them are just little scraps of "paper," written on papyrus or, sometimes, vellum and occasionally on some pottery.
Sadly, we don't even have any complete versions of the oldest copies of the Bible until we get to 2 and 3 centuries after the originals were all lost!
And these 1000s of texts are DIFFERENT! Over all those centuries, the copyists made a lot of mistakes or decided to add things or take some things out.
Some had really bad handwriting. Some were copied from an earlier copy that had all sorts of notes scribbled on the side (like some people do with their bibles today) but the copyists didn't think it mattered which parts they was copying, so they just included them in the main body of the text of new copy (the fancy name for this is an "interpolation")!
And then there was the problem of not hearing properly what was said as one guy was reading aloud from an earlier copy, and the listening copyist got the word wrong, or lost his place (This was the ancient version of a copy machine, in what was called a "scriptorium," that made it slightly less expensive to make copies of any particular document, since they ALL had to be done BY HAND!)
So, what to do, if you REALLY want to know what the Bible originally said? Well, you can just believe whatever it is your preacher or teacher tells you which printed book IS THE Bible, and just ignore the fact that he was specifically trained to uphold the MAN-MADE DOCTRINES his church denomination or sect or mega-church, wants you to believe...or you can rely on REAL SCHOLARS who from REAL UNIVERSITIES who don't really care about doctrinal implications and, consequently, are going to give you the best translations from the best (oldest and most reliable) copies archeologists have discovered.
They way they do this is the same way real scholars, like detectives, take all copies of ancient documents--from the Iliad and Odyssey to Beowulf--applying the disciplines of the Textual and Contextual Criticism, to sort out as many of the errors as possible in order to arrive at what was most likely in the original writings (autographs). After this, it falls to unprejudiced, biblical and historical scholars to make sense of what the original bible texts said.
Trouble is, almost all Neo Evangelical preachers and teachers are not interested in finding out what the bible originally said, much less, what the writers of those original documents intended their words to mean, and even far less, what all of their original words and intentions, put together, mean for us today! Instead, they're goal is to ensure they get more converts to believe what they're told to believe, and to do what they're told to do, very often, just to serve the interests of their very wealthy and powerful political allies.
This is why anyone who really wants to know what the original Bible had to say should avoid translations (like the NASB) or faux translations (like the Living Bible), issued by "Christian" publishing houses. These heavily skewed versions of the bible are specifically designed to promote certain man-made doctrines...and to make no small amount of money in the process!
Rick Lannoye, author of www.amazon.com/Rightly-Dividing-Word-Properly-Interpret/dp/B091LSMD9N
Are you a victim of bible abuse? Get help at ricklannoye.com/contact
Facts: there are hundreds of variant versions of Christian Bibles none match each other or the original koine Greek NT Papyrus or Hebrew Tanakh or Dead sea scrolls....
The NIV at least points out additions to the NT not found in koine Greek. But ignores changes made to Hebrew Bible such as Isaiah 7:14 "virgin" insertion.
I guess you don't believe that God can preserve his word, and that there isn't an enemy of God who is doing everything in his power to corrupt the Word of God.
The reality is, most will go to a translation which can be used, by it's ambiguous language, to support what they want the truth to be rather than what the bible is actually teaching. Case in point. Most bible translations used today in English other than the King James version were printed after 1952. What is significant about that year. In 1950 the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures was released and immediately met with sever criticism. The biggest argument against it was that the NWT had put God's original name in places where the writer was quoting from an old testament verse that contained that name. In 1952 a conference was held by bible publishers on how to combat the NWT and prevent people from looking at it. While there has never been a comprehensive study of the NWT and it's adherence to accurate Greek and Hebrew translation, the version was attacked, not on the basis of faulty translation but on the fact that it didn't support the teachings of the church as much as the older KJV did. The fake news about it was that it was changed to support the Jehovah's Witness teaching. This false statement was made to cause a distrust of it and prevent people from even considering it. So it was decided that in order to preserve the idea of a trinity, for example, which putting God's name where it belongs would lead to confusion on this point, from now on, God's name would appear no where. The idea was to promote church doctrine regardless of whether it agreed with the bible or not. Showing that accurate translation was not their goal. When looking at most all modern English translations, you find that they are in reality, revisions of the KJV and not translations at all. While a better understanding of some Greek and Hebrew words can lead to a better understanding of what the writer was saying, the KJV was used as the basis for all later versions. This can be seen by how they will mistranslate words or verses in the exact same places that the KJV does. For instance, one example can be found at Matthew 24:3 where we find the Apostles asking what will be the sign of Jesus "coming" Greek "erkominon". Problem is, the Greek word used there is "parosia" which translates literally as "standing along side" or as the NWT and Youngs translation states, "presence". Denoting the idea that he has arrived and is standing along side, not that he is on his way but has not yet arrived, as the word coming implies. Every other version makes this same mistake. Showing that they are not actually translating from the Hebrew and Greek. But in reality updating the language of the KJV and doing so in a way to preserve doctrine and not the words of the writers.
NJB always
Jesus saves
I feel very sorry for this man. He has made his own scholarship his final authority. Does he not understand that all manuscripts themselves are copies of copies.
The real question each Bible student must answer for themselves is do they feel the book they have in hand was inspired by God? If it was it will not relegate Jesus Christ to a mere servant at Acts 3:13, 26. It will not make the same mistake at Heb 3:16.
It will totally agree with itself at each and every scripture.
It's not inaccurate to say Jesus was a servant because he was. He was God's servant and His Son. The NIV doesn't hide the fact that Jesus was God's Son. You are nit picking at variations in translational texts. A son can also be a servant to his father, case in point; the prodigal son asked his father to let him be a servant in his house.
I'll admit that though my Bible reading is from the 1611, I have been harsh on the KJV-onlyists. Now, there are nut jobs like Sam Gipp and Ruckman who have truly insane ideas about the 1611, but not all are so militant. I'm starting to think I have no use for other translations.
I know of a church which has changed their Bible translation three times in about 5 years. It has a HUGE congregation...🤔. To me, I would not only be questioning the spiritual condition of the pastor, but openly questioning the reasons as well. I'm also curious why we have had over 200 different translations since 1881. I know there were bible translations before the KJV, but the differences in those in comparison to the ones now are light years away.
This whole "English changes" argument is more of an excuse than a reason for new translations every couple of years. Our language doesn't change so fast that I feel the need to buy the latest dictionary every couple of years to converse with another-ridiculous. I think the real reason is to cloud the water to the point of total confusion where they will all be combined into an ecumenical version which suits everyone who desires to make God's word say what they want it to.
Well. Some translations try to factor in the solar system, evolution, gravity, etc. They also are meant to accommodate the women's movement and lbgt. So you have to also consider some books have also been excluded to accommodate these concepts.
@@johnhaslett6714 What translations are those? None of the ones mentioned in this video.
The only reference to English changing that he mentioned is that it changed since 1611, not every couple of years. He gave examples of that.
@@Logos1000 really. Wow. Well those are versions that start the first verse with saying, Heavens plural in the first verse. The scriptures originally taught the earth was stationary. There's a firmament between us and God. The sun, moon, and stars go around us. I don't accept teachings such as solar system. Planets and aliens. That's unscriptural. The book of Enoch goes into more detail.
@@johnhaslett6714 The Biblical Flat Earth
COMPARISON
CHART
Characteristic TYRUS TYRE
(Book of Ezekiel) (History, geographical)
An island? Yes, 27:4 No, (Lk 6:17)
24 hour destruction by Yes, 26 No
Invasion, earthquakes, tsunamis
Inhabited today? No, 26:20 Yes
Ships by fir trees of Syria Yes, 27:5 No, cedar
Import purple dye of Syria Yes, 27:16 No, main export
Import purple dye of Cyprus Yes, 27:7 No, main export
Imported cedar from Lebanon Yes, 27:5 No, in Lebanon
Rebuilt after destruction No, 27:36 Yes, beautiful
Being searched for Yes, 26:21 No
Disappeared into sea Yes, 26:19 No
Exists today No, 26:21, 27:36 Yes
Island surface washed away Yes, 26:4 No
Located at entry of sea Yes, 27:3 No
Defeated by Nebuchadrezzar Yes, 26:7-12 No
Incomprehensible gold & silver Yes, 28:4-5 No
AKA bible nickname Renowned City, 26:17 Crowning City, Is 23:8
God didn't say after he saved you through the King James Bible to go look for another bible to get a different understanding when you receive the Holy Spirit hes the one that leads you and guide you in the old truth
How can you trust Zondervan? Or even this speaker? Translators judge their own translations.🤭
Mk 10:24 "for them that trust in riches" is left out. This is a very glaring doctrinal error. It is not hard to enter into the kingdom of God (salvation is a free gift through faith in Jesus Christ) but it is hard for those who trust in riches to trust Christ alone for salvation. Their God is their wealth and it is no more compatible with Christ than Dagon was with the Ark of God (see 1 Sam. 5:1-5).
Why ruin the niv. The 84 was fine. I’ve switched. To esv nkjv nasb. for reading. And Study the kjv.
Nov? 64000 words removed. KJV has no errors.
Spelling errors? Added verses? Added word? Seems like errors to me
There's not an English translation that does the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek justice..
Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit, is God a Ghost or Spirit ??? NO !
1984 NIV.