I agree completely, I have been reading and studying the NASB for over 35 years. It is very close to the original Hebrew text. But with saying that, you still have to be careful studying any transition. For example; Luke 4:18 in the NASB, there is a whole sentence missing from the original text. In other transactions, there are entire verses missing. Because of this, I study with the NASB and an original Hebrew text Bible together. I want to know Exactly what God is saying. The Word of God has life and power, not a round about word or what a man thinks God is saying. For example; the word church was translated from the word ekklesia, which means my people or My chosen ones. Church is a bad or wrong word to replace it. Say you and another person is riding down the rode. They ask you, what is that building. You would reply, that’s a church building. Am I right? In reality you just said, that’s a person. I’m just saying, when reading transition’s you still need to be careful
if you're referring to the phrase 'heal the broken-hearted' as "missing" from the NASB but in the King James, I've got bad news for you - it's not in the original Greek. It is in the Old Testament passage that Jesus quoted (Isaiah 61:1) so it's understandable that the people who put the Greek New Testament together in the time of James I felt they should include it as it was in some of the manuscripts they were working with. But it's not in the best-attested manuscripts, so the most up-to-date edition of the Greek New Testament doesn;t have it in - which is why all modern translations omit it. So the probability is Jesus didn't include it as part of the reading on that occasion (or Luke deliberately missed it out in his account of Jesus' sermon). Similarly, at the end of v.18 Jesus quotes the phrase 'set the oppressed free' which isn't in Isaiah 61 (it's from Is. 58:6). The New Testament apostles and writers (even Jesus himself) didn't have cut and paste so they were relying on (a) their best memory of the Old Testament passages they quoted, (b) in some cases the Greek translation of those passages (i.e. the Septuagint or LXX, which, being a translation, isn't always word-for word the same as the Hebrew). And then of course there's the issue of the small variations betwen the hundreds of Greek manuscripts we have today from which the compilers of the most up-to-date Greek New Testament have to make educated choices. As you can see, it's all quite complicated!
I actually ENJOY reading interlinear Bibles. Years ago I was showing a friend of mine the Hebrew ( and English) and it "BLEW HIS MIND that I could read the text from right-to-left!!!!!!!!!!!!".
Thanks for your comments. I read the NASB and ESV among others. That said, I don't have difficulty understanding the NASB. It's important to check footnotes for alternate readings.
I would choose three different versions of the bible to use. I would choose a word for word Bible, a thought for thought Bible and a paraphrase Bible that you have researched and trust. I do not know why we Christians hold the word for word or literal Bible in such high esteem when they are only part of the puzzle. Languages are something that never get translated properly and may require multiple translations to grasp the full meaning of something. Take for example idioms, which the Bible is full of; in English we will often say something "costs an arm and leg." If we translate that into another language, they could be confused and say but why should I lose my arm and my leg for that. I do not get that, am I going to lose my arm and leg if I get that? But if we translate it into a more thought for thought or paraphrase, they immediately get it "oh that is expensive." It is the same way with us as Christian English speakers, we may get not some of the idioms of the Bible if we simply read a literal translation.
That's exactly how I have it with my King James Bible New King James version the English Standard Version as the literal ones and of course the NIV has the thought for thought and as well the Living Bible for paraphrase.
There is a simple way to know which one you can trust. In John 7:8 the modern bibkes quote Jesus in a lie. Therefore they ha e the anti Christ spirit. Their Jesus says I am not going to the feast. ( not me. Not going). He waits and then goes. Liar! BLASPHEMY!! The Jesus of the KJB says, I am not going up yet to the feast. ( no, not now, not yet). He waits and then goes. No lie! No antichrist spirit. No CONFUSION! Choose who you will serve.
@@andysmith790 NKJV counterfeit, NKJV a deadly translation, NKJV a fraud. Modern translations quote Jesus in a lie. John 7,8. Choose who you will serve.
@@judyswiderski2682 and I really want to know for people who really don't understand it special little kids or what not is there an alternate Bible what about the kjver to start out with
@@judyswiderski2682 I have that one of the first New King James Version ever made in 1982 bonded leather and it explains everything the preface and that Trinity looking symbol it explains how that is one with God yet it's three different persons it's made by Thomas Nelson which also has King James Bible and I follow along I don't read the little side notes where it says this manuscript says this although I will say that that is very cool because you can compare and contrast what each manuscript says but I read the holy book of God in the New King James Version tells the same thing that the King James version does and by the way many people get saved by the New King James Version Bible you look at the fruit that something bears.
The Legacy Standard Bible, published by the Jno316 Publishing Company, has exceeded any edition of the NASB in its closeness to the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. It is also readable. It is very close to the ASV-1901 which is known for its legendary accuracy. The Legacy Standard Bible is promoted as being a "mirror" into the biblical texts because of it's closeness. It isn't a perfect version, but it is outstanding and useful as a reading and study Bible.
I had bought an ESV Study Bible a while back. It's going to Goodwill. I did not like the font or size of the letters (pts) on the pages, and most importantly I just did not like the translation. About a month ago, I bought a Schuyler Quentel NASB. It's a Premium, VERY expensive Bible. It's gorgeous! I had never read an NASB. I LOVE it!!! It is so easy to read and understand. I read my Bible for hours at a time! I have never done that with another Bible before. Granted, I will say that the fact that it's beautiful does contribute to that! My faith is growing because I found a translation that I love! Hearing the Word of God. I highly recommend the NASB!!!
@@msmarxmenThis is the first time that I've purchased an NASB translation. I love it! I've gone from seldom reading the Bible to reading it hours a day! And my faith in Christ is growing! I agree with a Bible Reviewer that it reads a little "woody" because of it's formal language being close to the KJV. But I'm okay with that because I like the KJV. Whatever translation that gets you reading the Word, that's the one best for you!! I didn't use wise discretion in sharing about my Schuyler Quentil in the comments under this video. I am just so excited about the Bible that I like to share it with people! But I know many people can't afford it. I'm sorry that I offended you sir. It wasn't my intention. Take Care And God Bless You. 💜
It's great to read a testimony about your Bible reading! There needs to be more people like you out there getting passionate about reading their Bible. You will inspire others, keep it up!
I’m not sure why you would think the NASB is dry and difficult to read. It was my favourite Bible for many years around the eighties, and I never found it so. But I moved on to the NKJV after that, because I listened to Chuck Missler’s teaching, ‘How we got our Bible’. He spoke about the malign influence that Westcott and Hort had on the Bible (read their correspondence, trying to cut out anything they found that was supernatural) and about the Textus Receptus, and he convinced me. I really dislike the paraphrases. To me, they are not scripture from God; they are one man’s interpretation.
@@melmel3703 not true. Only one not to have a copyright in the USA. It’s copyright is in the UK actually. So that country would have to get permission to make a KJV Bible. I love the KJV too. Preach from it often. Definitely not KJV only lol. No one should think that’s the o my Bible to read. That’s like saying “if you can’t read English then you’re hell bound”.
@@melmel3703 lol. Until someone has spent time getting fluid in Greek and Hebrew and can actually tell themselves which is the most accurate, I don’t wanna hear their arguments. It took me 3 years and of seminary just to get where I felt comfortable speaking Greek. That being said, other than the book of revelations, KJV is pretty accurate. Minus the “unicorns” and things like that. NKJV is EXTREMELY accurate. I love both of those because I’m a textus receptus guy.
Interestingly I came to Christ through studying Good News Bible some 35 years ago. After I trusted Christ, my mentor introduced me to NASB for study and devotion. But I still love GNT and occasionally used it for reading and cross-references. What I am trying to say is the Bible is God's word for our character transformation and to be more like Christ. Sure there might be some differences between verses and words from one translation to another, but let's use as many as possible trusted translations to get gems out of God's word.
It is the new world translation of the holy scriptures, it has restored the Tetragrammaton (The divine name, Jehovah) in all of the places it has been removed
The New World Translation is not regarded by any credible translation scholar as being an accurate translation. It is regarded (rightly) as actually a perversion, put out by the Jehovah's Witnesses. JWs are told by their leaders (whom they follow with no questions, so “masters” is a more accurate term than leaders) that the people who put it together were well-qualified to do so. Okay so who are they and what and where are their credentials in translation studies? If the JW claim of them being well-qualified is true, then produce the names and credentials so everyone can see for themselves. But that doesn't happen. The truth is - When anyone reads the NWT, they are reading a book that was put together by people whom you have no idea at all whether they were qualified to do translation work. The NWT was created by the JWs in order to say what their doctrines say - Their doctrines came first - then the NWT was created to back them. This is totally backwards. Seriously - Think about this - The JW doctrines came first, and then a "Bible" was created that supports them. Does that sound "right" to you? No one need take my word for this - Go here and make up your own mind: www.gotquestions.org/New-World-Translation.html
@@jamesritter5078 Well I'm sorry but I have to correct you a little there. The NWT has been investigated by many Hebrewists and Graecists researchers (these are the people who can actually read the original text of the bible in its original language - so they need no translation) and they said that the NWT is very accurate. The only thing that the NWT does, is put God's name everywhere instead of titles of him like Lord etc.. Which to be honest doesn't change the context of the bible. Who cares if I read: "And his name was the Lord" or "And his name was Jehova" So I don't know what led you to be so critical but if you care so much about the translators of the bible, you know that the bible itself has been written by 40 different people over the course of about 1500 years?? So considering that, it's the last thing to worry about the people who wrote or translated the bible, you should worry about what it actually says, and in that case the NWT is very accurate. I'm just putting this out there, please don't feel personally attacked, I know it's sometimes hard to find actual information or differ facts from opinions. Have a good one.
@@juli-321 - No worries. I don't feel personally attacked. But I would like to formally challenge you about the idea of there being "many translation scholars who support the NWT as being accurate". I don't believe that is true - Please provide the names and credentials of 3-4 recognized translation scholars. And I will submit that the idea of, "the last thing to worry about are the people who translated the Bible; you should worry about what it actually says" is not good or true. Here's why: If someone does not translate the Bible accurately, then we really don't know what the Bible actually says. So, accurate translation work is extremely important. As for what the Bible actually says, I invite you to take your NWT and turn to John 14. Please look at the exchange between Jesus and Philip in verses 8-9. 8 Philip said to him: “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” 9 Jesus said to him: “Even after I have been with you men for such a long time, Philip, have you not come to know me? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How is it you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Question: Who is "the Father"? Obvious Answer: Well, for Philip, being a Jew, the phrase can only mean 'God Himself'. There is no other way to understand this. And Jesus, in His answer, straightforwardly tells Philip, 'If you've seen Me, you've seen Him. If you've seen Me, you've seen the Father. If you've seen Me, you've seen God Himself.' Jesus Christ openly declares in verse 9 that seeing Him = Seeing God Himself. There is no other possible meaning to that verse. Now...JWs say that Jesus is really Michael the archangel. That actually doesn't work, and it doesn't work BIG TIME. Michael's name means "Who Is Like God?" The obvious answer is: NO ONE. This means that there is NO way that Michael would have made the claim for himself that Jesus makes for Himself in verse 9. He would have been a) going directly against the meaning of his own name, and b) committing blasphemy.
Also - The idea you wrote: "The only thing that the NWT does, is put God's name everywhere instead of titles of him" is simply not true. In fact, it is the opposite of truth. The NWT does an ENORMOUS amount more than that.
The NWT is a very biased translation that steps into the field of exegesis. Even though it might restore God's Name in the OT, it casually uses God's name (although not the actual transliteration of it) with no reverence, and very daringly and unjustifiably inserts the divine name in the NT. It also shows great disrespect and undermines our Lord Jesus' position and denies His deity. The scholarly skills of the NWT Committee are also highly questionable, particularly when it comes to the NT and the actual lack of accurate knowledge of Koine Greek.
Dan, from my many years of study on the subject I have learned that the differences between the English versions have a whole lot more to do with the Greek text (NT) used, than anything else. To simplify things drastically, there are broadly two groups of manuscripts: the Majority Text, which consists of approximately 5000 complete NT manuscripts, plus about 19400 partial manuscripts. These all agree with each fairly closely, - most of the differences being word order. These texts were passed down through the centuries from the first century up to the fifteenth century when printing was invented. These were the texts used in the translation of the King James and the New King James. The second group of texts is known as the Alexandrian Texts. They consist principly of three manuscripts: the Codex Alexandrinus, the Codex Sinaiticus, and the Codex Vaticanus. These three manuscripts have no antecedents and no descendants. They appear to be about 80 years older than the oldest Majority manuscript, and they are about 1200 words shorter, on average. They contradict each other in about 8000 places, and they contradict the Majority texts in about 12000 places. But guess what? With the exception of the NKJV, all modern translations have been made from an eclectic text (a mish-mash) of what modern Bible scholars consider to be the best readings from these three manuscripts. This eclectic text is known as the Nestlé-Alan text, and runs to 28 editions, each differing quite considerably from the previous one. How did all this come about? Because two English nineteenth century Bible scholars, Westcott and Hort, proclaimed that because the Alexandrian texts were older, they must be more accurate. This does not necessarily follow. It is an assumption. He who assumes makes an ass of u and me! I would rather believe 5000 witnesses that all agree with each other, than three who can't agree with each other and can't agree with the 5000. So I believe that the KJV and the NKJV are the most accurate and complete. Are they perfect? No, but the errors and omissions are minor. The NIV by comparison omits 17 verses, and hundreds of individual words and phrases. Enough said. I need to write a book!
Very interesting brother. I need to research all this now but with those for and against what you're saying so I don't go too far down a rabbit hole that might not be true. Pray for me for discernment as I continue on this journey to discover the truth. Every blessing in Christ Jesus
You’ll notice that he was careful to use the phrase “original languages,” as opposed to stating “the originals.” He’s trying to deceive you into believing that a translation of the original languages means the same thing as a translation of the original autographs, but it doesn’t, because the original autographs are not available. The fact is that God, in multiple scriptures, promised to preserve his word. All the modern versions (except the NKJV) are primarily translated from manuscripts discovered in the mid-1800s (so not preserved). So you have a clear choice. You can read modern perversions of the “Bible,” or you can read the Bible that the Church passed down through the ages and translated into English: the KJB.
I agree with you totally brother. God bless your heart I really feel the same way about studying the word and culture, loved the video thank you. God bless
I don’t believe that the KJV is the inspired word of God. The KJV Is not the inspired preserved word of God. It is rather the most accurate translation of the Bible version which was translated from the inspired preserved word of God, as it is translated *OUT OF THE ORIGINAL TONGUE* , hence it is oftentimes called as *THE AUTHORIZED VERSION* . The proof that we still have the inspired word of God is not because of the KJV Bible, but because of the countless number of printed Bibles that is being published all over the world. As God “hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation”(Acts 17:26); hence we have the Bible translated into almost all languages in the world. And that’s the best proof that God has preserved his words (not because of the one single version of the Bible). We do not have the original manuscripts from which our Bible was translated. All that we have are copies of the original. Do you see why God chose not to preserve for us the original manuscripts of his words, but only gave us the copies of the original? It is because if the original is still available, men with their evil intent will destroy it and corrupt it. If that happens, then what’s the point of still preserving or keeping the original (if men can still destroy and corrupt it)? But if only copies are available, then by diligently comparing side by side the text of the manuscripts, scholars can be able to know the exact words, and so can convey the exact message that God wants us to know from his words.
I was raised on the Living Bible (1970s). Then I switched to the AMP because I thought it was closest to the original languages. Now I read the RSV & enjoy it very much.
Thanks for this. At Bible study last night we read from multiple versions and it really showed how different the translations really are. I just changed my Bible app to ESV. I need the accuracy to the original text.
Look what just came out, the brand new LSV or Literal Standard Version of the Bible. It was done to update the language but still keep it literal, just more readable for today's audience while still keeping the style and same manuscripts (Masoretic Text for OT and TR for NT).
@@DragonKingGaav I believe the Lexham English Bible is a relatively new modern English transliteration of the GREEK translation (Septuagint). Since in Jesus' time on earth, many spoke Greek under Roman rule, therefore the Bible at that time (the Hebrew OT) consequently had to be translated to Greek for some people because that was common language at that time, very much like English translations today. I prefer reading an English translation that is directly closest to the original source, which is the Masoretic Hebrew OT, because translating from Hebrew to Greek and then that same Greek to English allows for possibilities of minute things being lost in translation. That being said, there's no doubt at all that God uses that Bible as well to get people saved.
@Jeff Backus so why do you think there are so many Christian Denominations today! I was raised SB but now Calvinist own it, very sad. ua-cam.com/video/qLMV_6YUWsk/v-deo.html
@@hudsontd7778 ESV is not slanted toward Calvinism in any way as so many parrot. If it was, I would not read it as Calvinism is a damnable doctrine of demons.
All translations are good (as long as it's easy to understand), 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
@@richardchileshe9910 In many places in the Gospel of John Jesus stated He is God. In John 8:58 "Before Abraham, I am." Exidus 4:14. The corrupt Jews wanted to stone Him be sure He called God His Father s zdx ying I and the Father are one, making himself to be God. John 10:33. For the Fatger lover you because you have lo ed me, and believe that I came out from God. John 16:27. Also, He knew His Father as the Father knew Him. John 10:15. Only Gid can know as God knows. He could forgive sins Mark 2:10-12. Destroy this theme [His body] and in three days I will raise it up. John 2 :18-22. I am the Alpha and Omega the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is and which was and which is to come, the Almighty. Revelation 2:8. The KJB teaches the Godhead. Some say it is the trunity, but not all. See: Trinity v Godhesd. Then, Godhead v "Trinity" Bryan Denlinger. Blessings.
@@judyswiderski2682 Hi Judy. I hope your well. The scriptures you have quoted are like the many quoted by the Church to prove the Trinity or that Jesus is God or Part of God. However no where in the Scriptures does Jesus say he is God. In fact every scripture used by Christendom to prove the above are scriptures taken out of context. So lets take a look at the first scripture you used to confirm that Jesus is God. John 8:58 reads from the King James Bible "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.". Does this prove that Jesus is God? No. It simply states that we was alive before Abraham was born. The bible tells us that Jesus had a pre-human existence in heaven, and in fact the rendering of this scripture should really read the way most other bibles translate it : "Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." - New American Standard Bible. So which is correct? Please compare the read and compare these scriptures in your own bible for comparison. Lets compare other scriptures in the bible to gain context and see what thoughts are in harmony with the rest of the bible. The apostle Paul under inspiration from the Holy Spirit wrote in Colossians 1:15 "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation." - New King James Version. Does it not clearly state that "He" being Jesus is the first born over all creation? Note what the Revelation which God gives to Jesus, and Jesus gives to the Angel says concerning Jesus in Revelation 3:14 “And to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write, ‘These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God:” - New King James Version. Did you also note that Jesus and God Jehovah are separate because God gives the revelation to Jesus. Prior to this Jesus was unaware what revelations God was going to give him (Please Revelation 1:1). But the main point here is like that of Colossians 1:15 above, Revelation 3:14 also clearly states and confirms that Jesus is God’s first creation. Proverbs 8:22 & 23 states this about Jesus: ““The LORD formed me from the beginning, before he created anything else. I was appointed in ages past, at the very first, before the earth began.” - New Living Translation. The Good News Translation reads it this way: “The LORD created me first of all, the first of his works, long ago. I was made in the very beginning, at the first, before the world began.”. And the Aramaic Bible in Plain English reads: “Lord Jehovah created me at the beginning of his creation and from before all of his works.” And before the world he was possessed by me, and from the beginning, before he would establish the Earth.”. Please open your bibles and also read verses 24 to 29 to gain insight in what Jesus saw in the creation process. Then verse 30 continues, “I was the architect at his side. I was his constant delight, rejoicing always in his presence.” - New Living Translation. Or as the Contemporary English Version translates it, “I was right beside the LORD, helping him plan and build. I made him happy each day, and I was happy at his side.”. Yes Jesus found delight being with God, not as God. Which is why God said the following about Jesus in John 5:17 “But even as he spoke, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my dearly loved Son, who brings me great joy. Listen to him.” - New Living Translation. Please also read verse 31 to 36 to confirm that this is talking about Jesus. At the very outset I highlighted Colossians 1:15 which reads “The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. - New International Version. In verse 16 it continues and tells us: “'For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him." - New American Standard Bible. Like these cross reference scriptures John 1:10, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Hebrews 1:2, 1 John 5:1, Colossians 1:16 tells us that All things were created for him and through him. How is this possible if he is not God? It's like when Jesus was on earth, who cured the sick and raised the dead? Jesus knew that it was not him, but that his power comes from God. In the same way, all things were created by Jesus, but it is God's power that makes it possible for him to do so. This is why Jesus is the only one that can be called God's only begotten son. Because as God's first creation, Jesus was made directly by God. Then Jehovah God used Jesus to create everything else. Which is why God say's in Hebrews 1:5 "For to which of the angels did He ever say: “You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”? And again: “I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son”?" - New King James Version. Please read these cross references to the scriptures John 1:10, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Hebrews 1:2, 1 John 5:1. Genesis 1:26 states "Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;...." He was not talking to himself or another part of himself, no, he was talking to Jesus who as described in Proverbs 8:22 to 36 was his fist born and master worker. In John 1:1 it reads, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." - New King James Version. Let’s break this scripture down. It says that "In the beginning the Word was with God. The "word" being Jesus who is to act as God's spokesman cannot be one and the same as God. Why? Because it says that "In the beginning the word was with God". It cannot be talking about the beginning of God, since God has no beginning. Like humans, Jesus was created as stated above in Colossians 1:15 in God's image. First born or first creation from God. God prophesied in Psalms 89:27 ""Indeed, I myself made him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth. I will show my gracious love toward him forever, since my covenant is securely established with him. I will establish his dynasty forever, and his throne as long as heaven endures." - International Standard Version. Col. 1:15, 16, reads “He [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth.” In what sense is Jesus Christ “the first-born of all creation”? Trinitarians say that “first-born” here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; thus Christ would be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those who were created. If that is so, and if the Trinity doctrine is true, why are the Father and the holy spirit not also said to be the firstborn of all creation? But why does the Bible apply this expression only to the Son. According to the customary meaning of “firstborn,” it indicates that Jesus is the eldest in Jehovah’s family of sons, or as Revelation 3:14 and Proverbs 8:22 & 23 state he is God's first creation. Before Colossians 1:15, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies-the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals. What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof? These scriptures above should answer how Jesus came to say that before Abraham was, I am. It is because as God's first creation, he existed first. Continued....
@@judyswiderski2682 As for john 10:33 it reads "The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.” - New King James Version . This does not mean that Jesus is God. the following verses Jesus himself confirms that he is not God but rather he makes a clear distiction that he is the son of God. Verses 34 to 36 reads "Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” ’? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? - New King James Version. Another translation reads: “They answered, "We are not stoning you because of any good thing you did. We are stoning you because you did a terrible thing. You are just a man, and here you are claiming to be God!". So why do you accuse me of a terrible sin for saying that I am the Son of God? After all, it is the Father who prepared me for this work. He is also the one who sent me into the world." - Contemporary English Version. Never did Jesus ever claim he was God. In fact Jesus clarified he was not God, but as God's first creation he was God's son. John 20:17 reads “Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God” - New King James Version. Note what the Catholic Encyclopedia states ""The doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. XIV, p. 306). In fact also no where in the New Testament is the teaching of the trinity taught as well". Consider the following from the same source: "The Old Testament clearly does not envisage God’s spirit as a person…God’s spirit is simply God’s power. If it is sometimes represented as being distinct from God, it is because the breath of Yahweh acts exteriorly…The majority of New Testament texts reveal God’s spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 13, pp. 574, 575). Confirming this W.E. Addis and Thomas Arnold, A Catholic Dictionary writes: "On the whole the New Testament, like the Old, speaks of the spirit as a divine energy or power" (W.E. Addis and Thomas Arnold, A Catholic Dictionary, 1960, p. 810). Jesus also corrected a man as said the following in mark 10:18 "So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God." - New King James Version . Jesus himself stated that he is not God. In fact many times he said he was not God. John 20:17 reads “Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God” New King James Version. before coming to the earth and on his return to heaven the apostle confirmed the following about Jesus. Please also note, Philippians 2:6 states “Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;” - New International Version. This is confirmed by Jesus himself many times, but note what he says towards the end of his life on Earth, at John 14:28 : “You have heard Me say to you, ‘I am going away and coming back to you.’ If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said, ‘I am going to the Father,’ for My Father is greater than I”. - New King James Version. The apostles also confirms this for us. What is interesting is that everything written about Jesus after John was completed after his return to heaven. So 1Corinthians 11:3 also confirms that Jesus was not God in heaven also since it reads: “But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God” New King James Version. So to believe that Jesus is God is to disregard the bible as a whole. It is not surprising then that Cardinal Hosius is quoted as having said: “We believe the doctrine of a triune God, because we have received it by tradition, though not mentioned at all in Scripture.” (Conf. Cathol. Fidei, Chap. XXVI). Another persons are just as frank about declaring the trinity to be of pagan origin is Arthur Weigall, in his book The Paganism in Our Christianity, states: “Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon, and nowhere in the New Testament does the word ‘Trinity’ appear.” So like Christmas, Easter, Hell and the Cross, the Trinity or the notion that Jesus is God is not biblical. Keen students of the bible can also confirm the following: "The New Testament writers...give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three equal divine persons.... Nowhere do we find any Trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead" (Fortman, The Triune God, pp. xv, xvi, 16). "Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament" (The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 1985, Vol. 11, p. 928). "Apparently Paul did not call Jesus God" (Sydney Cave, D.D., Doctrine of the Person of Christ, p. 48).
"There is no break between the Old Testament and the New. The monotheistic tradition is continued. Jesus was a Jew, trained by Jewish parents in the Old Testament scriptures. His teaching was Jewish to the core; a new gospel indeed but not a new theology…And he accepted as his own belief the great text of Jewish monotheism: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one God" (L.L. Paine, A Critical History of the Evolution of Trinitarianism, Houghton Mifflin and Co., 1900, p. 4). "Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament" (The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 1985, Vol. 11, p. 928). "Fourth-century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary a deviation from this teaching" (The Encyclopedia Americana, p. 1956, p. 2941). "Paul habitually differentiates Christ from God" (C.J. Cadoux, A Pilgrim’s Further Progress, pp. 40, 42). "Paul never equates Jesus with God" (W.R. Matthews, The Problem of Christ in the 20th Century, Maurice Lectures, 1949, p. 22). "Paul never gives to Christ the name or description of ‘God’" (Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, Vol. 1, p. 194). "When the New Testament writers speak of Jesus Christ, they do not speak of Him nor do they think of Him as God" (J.M. Creed, The Divinity of Jesus Christ, pp. 122-123). If you are really interested in knowing the truth about God, Jesus, and many other things about God I recommend you click on the following link to find out more on the subject: God the Creator: www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/online-lessons/basic-bible-teachings/unit-1/who-is-god-the-creator/#56 Who is Jesus: www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/online-lessons/basic-bible-teachings/unit-2/who-is-jesus/#25 I hope you will be able to check all the scriptures cited from your own bible and confirm the information above for yourself.
About "closest to the original languages" with Matthew the original was Hebrew, and recently tremendous strides have been made, with numerous hitherto unknown fragments and manuscripts being brought to light and translated by the Biblical scholar Dr. Nehemia Gordon. In several cases the unclear and awkward Greek of Matthew is shown to be the result of word-for-word translation of Hebrew idiomatic phrases.
Enjoyed the video thank you sir. I did note you didnt cite the, "Young's Literal Translation" or "YLT." Which I use for the same reasons you gave for the NASB. SemperFi, bb
Check out the Literal Standard Version (LSV) that just was published a few months ago. It is a mainstream Bible that you can now buy in paperback (ofcourse eventually in hard cover and leather) and its committee said it is a revised YLT that actually claims to be more literal than the YLT itself. I downloaded it on PDF which you can do in their website and I will buy it when imitation leather and hardback versions xome out, but even the paperback right now is beautiful.
I read the NIV since the late 1980's . I studied some lay Theology from the Anglican Church of Ireland in the early 1990's . One Theologian said the NRSV was the closest translation. I bought one only a couple of years ago but will stay with my NIV .
The NASB is by no means as "literal" nor as accurate as is often alleged. The most "modified-literal" English version available with some degree of readability is the ASV1901. It has no modern equal if one is seeking a version that represents the ancient Hebrew and Greek texts.
2nd only to the KJV! I've heard that people find it difficult to read. That's because it reads like the KJV! I love my NASB, but I have other Bibles for reference. I like the NKJV and the Amplified.
@@gailgunderson5163 I agree. The KJB is the best. I do have trouble honoring bibles that quote Jesus in a lie! Most moder bibles quote Jesus telling his brothers in John 7:8, I am not going to the feast for my time has not yet come. (Is he going to break the law of Moses?) He waits and then goes. Liar! Blasphemy. Jesus actually says, I am not going up yet to the feast for my time has not yet come. Not yet, he said, not now. He waits and then goes. No lie. No problem. Consider this: The bible has been changed. Did God say? Come on, really? God said He preserved His word. Psalm 12:6-7. Most modern bibles do not. In other words they are not admitting that God has a standard, His inspired word. His word is quick (alive) and quickens (gives life). His word is eternal. Most of the modern bibles have at least one out and out lie. NKJB lies in Exodus 6:3. They began to call on the name of the Lord in Genesis 4:26. Others quote Jesus telling his brothers, i am not going to the feast. John 7:8. (Is he saying he is going to break the law of Moses?) He waits and then goes. Liar! BLASPHEMY . Jesus simply said, not going now, not yet. He waits and then goes. No problem, no lie. And blatantly they mock Jesus and unashamedly, constantly, with each change ask, Did God say? Did God say Mark 11:26? Absolutely. It is an essential part of our walk with God. A verse that makes us tremble was added????? Did God say? Acts 15:34? It shows God's divine providence. Silas was there when Paul needed him for a journey. Obviously Silas remained there. BRAZENLY, they change or remove a word that gives the believers true power! Matthew 12:31 and Mark 9:29! Some spiritual warfare needs prayer and fasting! Did God say eleven (11) times in the New Testament the word damnation, eternal burning? Yes. But not in theirs! Did God say? Did God give three witnesses to that truth? Mark 9:44, 46, 48. They however only have v48. The other two they ask, Did God say? This is important because we need to know the truth and those who preach Annialism, we cease to exist, are easily proven wrong with these verses. Jesus is God and Jesus is Man. Hebrews supports this with four verses, 3:3, 7:24, 8:3 and 10:12: "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sin for ever, sat down at rhe right hand of God; v10:12. They do not use the clarifying words 'this man' at all. Again, Did God say? Every change they make is an insult to God and His word. God said He would curse those who add to or take from His word. Revelation 22:18-19. In the Old Testament those who honored a false prophet received the reward of that prophet. So the Alexandrian translators, the bible societies the publishers, the promoters, sellers and those who teach from them (showing those ear tickling bibles as God's word) or honor them will be held responsible. If done ignorantly, repent. God will not be mocked. This happened when the inspired Antioch manuscripts called the Textus Receptus were replaced by the Alexandrian manuscripts called the Codex B or the Vaticanus from the Vatican basement, and the Sianiticus from a monestary. They do not agree with each other and the latter has about 30 changes per page. Obviously inspired by their spiritual father who brings conflict, frustration, despair and DOUBT. King James Bible online Helpful tool: Noah Webster 1828 Dictionary online: Look up: REPENT, REGENERATION, BELIEVE, FAITH, REDEMPTION, PERFECT, CONVERSATION, PREVENT, PROPITIATION etc. Suppliers: Churchkjb.com Localchurchbiblepublishers.com Sources: Adullum Films Documentary -Tares Among the Wheat video Books: The Revision Revised and The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, both by William Burgon. Dean Burgon lived during the time of Wescott and Hort. Book: Look What's Missing by David Daniels Chick.com. If interested an old video called The Forbidden Book video. It has some American History also.
Here are some words from the writers of the Divine Name King James Bible: “A group of translators from the United States of America were chosen from among the Baptist, Congregationalist, Dutch Reformed, Friends, Methodist, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Protestant Episcopal, and Unitarian, to simultaneously collaborate with the translators of the RV to produce a version in ‘American’ English. This counterpart to the RV of 1885 is the American Standard Version of 1901 (ASV) and is largely identical to the Revised Version. The most noticeable difference is the restoration of Jehovah in approximately 7000 places rather than the LORD to represent the Divine Name, the Tetragrammaton. Amazing! While not as ‘authorized’ as the RV, nonetheless, the American Standard Version was approved. The ASV with Jehovah faithfully restored was appreciated because it, as the Preface says, “let the written words speak for themselves.” It thus earned the name The Standard Bible in American seminaries by Christians who knew it was time to think for themselves rather than to let their thinking be anchored to the past interpretations of men....The Divine Name-Jehovah occurs at least 6973 times in the authentic record of the Bible. To put this into perspective, the Almighty God, Jehovah, is identified by his own unique name, 7 times more, than is “The mighty God,” Jesus, ( 7777 refWIP Isa 9:6, 7) by his own name. (Jesus occurs 983 times in the AKJV) Contrary to what unfaithful men say-Jehovah is not just one of God’s many names-it is his Great Name forever.- Ezk 36:22, 23; Exo 3:15 The short and simple fact is, that when Bibles display lord instead of Jehovah, they are not letting God’s word speak for itself. Someone else is talking and the reader can be sure that it is not the Almighty God or Jesus Christ. The world is divided into three camps-those that are blind and couldn’t care less about the Divine Name or outright oppose it-those that are in the dark and know little or nothing about it-and finally, those who are in the light and see the treasure of God’s Divine Name. ( 7777 refWIP 1Th 5:1- 5) Once we have thoroughly researched what has been presented, we will be in full possession of the facts. We ought then be confident, that it is not an act of arrogance, when peaceably we present the Bible with Jehovah’s great name all throughout its pages, to our families, friends and fellow humankind everywhere. We can be sure it will strengthen those that are downhearted about this life but who love the truth. ( 7777 refWIP Isa 61:1, 2)” I urge you to read this translation of the Bible if you want to have a good relationship with God Almighty and His Son, our redeemer, Christ Jesus. dnkjb.net/preface_dnkjb_online.htm
I have every translation and more but am glued to KJV but am trying to use my NASB and ESV and I do use the RSV-CE and Halleluyah Scriptures from time to time I love them all I have 137 Bibles in my room
I used to use an NASB and an NIV. The NASB was more more for study purposes the NIV more for devotional purposes. A little over fifteen years ago I switched to the ESV and HCSB. However, neither of those two need to niched into only study or only devotional. At times I use the HCSB for both and others just the ESV. Lately, the last several months only the ESV. I do on occasion however still refer to my NASB because my version is a study Bible.
This is true for popular versions, of which the NASB is most literal but there are more literal versions out there which are not very popular. Unfortunately many of these are one person translations and/or have some serious bias involved.
According to scripture the most accurate Bible is written on the heart of God’s people. Now concerning the list shown in this UA-cam video the man appears to be ignorant about Young’s Literal Translation and of a later group who used Young’s plus the majority text and Dead Sea Scrolls to upgrade Young’s to the Literal Standard Version.
3:21 about letting others choose which word is "correct", it's not that simple. Some of the Greek words occur very seldomly in the vast corpus of Greek writing of that period, the sample size being small, and the precise meaning not at all clear. Sometimes the meaning of a single Greek word is extremely complex, with no close English equivalent, like porneia, for which one book takes two or three pages to explore. (In Greek usages some forms of homosexual activity was considered porneia, while other forms weren't.)
I personally prefer the CSB the more I read it. It is very accurate and easy to understand. My old preference was for the HCSB and the NIV as those are the bible translations I have used for most of my life. I still use NIV for then I am walking around my college campus and recently purchased an ESV. I do have the NASB and KJV but I do not use them as much
@@konstantinallinforchrist9867 the CSB is more accurate than the NIV to the original manuscripts used by the translators. While the NIV is a very accurate translation, it does sacrifice accuracy for readability in some areas. The NIV is a dynamic equivalence/thought for thought(could argue for optimal equivalence) while the CSB is what’s called an optimal equivalence.
@@konstantinallinforchrist9867 you’re welcome. Here’s a good one if you want to try it out CSB Large Print Personal Size Reference Bible, Charcoal LeatherTouch smile.amazon.com/dp/1433647710/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_glt_fabc_WJ048H01FJRH3JAVS785
I’m really enjoying the interlinear and diaglott and comparing them. I was raised on the kjv, very poetic! I love reading as many translations and versions of the Bible as I can. My everyday go to is the New World Translation tho. It’s my favorite.
@@Untitled-ee6ks it is the most accurate, while also being easily understood. It also restores God’s name to all the places it originally appeared in the manuscripts. All over 7,000 of them.
My every day bible is the NASB. It's plenty readable to me. I'm a bible teacher and I key in on specific words. I need to know what those words are. Esv is good also
I also favor the ESV. It reads much more smoothly than the NASB. It is also a very accurate translation. I also like to read the KJV--mostly for its literary beauty. I read virtually all of the English translations of the bible (thanks to my Logos Bible Software program). But when all is said and done I rely on the ESV. NASB is a close 2nd.
Both quote Jesus in a lie, John 7:8. There is a huge difference between not going and not going yet. Amazingly, some people need more proof than that. Do your research. Read: Look What's Missing by David Daniels Chick Publication. Chick.com.
@@judyswiderski2682 , I just wanted to let you know that I have made the KJV my primary Bible for study, reading, and meditation. Other translations simply do not have the "high voltage" of the KJV. Blessings to you.
@@Pastor4all52 May He bless you with words that will reach many in this time of need. For the need will certainly increase as perilous times unfold. As many of us can plainly see. I pray that He will use you to bring many to Him. Proverbs 22:17-21, Proverbs 13:13.
It just computedee that the KJB is your primary bible. What fellowship does darkness have with light? Is not the Holy Spirit sufficient to teach you? 1 John 2:27 It is your decision. The Q is, does it please God?
I think you're right. I could translate Directly from the Nestle/Alan's Text but it's like hacking through a jungle with a machete. Using the NASB is like FLYING Over the jungle in a Piper Cub. 🛩️
This clarifies my use of the NASB and the questions I have about the ESV. Basically, what was the difference between the two? However, I would like to know your thoughts on the NIV.
There is a guy named Kevin Zadai, he talks about the niv version, He is a solid man of God, and He doesn’t have a favorable opinion of it. It is one version that should be discontinued. I’ve heard from other teachers that it should be avoided.
The YLT or Young’s Literal Translation is by far the most accurate. I cross reference it with the ASV for an easier read and the Strongs concordance. The translation you read definitely matters and can lead to far different conclusions on matters and theology. Also having a firm grasp on historical context and customs of the times help to understand the biblical authors intents.
I fully agree. In Mathew 18:34, it's the difference between interpreting the word "torturer" vs the word "inquisitor." This completely changes the meaning of what's going on, and torturer seems to make little sense with relation to what's going on in context, but inquisitor makes perfect sense.
Take a look at this book. ''The Four Gospels at a Glance''. That sums up a lot. The puzzles (verses) are put together nicely. All questions resolve themselves, and all of this without any comments from the author. It came out late last year. In the various comparative tests, it always comes out as the winner. A real helper for the reader. I can only recommend. www.amazon.com/-/es/American-Standard-Version-Asv/dp/3752610328/ref=sr_1_2?__mk_es_US=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&crid=2SSY6ZWMVBPUF&dchild=1&keywords=the+four+gospels+at+a+glance&qid=1619626380&sprefix=the+four+gospels+at+%2Caps%2C246&sr=8-2
@@NKWTI I looked up over 12 translations of the verse in Matthew you posted. 10 of them said torture or tormentors. Only one mentioned inquisitor. How do you figure it’s the correct translation?
NKJV is my go to. It contains the poetic flow of the KJV yet it also is readable enough for me to enjoy and grow in the word. Great video. I appreciate the breakdown.
I prefer the NASB and I use it for the devotional I find the ESV lifeless to be honest. I was brought up KJV and nothing can beat it for the poetry of the bible and it’s just beautifully written. I took a chance on a CSB translation and really enjoyed along with the NIV.
Accuracy and literalness are two different things. The NRSV and CSB are probably the two most accurate translations for most English-speaking Christians.
The NASB has a reputation for literalness which you continue and yet time after time within the NASB it paraphrases with footnotes to the literal meaning. Most times the literal meaning makes perfect sense but the translators for whatever reason chose to paraphrase instead.
I fully agree. The NASB is really not that literal at all, unless you read the "Lit." footnotes. Super aggravating and not worth it. Many times the NKJV is much more literal and has the "lit" from the NASB within the text of the NKJV.
Thae NASB is from the Alexandrian manuscripts. It quotes Jesus in a lie! John 7:8 there is a huge difference between not going and not going yet. Read: Look What's Missing by David Daniels chick Publication. Chick.com. Here are a few, Acts 15:18, Roman's 9:32, 14:6, 21. 1 John 4:2, 19, 5:7 !!! God said He preserves His word. Psalm12:6,7. They do not acknowledge that. How can they, they have changed His word hundreds of times. Their very existence asks, Did God say?
Old testament: Deutronomy 18:17-18 “I(God) will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers;I will put my words in his mouth and he will tell them everything I command him." From these verses we conclude that the prophet in this prophecy must have the following three characteristics: 1) That he will be like Moses. 2) That he will come from the brothers of the Israelites, 3) That God will put His words in to the mouth of this prophet and that he will declare what God commands him. Let us examine these three characteristics in more depth: 1)A prophet like Moses: There were hardly any two prophets who were so much alike as Moses and Muhammad. Their similarities: a)Both were given a comprehensive law and code of life b)Both encountered their enemies and were victorious in miraculous ways c)Both were accepted as prophets and statesmen d)Both migrated following conspiracies to assassinate them e)Both had a family,marrige,children etc f)Both had a normal birth and dead Jesus have more differences than similarities matching with moses Like: a)Birth b)family,Marrige and children c) Moses was accepted as by his people and became Statesman but Jesus was rejected by his own people and was not a statesman. So, this prophecy refers to the Prophet Muhammad and not to Jesus, because Muhammad is more like Moses than Jesus. 2)From the brothers of the Israelites: Abraham had two sons Ishmael and Isaac(Genesis 21).Ishmael became the grandfather of the Arab nation and Isaac became the grandfather of the Jewish nation.The prophet spoken of was not to come from among the Jews themselves but from among their brothers that is the Ishmaelites.Muhammad a descendant of Ishmael is indeed this prophet and Because Jesus and other prophets was descendant of issac there are not the promised prophet. Interesting fact is no other prophet has fulfil this prophecy expect Muhammad. 3) God will put His words in the mouth of this prophet: a)The words of God (Holy Quran) were truly put into Muhammad’s mouth.God sent the Angel Gabriel to teach Muhammad the exact words of God (Holy Quran) and asked him to dictate them to the people as he heard them.The words are therefore not his own.They did not come from his own thoughts, but were put into his mouth by the Angel Gabriel.During the life time of Muhammad and under his supervision these words were then memorized and written by his companions. b)Also,this prophecy in Deuteronomy mentioned that this prophet will speak the words of God in the name of God.If we looked to the Holy Quran we will find that all its chapters, except Chapter 9 are preceded or begin with the phrase, “In the Name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful" So Muhammad has fulfil this prophecy also. Still now if you think that it was Jesus so i have to take help from New testament John 1:19-25 "when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him(John the baptist), "Who are you?" 20. He confessed, and did not deny, but confessed, "I am not the Christ." 21. And they asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not.""Are you the Prophet?" And he answered, "No." 22. So they said to him, "Who are you? We need to give an answer to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?" 23. He said, "I am the voice of one crying out in the wilderness, 'Make straight the way of the Lord,' as the prophet Isaiah said." 24. (Now they had been sent from the Pharisees.) 25. They asked him, "Then why are you baptizing, if you are neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?" So according to John 1:20-21 and John 1:25 We come to know that Jews were waiting for 3 people to come 1.Christ 2.Elijah 3.A prophet and all of them are different people not one.Because if they were one Jews direcetly said that "Are you the one christ,Elijah and prophet" and by bible we came to know that Jesus was the christ and John the baptist is Elijah(John 11:14).Now you can say that maybe the prophet came earlier but if he had came earlier the jewish would have known about him and in bible(New testament) we Can find that prophet by name.But bible says he(Comforter,Helper) will come in future. Reference : John 16:7, "Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Comforter will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send him to you" John 14:16 "[For] I will ask [God] the [Creator], and He will give you another Comforter, so that he may abide with you forever". So it is clear that according both New testament and Old testament another messenger will arrive and that is no one but Prophet Muhammad because he has fulfil all the prophecy. Note that God has said in the Deuteronomy 18:19 “If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account.” This means that whoever believes in the Bible must believe in what this prophet(Muhammad) says.
Wait...NASB is 'a dry read' ? Its not a mystery novel it's the Bible. Sure we can color it up by being 'less' literal to sound prettier...but not for me. Give me what it says and let me deal with that without changing it to sound more flowy.
All I want is a modern English translation of the Septuagint and Textus Receptus... Basically I want an Interlinear Bible with the Septuagint instead of the Masoretic text. I don't have time to learn Koine Greek... But I might try with a readers Septuagint... Apparently I can download all these things I'm rambling about and print my own bible.
I just read that the NASB was in the line of KJV, so I have no idea what is going on with these Bibles. At this point, It feels as though people are trying to force you into their ministry's by confusing the historical truths of translations.
I must disagree with you dear sir. I've used the NASB 1977 since 1986 when I started Bible College, and I've never found it hard to understand. Maybe one here or one there, a rarity. I use multiple versions and I find clumsy translations in ALL versions. This is a fact! God bless.
Elias I don't see any of your objestins. No reason to be discouraged! Firstly yes I've read and studdied many bible translations including the Arabic and have compared them to their respective GK text. I read GK and Arabic fluently. I also speak Arabic, as my mom and wife are Lebanese. Your problem seems to be that you incorrectly think that in translation you can go word by word, and that every word must be in the English text, you are mistaken. In English you Can not for example put down the GK word (the τον) in Jn 1:1 “the God” my advice to you is to research how translations are made, this will answer all your objections that are baseless. God bless. As far as I’m concerned the most accurate is the NASB 1977.
The New World Translation is not regarded by any credible translation scholar as being an accurate translation. It is regarded (rightly) as actually a perversion, put out by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Jason BeDuhn is appealed to as a "scholar" who endorses the NWT. He is a professor of religious studies. That is not by any means the same thing as an accredited translation scholar. JWs are told by their leaders (whom they follow with no questions, so “masters” is a more accurate term than leaders) that the people who put it together were well-qualified to do so. Okay so who are they and what and where are their credentials in translation studies? If the JW claim of them being well-qualified is true, then produce the names and credentials so everyone can see for themselves. But that doesn't happen. The truth is - When anyone reads the NWT, they are reading a book that was put together by people whom you have no idea at all whether they were qualified to do translation work. The NWT was created by the JWs in order to say what their doctrines say - Their doctrines came first - then the NWT was created to back them. This is totally backwards. Seriously - Think about this - The JW doctrines came first, and then a "Bible" was created that supports them. Does that sound "right" to you? No one need take my word for this - Go here and make up your own mind: www.gotquestions.org/New-World-Translation.html
The NWT is a very biased translation that steps into the field of exegesis. Even though it might restore God's Name in the OT, it casually uses God's name (although not the actual transliteration of it) with no reverence, and very daringly and unjustifiably inserts the divine name in the NT. It also shows great disrespect and undermines our Lord Jesus' position and denies His deity. The scholarly skills of the NWT Committee are also highly questionable, particularly when it comes to the NT and the actual lack of accurate knowledge of Koine Greek.
I'm an American, and your British accent has some strange twang in it that sounds strangely familiar .. I'm from the tri state Ga, AL, TN area .. I think we might have been related dozens of generations ago
The first Bible that I started reading was a OKJV nelsons. Lots of cross reference. My Bible got stolen now i got Nkjv so much cross referencing missing lots of blank spaces in the middle column i asked Bible shops in SA they said i have to order it 😢.
I understand your thinking toward people wanting the easier Bibles that they can also understand what they are reading. Now, my first question is does the NASB, and the ESV omit verses and words and take out the word Christ or Jesus in certain verses? Through my research of Bible versions, I have learned that we can use the Strong's concordance and the greens interlinear or the companion Bible, to help us in our studies. The biggest factor is IF these Bible translations like the NASB, ESV are omitting verses or words that would be completely unbiblical. What I have been trying to wrap my mind around is, that we have over 100 translations in English, and they all cannot possibly be correct, and give the Word of Truth. I have compared it in my own mind as a sort of Plagiarism over Plagiarism. Its like us reading a book like Romeo and Juliet, and getting the first translation from that old English into the best translation of English for us today, ,,,and then someone comes along and does another translation and another, up to the 100. Well that would water down and lose the truth of that story. I do know that the translation was made from a language like Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Chaldee, to English, so I can imagine the difficulty. I do read the Authorized Version, and do find errors with certain words, which thankfully I am able to search and find the word using the Strong's. .....So what do you think about what I am saying?, is there some validity to my thoughts? I appreciate your time, and I am not criticizing what your doing, we are to edify and exhort one another, and its all out of the love for Yahushua.
Hi Jay, thanks for the comment and question. I think that when it comes to Bible translations it can become a minefield. I have to trust that those scholars who sit and discuss the original Hebrew and Greek documents are being true to the Word of God and not trying to add or take anything away. I studied Greek at college and struggled with it and didn't even start Hebrew! We also have to factor in, for example, most of what Jesus said is written in Greek whereas we know that He spoke in Aramaic and there must have been a few translation difficulties from Aramaic to Greek. I don't think that anything is watered down because we have more access to Hebrew and Greek manuscripts than ever before and there is a fair amount of scholarly debate about the accuracy of these that are used. I think you are right to use a concordance and it is also right to see what different translations say and then to try to understand what the original writer once wrote. We also have the unknown factors of the mistakes that the early transcribers made, but in saying that there is good evidence with the number of fragments that we have now we can be pretty certain of what we have is accurate. This is why I like to read bibles that are debated and put together through committee rather than an individual because these issues are hammered out. I hope this helps and just to add that this is all about people using the giftings that God has given them and I have to trust that these people are doing just that because unfortunately, it is not one of mine. I think that most of the publishers would answer an email if you sent it to them asking some questions that you have. I hope this helps, Dan.
What manuscripts do they use to translate these Bibles also matter I believe through my understanding that most of them use the eastern text the early church did not when you look back over the first few centuries when you read over sermon notes they quoted mostly the texus receptius. Hope I spelled that right...
Yes, the ESV leaves verses out. Not just words. You need to look at who translated it, the scholars and the publishing company. Most are Calvinists. The Bible is "Calvinist-leaning". Their doctrine influences the way they view prophecy for example. That is reflected in the Bible, with verses taken out!
I use the NASB as my everyday Bible, for devotions and study etc. It is harder to read sometimes but I think that draws you into the text and forces you to really focus on what's being said. Just my opinion, but the most important thing is to understand what you read and to read it often. God bless! 🙂
That chart makes no sense...The Amplified bible is a paraphrase ? It should be Youngs, Nasb, NKJV , KJV , ESV, CSB then the RSV , NIV and so on then around the land of the message you can have the Amplified bible. I'm only sharing from memory so I might be off a bit but I know the Amp is far from literal.
As some have commented, the Young's Literal Translation, is closer to the originals than the NASB. The NASB is not the easiest to read, but not bad. I am not a scholar, but just a person who has done some reading on the subject. My personal preferences are the. KJV, and the NKJV, but I use many others as well. My favorite thought for thought is the 1984 NIV. I do not care much for the gender neutral versions.
shirley goss If you favor NIV, dig deeper. NIV in important places has language that gets far away or even sometimes opposite of the original meanings. I am not clear that its authors intentionally make these mistakes, but their choices of language effectively mean something different than the conclusions of many other good translation. I would suggest always having NKJV at least riding shotgun next to you whenever you go with NIV. Sometimes NIV is spot on, so I use its more accessible wording. But be wary of using it exclusively.
I tried the NASB 1995 for a while but though accurate it does not read smoothly for me. The ESV 2016 is my modern literal translation of choice now. I still read the Authorised version too. It was the Bible of my childhood and I still think its cadances are beautiful.
I agree with you but no discussion of the KJV from a British pastor 😊? I read the ESV but mostly the KJV. It's still the language of Shakespeare so it can't be all bad. Very beautiful actually.
King James Version (received text) adds to the text and is based on very late manuscripts. The modern versions are what you would have without KJV added words or phrases. The NASB is the most accurate out there. I don't like it's format on the page, but it's atleast better than the other English versions and the KJV, which are the cause for the many false doctrines out there.
I’ve always enjoyed reading various bibles, translations, and so on. When I need to know exactly what is meant, the New World Translation has been proven source for accuracy.
I highly disagree. The NWT is a very biased translation that steps into the field of exegesis. It casually uses God's name with no reverence, and very daringly and unjustifiably inserts the divine name in the NT. It also shows great disrespect and undermines our Lord Jesus' position and denies His deity. The scholarly skills of the Translation Committee are also highly questionable, particularly when it comes to the NT and the accurate knowledge of Koine Greek.
It doesn’t matter witch Bible you use cause every one has there own interpretation You can make the Bible say anything you want So you should listen to jahovah and discuss what the Bible is taking about And try to be honest about the whole thing
Douay-Rheims for me. But literal isn't always better, so much as understanding the context of first century hebrew and greek writers. It's more important to keep that context than be literally translated.
@@monoingles Hi Dan! You sound British to me am I correct? Can you answer a question for me please? Why do all theologians claim 'Jesus' is God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost or Spirit? Why do theologians insist a woman who gives birth to a Son, a Male who is to shepherd the earth with an iron rod is their churches? How can a Church bring forth a Divine Child? And why do theologians deny Hebrews 1:6 is prophetically stating that He (God Almighty) did make the oath that he would again bring His Firstborn into the inhabited earth? Are you 'Tiger Dan' who I knew from the internet who was teaching prophesy of Daniel etc..?
I have an interlinear a ESV and a NASB. I read from the NASB but if I do not understand a verse I check the other translations. Sometimes I even refer to my NIV or Good news bible. Helpful video Sir. Thank you.
Nice! the Hebrew tetregramaton for the name of God' that the paganized church' from long ago had removed from its KJV of 1611 writ' near 7000 times yet which is still' is found six plus times in their trusted "translated or "version" the most strategic areas- Ex 6:3; Ps 83:18; Is 12:2; 26:4; out side of the example of Christ' all but "one" follow suit with "catholic" cult' has duped many into believing a lie as actuality "blasphemy" Jesus disciples believed the "truth" that Jesus taught. -Acts --5:28---31; is not sperious' Gods word the Bible does not contradict itself' God is never referred to as in the plural sense' allways singular' we get the sense of the unity in the words of Jesus last recorded prayer to his God before he was murdered for teaching the 'truth' John 17:1-26; Confirm' John --20:17--; also' they dont teach accurate mean- ings of hallelu-Jah.. the name Jesus' and Elijah' (Prophet of GOD long be- fore ther was a Christian.. God is how many? Deuteronomy 6:4; see Gods words delivered by an angel' a clear directive -Isaiah 43:7,10-13; Jesus tells why' and who' their daddy really is -John 8:19,40-47 truth does matter -Matthew 7:13-23; (Jesus)
you have the issue of how words develop and change both in the original language, and then in the changing and developing language which we use. There is the the issue that words are nuanced in the the original and in the contemporary language, and nuancing is also dynamic. For me, the Jesus Seminar addressed this issue head on, and transformed how I see the Bible. How, when and why was each biblical book written and how many contributors wrote it? I’m just a scientist, not a linguist.. I feel the David Suchet, by reading the Bible in balanced spoken English, puts the icing on the cake of linguistics.
"They read from the book of the law of God translating to give sense so the people understood the reading" Habakkuk 8:8 Different people have differing degrees of English litearcy. A person with a high degree of literacy can appreciate more literal translations whereas others benefit from less literal translations. The point is gaining understanding of scripture. As long as a person reads even a paraphrase that captures the essence of what scripture is saying then it's a good translation for them. The caveat is when a person is reading a sketchy paraphrase that does not correctly render the spirit, meaning or intent of the orginal languages which results in deception. I'd stay away from most paraphrased translations, especially the message, the passion and the voice. A child, a person with a reading or comprehension disability or someone speaking English as a 2nd language may benefit a paraphrase so long as it was assembled by a team of legit scholars and not by an individual. It's always a good idea for leaders to research translations especially if they have people with low English literacy to help them find a good fit with a good translation or valid paraphrase.
What you say makes sense, however, one needs to understand the intent behind many of the revised and modern versions. There is a war going on between Truth and Error. As Christian,s we need to be informed and not speculate things and put forth our thought as the gospel. God has already given us the saving truth. We must also, remember that" devotion to error can never produce true righteousness." Check out my teaching on the subject.ua-cam.com/video/zCYX662v60A/v-deo.html. I only touched the tip of the iceberg. It is way larger than what the Beat thinks it is or most people for that fact. God Bless.
A GOOD BIBLE WILL INCLUDE GOD'S NAME THAT 7S WHY I USE THE NEW WORLD TRANSACTION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES PUBLISHED BY JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES MARVIN FROM UTAH
Hebrew is my language. Only 10 years ago I began to understand its depths. Most Hebrew speakers do not enter its depths. Hebrew is a sacred language, no less. Every word is encoded in essence. The meaning of the "Hebrew " is "}to convey". Hebrew conveys in every word a variety of potentials. Each word is a kind of divine dictionary and each letter has infinite depths, from the form of the letter to the letters name. The Torah is not a collection of children's stories and it has depths. These are movements of consciousness. The Bible can not be translated into another language because when you do that you left with a hollow story without its true essence. The essence is revealed and changed, as you rise in consciousness. Ten years ago, my wife began to receive direct information about Hebrew, a knowledge that was hidden up until now and is amazing! She wrote a book on the subject..Even the name of Jesus was distorted. Jesus' name in translation to Hebrew is "salvation", "yeshua" "ישוע" that is his Hebrew meaning and in English or Latin you only get a hollow name. Hebrew validates every word . The combinations that come from every word are ingenious, it is divine complexity.
Thank you for your comment , I hope all who read it , understand the beauty of what you yourself have found. I am a gentile believer in Yeshua and for some years now have been learning about the Jewish roots of my faith. I also speak Spanish ( I grew up bilingual ) and understand that you loose a richness of the words when translating into another language and wanted to know the scriptures from the meaning of the language it was birthed from. I decided to study the scriptures in the Hebrew language , and I am studying with "Holy Language Institute " on line . A wonderful young man , Izzy Avraham is the founder and instructor. In this course I am learning from a Hebrew (who is a believer ) and am beginning to understand " the true essence " of the scriptures. You can find Izzy Avraham on You Tube also www.holylanguage.com. I pray for all people everywhere who want a closer relationship with Adoni , our Father and with our Lord Yeshua Hamashiach. May God richly bless you all .
I agree completely, I have been reading and studying the NASB for over 35 years. It is very close to the original Hebrew text. But with saying that, you still have to be careful studying any transition. For example; Luke 4:18 in the NASB, there is a whole sentence missing from the original text. In other transactions, there are entire verses missing. Because of this, I study with the NASB and an original Hebrew text Bible together. I want to know Exactly what God is saying. The Word of God has life and power, not a round about word or what a man thinks God is saying. For example; the word church was translated from the word ekklesia, which means my people or My chosen ones. Church is a bad or wrong word to replace it. Say you and another person is riding down the rode. They ask you, what is that building. You would reply, that’s a church building. Am I right? In reality you just said, that’s a person. I’m just saying, when reading transition’s you still need to be careful
if you're referring to the phrase 'heal the broken-hearted' as "missing" from the NASB but in the King James, I've got bad news for you - it's not in the original Greek. It is in the Old Testament passage that Jesus quoted (Isaiah 61:1) so it's understandable that the people who put the Greek New Testament together in the time of James I felt they should include it as it was in some of the manuscripts they were working with. But it's not in the best-attested manuscripts, so the most up-to-date edition of the Greek New Testament doesn;t have it in - which is why all modern translations omit it.
So the probability is Jesus didn't include it as part of the reading on that occasion (or Luke deliberately missed it out in his account of Jesus' sermon).
Similarly, at the end of v.18 Jesus quotes the phrase 'set the oppressed free' which isn't in Isaiah 61 (it's from Is. 58:6).
The New Testament apostles and writers (even Jesus himself) didn't have cut and paste so they were relying on (a) their best memory of the Old Testament passages they quoted, (b) in some cases the Greek translation of those passages (i.e. the Septuagint or LXX, which, being a translation, isn't always word-for word the same as the Hebrew). And then of course there's the issue of the small variations betwen the hundreds of Greek manuscripts we have today from which the compilers of the most up-to-date Greek New Testament have to make educated choices.
As you can see, it's all quite complicated!
Read, and the Holy Spirit will guide us.
You Will be Guided if you Know HIM As ABBA First.
I will take your name seriously "Read the bible on a mountain"
Amen
I actually ENJOY reading interlinear Bibles. Years ago I was showing a friend of mine the Hebrew ( and English) and it "BLEW HIS MIND that I could read the text from right-to-left!!!!!!!!!!!!".
Thanks for your comments. I read the NASB and ESV among others. That said, I don't have difficulty understanding the NASB. It's important to check footnotes for alternate readings.
I would choose three different versions of the bible to use. I would choose a word for word Bible, a thought for thought Bible and a paraphrase Bible that you have researched and trust. I do not know why we Christians hold the word for word or literal Bible in such high esteem when they are only part of the puzzle. Languages are something that never get translated properly and may require multiple translations to grasp the full meaning of something. Take for example idioms, which the Bible is full of; in English we will often say something "costs an arm and leg." If we translate that into another language, they could be confused and say but why should I lose my arm and my leg for that. I do not get that, am I going to lose my arm and leg if I get that? But if we translate it into a more thought for thought or paraphrase, they immediately get it "oh that is expensive." It is the same way with us as Christian English speakers, we may get not some of the idioms of the Bible if we simply read a literal translation.
That's exactly how I have it with my King James Bible New King James version the English Standard Version as the literal ones and of course the NIV has the thought for thought and as well the Living Bible for paraphrase.
There is a simple way to know which one you can trust. In John 7:8 the modern bibkes quote Jesus in a lie. Therefore they ha e the anti Christ spirit. Their Jesus says I am not going to the feast. ( not me. Not going). He waits and then goes. Liar! BLASPHEMY!!
The Jesus of the KJB says, I am not going up yet to the feast. ( no, not now, not yet). He waits and then goes. No lie! No antichrist spirit. No CONFUSION!
Choose who you will serve.
@@andysmith790
NKJV counterfeit, NKJV a deadly translation, NKJV a fraud.
Modern translations quote Jesus in a lie. John 7,8. Choose who you will serve.
@@judyswiderski2682 and I really want to know for people who really don't understand it special little kids or what not is there an alternate Bible what about the kjver to start out with
@@judyswiderski2682 I have that one of the first New King James Version ever made in 1982 bonded leather and it explains everything the preface and that Trinity looking symbol it explains how that is one with God yet it's three different persons it's made by Thomas Nelson which also has King James Bible and I follow along I don't read the little side notes where it says this manuscript says this although I will say that that is very cool because you can compare and contrast what each manuscript says but I read the holy book of God in the New King James Version tells the same thing that the King James version does and by the way many people get saved by the New King James Version Bible you look at the fruit that something bears.
The Legacy Standard Bible, published by the Jno316 Publishing Company, has exceeded any edition of the NASB in its closeness to the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. It is also readable. It is very close to the ASV-1901 which is known for its legendary accuracy. The Legacy Standard Bible is promoted as being a "mirror" into the biblical texts because of it's closeness. It isn't a perfect version, but it is outstanding and useful as a reading and study Bible.
I use the LSB and a Greek Interlinear these days. The Greek exposes all the trinitarian changes made to the scriptures.
I had bought an ESV Study Bible a while back. It's going to Goodwill. I did not like the font or size of the letters (pts)
on the pages, and most importantly I just did not like the translation.
About a month ago, I bought a Schuyler Quentel NASB. It's a Premium, VERY expensive Bible. It's gorgeous! I had never read an NASB. I LOVE it!!! It is so easy to read and understand. I read my Bible for hours at a time! I have never done that with another Bible before.
Granted, I will say that the fact that it's beautiful does contribute to that!
My faith is growing because I found a translation that I love! Hearing the Word of God.
I highly recommend the NASB!!!
So, paying a lot of money make one translation better than another. right.
@@msmarxmenThis is the first time that I've purchased an NASB translation. I love it! I've gone from seldom reading the Bible to reading it hours a day! And my faith in Christ is growing!
I agree with a Bible Reviewer that it reads a little "woody" because of it's formal language being close to the KJV. But I'm okay with that because I like the KJV.
Whatever translation that gets you reading the Word, that's the one best for you!!
I didn't use wise discretion in sharing about my Schuyler Quentil in the comments under this video. I am just so excited about the Bible that I like to share it with people! But I know many people can't afford it.
I'm sorry that I offended you sir. It wasn't my intention.
Take Care
And God Bless You. 💜
It's great to read a testimony about your Bible reading! There needs to be more people like you out there getting passionate about reading their Bible. You will inspire others, keep it up!
🙌
ESV study bible is also for reformed people, if you dont buy into Calvinism dont buy study bibles from ESV. I say dont buy any study bible.
I’m not sure why you would think the NASB is dry and difficult to read. It was my favourite Bible for many years around the eighties, and I never found it so. But I moved on to the NKJV after that, because I listened to Chuck Missler’s teaching, ‘How we got our Bible’. He spoke about the malign influence that Westcott and Hort had on the Bible (read their correspondence, trying to cut out anything they found that was supernatural) and about the Textus Receptus, and he convinced me. I really dislike the paraphrases. To me, they are not scripture from God; they are one man’s interpretation.
I have always and will always be on the kjv. The way it reads. Looks. The only one I'll ever need.
And the only one without a copyright
@@melmel3703 not true. Only one not to have a copyright in the USA. It’s copyright is in the UK actually. So that country would have to get permission to make a KJV Bible. I love the KJV too. Preach from it often. Definitely not KJV only lol. No one should think that’s the o my Bible to read. That’s like saying “if you can’t read English then you’re hell bound”.
@@chris2fur401 ok goodbye
Exactly!!!! The only one I need .
@@melmel3703 lol. Until someone has spent time getting fluid in Greek and Hebrew and can actually tell themselves which is the most accurate, I don’t wanna hear their arguments. It took me 3 years and of seminary just to get where I felt comfortable speaking Greek. That being said, other than the book of revelations, KJV is pretty accurate. Minus the “unicorns” and things like that. NKJV is EXTREMELY accurate. I love both of those because I’m a textus receptus guy.
Interestingly I came to Christ through studying Good News Bible some 35 years ago. After I trusted Christ, my mentor introduced me to NASB for study and devotion. But I still love GNT and occasionally used it for reading and cross-references. What I am trying to say is the Bible is God's word for our character transformation and to be more like Christ. Sure there might be some differences between verses and words from one translation to another, but let's use as many as possible trusted translations to get gems out of God's word.
I almost order MSG version if it wasn’t for videos like this one-informing us to choose carefully. Thank you so much! God bless you! 🙏
Choose only The Eternal ONE FATHER'S One Universal "Translation" Showing you HIS Eternal Life Perspective.
It is the new world translation of the holy scriptures, it has restored the Tetragrammaton (The divine name, Jehovah) in all of the places it has been removed
The New World Translation is not regarded by any credible translation scholar as being an accurate translation. It is regarded (rightly) as actually a perversion, put out by the Jehovah's Witnesses.
JWs are told by their leaders (whom they follow with no questions, so “masters” is a more accurate term than leaders) that the people who put it together were well-qualified to do so. Okay so who are they and what and where are their credentials in translation studies? If the JW claim of them being well-qualified is true, then produce the names and credentials so everyone can see for themselves. But that doesn't happen.
The truth is - When anyone reads the NWT, they are reading a book that was put together by people whom you have no idea at all whether they were qualified to do translation work. The NWT was created by the JWs in order to say what their doctrines say - Their doctrines came first - then the NWT was created to back them. This is totally backwards.
Seriously - Think about this - The JW doctrines came first, and then a "Bible" was created that supports them. Does that sound "right" to you?
No one need take my word for this - Go here and make up your own mind: www.gotquestions.org/New-World-Translation.html
@@jamesritter5078 Well I'm sorry but I have to correct you a little there. The NWT has been investigated by many Hebrewists and Graecists researchers (these are the people who can actually read the original text of the bible in its original language - so they need no translation) and they said that the NWT is very accurate.
The only thing that the NWT does, is put God's name everywhere instead of titles of him like Lord etc.. Which to be honest doesn't change the context of the bible. Who cares if I read: "And his name was the Lord" or "And his name was Jehova"
So I don't know what led you to be so critical but if you care so much about the translators of the bible, you know that the bible itself has been written by 40 different people over the course of about 1500 years?? So considering that, it's the last thing to worry about the people who wrote or translated the bible, you should worry about what it actually says, and in that case the NWT is very accurate.
I'm just putting this out there, please don't feel personally attacked, I know it's sometimes hard to find actual information or differ facts from opinions. Have a good one.
@@juli-321 - No worries. I don't feel personally attacked. But I would like to formally challenge you about the idea of there being "many translation scholars who support the NWT as being accurate". I don't believe that is true - Please provide the names and credentials of 3-4 recognized translation scholars.
And I will submit that the idea of, "the last thing to worry about are the people who translated the Bible; you should worry about what it actually says" is not good or true. Here's why: If someone does not translate the Bible accurately, then we really don't know what the Bible actually says. So, accurate translation work is extremely important.
As for what the Bible actually says, I invite you to take your NWT and turn to John 14. Please look at the exchange between Jesus and Philip in verses 8-9.
8 Philip said to him: “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.”
9 Jesus said to him: “Even after I have been with you men for such a long time, Philip, have you not come to know me? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How is it you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
Question: Who is "the Father"?
Obvious Answer: Well, for Philip, being a Jew, the phrase can only mean 'God Himself'. There is no other way to understand this.
And Jesus, in His answer, straightforwardly tells Philip, 'If you've seen Me, you've seen Him. If you've seen Me, you've seen the Father. If you've seen Me, you've seen God Himself.'
Jesus Christ openly declares in verse 9 that seeing Him = Seeing God Himself. There is no other possible meaning to that verse.
Now...JWs say that Jesus is really Michael the archangel. That actually doesn't work, and it doesn't work BIG TIME. Michael's name means "Who Is Like God?" The obvious answer is: NO ONE. This means that there is NO way that Michael would have made the claim for himself that Jesus makes for Himself in verse 9. He would have been
a) going directly against the meaning of his own name, and
b) committing blasphemy.
Also - The idea you wrote: "The only thing that the NWT does, is put God's name everywhere instead of titles of him" is simply not true. In fact, it is the opposite of truth. The NWT does an ENORMOUS amount more than that.
The NWT is a very biased translation that steps into the field of exegesis. Even though it might restore God's Name in the OT, it casually uses God's name (although not the actual transliteration of it) with no reverence, and very daringly and unjustifiably inserts the divine name in the NT. It also shows great disrespect and undermines our Lord Jesus' position and denies His deity. The scholarly skills of the NWT Committee are also highly questionable, particularly when it comes to the NT and the actual lack of accurate knowledge of Koine Greek.
Using an ESV Study Bible to help me understand what I'm reading. When you don't understand what you're reading you'll give up.
Dan, from my many years of study on the subject I have learned that the differences between the English versions have a whole lot more to do with the Greek text (NT) used, than anything else.
To simplify things drastically, there are broadly two groups of manuscripts: the Majority Text, which consists of approximately 5000 complete NT manuscripts, plus about 19400 partial manuscripts. These all agree with each fairly closely, - most of the differences being word order. These texts were passed down through the centuries from the first century up to the fifteenth century when printing was invented. These were the texts used in the translation of the King James and the New King James.
The second group of texts is known as the Alexandrian Texts. They consist principly of three manuscripts: the Codex Alexandrinus, the Codex Sinaiticus, and the Codex Vaticanus. These three manuscripts have no antecedents and no descendants. They appear to be about 80 years older than the oldest Majority manuscript, and they are about 1200 words shorter, on average. They contradict each other in about 8000 places, and they contradict the Majority texts in about 12000 places.
But guess what? With the exception of the NKJV, all modern translations have been made from an eclectic text (a mish-mash) of what modern Bible scholars consider to be the best readings from these three manuscripts. This eclectic text is known as the Nestlé-Alan text, and runs to 28 editions, each differing quite considerably from the previous one.
How did all this come about? Because two English nineteenth century Bible scholars, Westcott and Hort, proclaimed that because the Alexandrian texts were older, they must be more accurate. This does not necessarily follow. It is an assumption. He who assumes makes an ass of u and me!
I would rather believe 5000 witnesses that all agree with each other, than three who can't agree with each other and can't agree with the 5000.
So I believe that the KJV and the NKJV are the most accurate and complete. Are they perfect? No, but the errors and omissions are minor.
The NIV by comparison omits 17 verses, and hundreds of individual words and phrases.
Enough said. I need to write a book!
king james version all the way but i would not condemn anyone reading another version as long as it leads them closer to God
Very interesting brother. I need to research all this now but with those for and against what you're saying so I don't go too far down a rabbit hole that might not be true. Pray for me for discernment as I continue on this journey to discover the truth.
Every blessing in Christ Jesus
Damon Greville thank you!
Damon I hope that book is coming along!
Damon, very good and accurate analysis as to what I understand in having read concerning the subject. Thanks for posting.
You’ll notice that he was careful to use the phrase “original languages,” as opposed to stating “the originals.” He’s trying to deceive you into believing that a translation of the original languages means the same thing as a translation of the original autographs, but it doesn’t, because the original autographs are not available.
The fact is that God, in multiple scriptures, promised to preserve his word. All the modern versions (except the NKJV) are primarily translated from manuscripts discovered in the mid-1800s (so not preserved).
So you have a clear choice. You can read modern perversions of the “Bible,” or you can read the Bible that the Church passed down through the ages and translated into English: the KJB.
I agree with you totally brother. God bless your heart I really feel the same way about studying the word and culture, loved the video thank you.
God bless
Thanks for the encouragement Josh, much appreciated!
@@monoingles you forgot the new world translation, which the most accurate translation
KJV for memorization & devotion,
ESV for study and devotion,
NASB for study
I was raised on the King James version and will continue to use it but I will explore other versions to compare to KJV...thanks for the info.
Me too
just dont make the KJV the standard to compare others too, you must compare them to the manuscripts.
If only there were a King James which used the Septuagint instead of the Masoretic OT... with both updated to modern English.
I don’t believe that the KJV is the inspired word of God. The KJV Is not the inspired preserved word of God. It is rather the most accurate translation of the Bible version which was translated from the inspired preserved word of God, as it is translated *OUT OF THE ORIGINAL TONGUE* , hence it is oftentimes called as *THE AUTHORIZED VERSION* . The proof that we still have the inspired word of God is not because of the KJV Bible, but because of the countless number of printed Bibles that is being published all over the world. As God “hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation”(Acts 17:26); hence we have the Bible translated into almost all languages in the world. And that’s the best proof that God has preserved his words (not because of the one single version of the Bible). We do not have the original manuscripts from which our Bible was translated. All that we have are copies of the original. Do you see why God chose not to preserve for us the original manuscripts of his words, but only gave us the copies of the original? It is because if the original is still available, men with their evil intent will destroy it and corrupt it. If that happens, then what’s the point of still preserving or keeping the original (if men can still destroy and corrupt it)? But if only copies are available, then by diligently comparing side by side the text of the manuscripts, scholars can be able to know the exact words, and so can convey the exact message that God wants us to know from his words.
@@paeng46 Very well said :-) ♥
Thank you for taking the time to put this together.
No problem!
Bravo Bravo..Beautifully broken down sir..I liked and will subscribe because of how much you explained in such little time.
Check this presentation out. ua-cam.com/video/zCYX662v60A/v-deo.html. God Bless
I was raised on the Living Bible (1970s). Then I switched to the AMP because I thought it was closest to the original languages. Now I read the RSV & enjoy it very much.
Thanks for this. At Bible study last night we read from multiple versions and it really showed how different the translations really are. I just changed my Bible app to ESV. I need the accuracy to the original text.
If you don't mind me asking, what did you change it from?
NKJV
Look what just came out, the brand new LSV or Literal Standard Version of the Bible. It was done to update the language but still keep it literal, just more readable for today's audience while still keeping the style and same manuscripts (Masoretic Text for OT and TR for NT).
What about the Lexham English Bible?
@@DragonKingGaav I believe the Lexham English Bible is a relatively new modern English transliteration of the GREEK translation (Septuagint). Since in Jesus' time on earth, many spoke Greek under Roman rule, therefore the Bible at that time (the Hebrew OT) consequently had to be translated to Greek for some people because that was common language at that time, very much like English translations today. I prefer reading an English translation that is directly closest to the original source, which is the Masoretic Hebrew OT, because translating from Hebrew to Greek and then that same Greek to English allows for possibilities of minute things being lost in translation. That being said, there's no doubt at all that God uses that Bible as well to get people saved.
@@andysmith790 Thanks!
@@DragonKingGaav 🙂
My favorite translations are NASB, Amplified, ESV
On the graph the ESV and KJV need to trade places as do the RSV and NKJV. Otherwise I basically agree.
I switched from NIV to ESV in 2016. I love it.
Dean Jones Me too
so you were a Pentecostal(NIV) and now you are a Calvinist(ESV)
Am I correct?
@Jeff Backus so why do you think there are so many Christian Denominations today!
I was raised SB but now Calvinist own it, very sad.
ua-cam.com/video/qLMV_6YUWsk/v-deo.html
Dean Jones corrupted versions Vatican approved. SMH
@@hudsontd7778 ESV is not slanted toward Calvinism in any way as so many parrot. If it was, I would not read it as Calvinism is a damnable doctrine of demons.
I like Bible Hub. It has all the translations, original Hebrew and Greek, plus links to Strong's Concordance.
Yes, this is a good resource!
All translations are good (as long as it's easy to understand), 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
@@richardchileshe9910
In many places in the Gospel of John Jesus stated He is God. In John 8:58 "Before Abraham, I am." Exidus 4:14. The corrupt Jews wanted to stone Him be sure He called God His Father s zdx ying I and the Father are one, making himself to be God. John 10:33. For the Fatger lover you because you have lo ed me, and believe that I came out from God. John 16:27. Also, He knew His Father as the Father knew Him. John 10:15. Only Gid can know as God knows. He could forgive sins Mark 2:10-12. Destroy this theme [His body] and in three days I will raise it up. John 2 :18-22. I am the Alpha and Omega the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is and which was and which is to come, the Almighty. Revelation 2:8.
The KJB teaches the Godhead. Some say it is the trunity, but not all. See: Trinity v Godhesd. Then, Godhead v "Trinity" Bryan Denlinger.
Blessings.
@@judyswiderski2682 Hi Judy. I hope your well. The scriptures you have quoted are like the many quoted by the Church to prove the Trinity or that Jesus is God or Part of God. However no where in the Scriptures does Jesus say he is God. In fact every scripture used by Christendom to prove the above are scriptures taken out of context. So lets take a look at the first scripture you used to confirm that Jesus is God. John 8:58 reads from the King James Bible "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.". Does this prove that Jesus is God? No. It simply states that we was alive before Abraham was born. The bible tells us that Jesus had a pre-human existence in heaven, and in fact the rendering of this scripture should really read the way most other bibles translate it : "Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." - New American Standard Bible. So which is correct?
Please compare the read and compare these scriptures in your own bible for comparison. Lets compare other scriptures in the bible to gain context and see what thoughts are in harmony with the rest of the bible. The apostle Paul under inspiration from the Holy Spirit wrote in Colossians 1:15 "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation." - New King James Version. Does it not clearly state that "He" being Jesus is the first born over all creation?
Note what the Revelation which God gives to Jesus, and Jesus gives to the Angel says concerning Jesus in Revelation 3:14
“And to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write, ‘These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God:” - New King James Version. Did you also note that Jesus and God Jehovah are separate because God gives the revelation to Jesus. Prior to this Jesus was unaware what revelations God was going to give him (Please Revelation 1:1). But the main point here is like that of Colossians 1:15 above, Revelation 3:14 also clearly states and confirms that Jesus is God’s first creation.
Proverbs 8:22 & 23 states this about Jesus: ““The LORD formed me from the beginning, before he created anything else. I was appointed in ages past, at the very first, before the earth began.” - New Living Translation. The Good News Translation reads it this way: “The LORD created me first of all, the first of his works, long ago. I was made in the very beginning, at the first, before the world began.”. And the Aramaic Bible in Plain English reads: “Lord Jehovah created me at the beginning of his creation and from before all of his works.” And before the world he was possessed by me, and from the beginning, before he would establish the Earth.”.
Please open your bibles and also read verses 24 to 29 to gain insight in what Jesus saw in the creation process. Then verse 30 continues, “I was the architect at his side. I was his constant delight, rejoicing always in his presence.” - New Living Translation. Or as the Contemporary English Version translates it, “I was right beside the LORD, helping him plan and build. I made him happy each day, and I was happy at his side.”. Yes Jesus found delight being with God, not as God. Which is why God said the following about Jesus in John 5:17 “But even as he spoke, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my dearly loved Son, who brings me great joy. Listen to him.” - New Living Translation. Please also read verse 31 to 36 to confirm that this is talking about Jesus.
At the very outset I highlighted Colossians 1:15 which reads “The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. - New International Version. In verse 16 it continues and tells us: “'For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him." - New American Standard Bible. Like these cross reference scriptures John 1:10, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Hebrews 1:2, 1 John 5:1, Colossians 1:16 tells us that All things were created for him and through him. How is this possible if he is not God? It's like when Jesus was on earth, who cured the sick and raised the dead? Jesus knew that it was not him, but that his power comes from God. In the same way, all things were created by Jesus, but it is God's power that makes it possible for him to do so. This is why Jesus is the only one that can be called God's only begotten son. Because as God's first creation, Jesus was made directly by God. Then Jehovah God used Jesus to create everything else. Which is why God say's in Hebrews 1:5 "For to which of the angels did He ever say: “You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”? And again: “I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son”?" - New King James Version. Please read these cross references to the scriptures John 1:10, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Hebrews 1:2, 1 John 5:1.
Genesis 1:26 states "Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;...." He was not talking to himself or another part of himself, no, he was talking to Jesus who as described in Proverbs 8:22 to 36 was his fist born and master worker. In John 1:1 it reads, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." - New King James Version. Let’s break this scripture down. It says that "In the beginning the Word was with God. The "word" being Jesus who is to act as God's spokesman cannot be one and the same as God. Why? Because it says that "In the beginning the word was with God". It cannot be talking about the beginning of God, since God has no beginning. Like humans, Jesus was created as stated above in Colossians 1:15 in God's image. First born or first creation from God.
God prophesied in Psalms 89:27 ""Indeed, I myself made him the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth. I will show my gracious love toward him forever, since my covenant is securely established with him. I will establish his dynasty forever, and his throne as long as heaven endures." - International Standard Version. Col. 1:15, 16, reads “He [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth.” In what sense is Jesus Christ “the first-born of all creation”? Trinitarians say that “first-born” here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; thus Christ would be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those who were created. If that is so, and if the Trinity doctrine is true, why are the Father and the holy spirit not also said to be the firstborn of all creation? But why does the Bible apply this expression only to the Son. According to the customary meaning of “firstborn,” it indicates that Jesus is the eldest in Jehovah’s family of sons, or as Revelation 3:14 and Proverbs 8:22 & 23 state he is God's first creation. Before Colossians 1:15, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies-the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals. What, then, causes some to ascribe a different meaning to it at Colossians 1:15? Is it Bible usage or is it a belief to which they already hold and for which they seek proof?
These scriptures above should answer how Jesus came to say that before Abraham was, I am. It is because as God's first creation, he existed first.
Continued....
@@judyswiderski2682 As for john 10:33 it reads "The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.” - New King James Version
. This does not mean that Jesus is God. the following verses Jesus himself confirms that he is not God but rather he makes a clear distiction that he is the son of God. Verses 34 to 36 reads "Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” ’? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? - New King James Version.
Another translation reads: “They answered, "We are not stoning you because of any good thing you did. We are stoning you because you did a terrible thing. You are just a man, and here you are claiming to be God!". So why do you accuse me of a terrible sin for saying that I am the Son of God? After all, it is the Father who prepared me for this work. He is also the one who sent me into the world." - Contemporary English Version. Never did Jesus ever claim he was God. In fact Jesus clarified he was not God, but as God's first creation he was God's son. John 20:17 reads “Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God” - New King James Version.
Note what the Catholic Encyclopedia states ""The doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. XIV, p. 306). In fact also no where in the New Testament is the teaching of the trinity taught as well". Consider the following from the same source: "The Old Testament clearly does not envisage God’s spirit as a person…God’s spirit is simply God’s power. If it is sometimes represented as being distinct from God, it is because the breath of Yahweh acts exteriorly…The majority of New Testament texts reveal God’s spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 13, pp. 574, 575). Confirming this W.E. Addis and Thomas Arnold, A Catholic Dictionary writes: "On the whole the New Testament, like the Old, speaks of the spirit as a divine energy or power" (W.E. Addis and Thomas Arnold, A Catholic Dictionary, 1960, p. 810).
Jesus also corrected a man as said the following in mark 10:18 "So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God." - New King James Version
. Jesus himself stated that he is not God. In fact many times he said he was not God. John 20:17 reads “Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God” New King James Version.
before coming to the earth and on his return to heaven the apostle confirmed the following about Jesus. Please also note, Philippians 2:6 states “Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;” - New International Version. This is confirmed by Jesus himself many times, but note what he says towards the end of his life on Earth, at John 14:28 : “You have heard Me say to you, ‘I am going away and coming back to you.’ If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said, ‘I am going to the Father,’ for My Father is greater than I”. - New King James Version.
The apostles also confirms this for us. What is interesting is that everything written about Jesus after John was completed after his return to heaven. So 1Corinthians 11:3 also confirms that Jesus was not God in heaven also since it reads: “But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God” New King James Version.
So to believe that Jesus is God is to disregard the bible as a whole. It is not surprising then that Cardinal Hosius is quoted as having said: “We believe the doctrine of a triune God, because we have received it by tradition, though not mentioned at all in Scripture.” (Conf. Cathol. Fidei, Chap. XXVI). Another persons are just as frank about declaring the trinity to be of pagan origin is Arthur Weigall, in his book The Paganism in Our Christianity, states: “Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon, and nowhere in the New Testament does the word ‘Trinity’ appear.”
So like Christmas, Easter, Hell and the Cross, the Trinity or the notion that Jesus is God is not biblical. Keen students of the bible can also confirm the following: "The New Testament writers...give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three equal divine persons.... Nowhere do we find any Trinitarian doctrine of three distinct subjects of divine life and activity in the same Godhead" (Fortman, The Triune God, pp. xv, xvi, 16). "Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament" (The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 1985, Vol. 11, p. 928). "Apparently Paul did not call Jesus God" (Sydney Cave, D.D., Doctrine of the Person of Christ, p. 48).
"There is no break between the Old Testament and the New. The monotheistic tradition is continued. Jesus was a Jew, trained by Jewish parents in the Old Testament scriptures. His teaching was Jewish to the core; a new gospel indeed but not a new theology…And he accepted as his own belief the great text of Jewish monotheism: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one God" (L.L. Paine, A Critical History of the Evolution of Trinitarianism, Houghton Mifflin and Co., 1900, p. 4).
"Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament" (The New Encyclopedia Britannica, 1985, Vol. 11, p. 928).
"Fourth-century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary a deviation from this teaching" (The Encyclopedia Americana, p. 1956, p. 2941).
"Paul habitually differentiates Christ from God" (C.J. Cadoux, A Pilgrim’s Further Progress, pp. 40, 42).
"Paul never equates Jesus with God" (W.R. Matthews, The Problem of Christ in the 20th Century, Maurice Lectures, 1949, p. 22).
"Paul never gives to Christ the name or description of ‘God’" (Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, Vol. 1, p. 194).
"When the New Testament writers speak of Jesus Christ, they do not speak of Him nor do they think of Him as God" (J.M. Creed, The Divinity of Jesus Christ, pp. 122-123).
If you are really interested in knowing the truth about God, Jesus, and many other things about God I recommend you click on the following link to find out more on the subject:
God the Creator: www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/online-lessons/basic-bible-teachings/unit-1/who-is-god-the-creator/#56
Who is Jesus: www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/online-lessons/basic-bible-teachings/unit-2/who-is-jesus/#25
I hope you will be able to check all the scriptures cited from your own bible and confirm the information above for yourself.
About "closest to the original languages" with Matthew the original was Hebrew, and recently tremendous strides have been made, with numerous hitherto unknown fragments and manuscripts being brought to light and translated by the Biblical scholar Dr. Nehemia Gordon. In several cases the unclear and awkward Greek of Matthew is shown to be the result of word-for-word translation of Hebrew idiomatic phrases.
Enjoyed the video thank you sir. I did note you didnt cite the, "Young's Literal Translation" or "YLT." Which I use for the same reasons you gave for the NASB. SemperFi, bb
Check out the Literal Standard Version (LSV) that just was published a few months ago. It is a mainstream Bible that you can now buy in paperback (ofcourse eventually in hard cover and leather) and its committee said it is a revised YLT that actually claims to be more literal than the YLT itself. I downloaded it on PDF which you can do in their website and I will buy it when imitation leather and hardback versions xome out, but even the paperback right now is beautiful.
I read the NIV since the late 1980's . I studied some lay Theology from the Anglican Church of Ireland in the early 1990's . One Theologian said the NRSV was the closest translation. I bought one only a couple of years ago but will stay with my NIV .
The NASB is by no means as "literal" nor as accurate as is often alleged. The most "modified-literal" English version available with some degree of readability is the ASV1901. It has no modern equal if one is seeking a version that represents the ancient Hebrew and Greek texts.
2nd only to the KJV!
I've heard that people find it difficult to read. That's because it reads like the KJV! I love my NASB, but I have other Bibles for reference. I like the NKJV and the Amplified.
@@gailgunderson5163 KJV is poetic
@@gailgunderson5163
I agree. The KJB is the best.
I do have trouble honoring bibles that quote Jesus in a lie! Most moder bibles quote Jesus telling his brothers in John 7:8, I am not going to the feast for my time has not yet come. (Is he going to break the law of Moses?) He waits and then goes. Liar!
Blasphemy.
Jesus actually says, I am not going up yet to the feast for my time has not yet come. Not yet, he said, not now. He waits and then goes. No lie. No problem.
Consider this:
The bible has been changed.
Did God say? Come on, really?
God said He preserved His word. Psalm 12:6-7. Most modern bibles do not. In other words they are not admitting that God has a standard, His inspired word. His word is quick (alive) and quickens (gives life). His word is eternal.
Most of the modern bibles have at least one out and out lie. NKJB lies in Exodus 6:3. They began to call on the name of the Lord in Genesis 4:26.
Others quote Jesus telling his brothers, i am not going to the feast. John 7:8. (Is he saying he is going to break the law of Moses?) He waits and then goes. Liar! BLASPHEMY .
Jesus simply said, not going now, not yet. He waits and then goes. No problem, no lie.
And blatantly they mock Jesus and unashamedly, constantly, with each change ask, Did God say?
Did God say Mark 11:26? Absolutely. It is an essential part of our walk with God. A verse that makes us tremble was added?????
Did God say? Acts 15:34? It shows God's divine providence. Silas was there when Paul needed him for a journey. Obviously Silas remained there.
BRAZENLY, they change or remove a word that gives the believers true power! Matthew 12:31 and Mark 9:29! Some spiritual warfare needs prayer and fasting!
Did God say eleven (11) times in the New Testament the word damnation, eternal burning? Yes. But not in theirs! Did God say?
Did God give three witnesses to that truth? Mark 9:44, 46, 48. They however only have v48. The other two they ask, Did God say? This is important because we need to know the truth and those who preach Annialism, we cease to exist, are easily proven wrong with these verses.
Jesus is God and Jesus is Man. Hebrews supports this with four verses, 3:3, 7:24, 8:3 and 10:12: "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sin for ever, sat down at rhe right hand of God; v10:12. They do not use the clarifying words 'this man' at all. Again, Did God say?
Every change they make is an insult to God and His word.
God said He would curse those who add to or take from His word. Revelation 22:18-19.
In the Old Testament those who honored a false prophet received the reward of that prophet. So the Alexandrian translators, the bible societies the publishers, the promoters, sellers and those who teach from them (showing those ear tickling bibles as God's word) or honor them will be held responsible. If done ignorantly, repent. God will not be mocked.
This happened when the inspired Antioch manuscripts called the Textus Receptus were replaced by the Alexandrian manuscripts called the Codex B or the Vaticanus from the Vatican basement, and the Sianiticus from a monestary. They do not agree with each other and the latter has about 30 changes per page. Obviously inspired by their spiritual father who brings conflict, frustration, despair and DOUBT.
King James Bible online
Helpful tool: Noah Webster 1828 Dictionary online: Look up: REPENT, REGENERATION, BELIEVE, FAITH, REDEMPTION, PERFECT, CONVERSATION, PREVENT, PROPITIATION etc.
Suppliers: Churchkjb.com
Localchurchbiblepublishers.com
Sources:
Adullum Films Documentary
-Tares Among the Wheat video
Books: The Revision Revised and The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, both by William Burgon. Dean Burgon lived during the time of Wescott and Hort.
Book: Look What's Missing by David Daniels Chick.com.
If interested an old video called The Forbidden Book video.
It has some American History also.
Thank you. This is a very good video and it helped me understand those translations.
Here are some words from the writers of the Divine Name King James Bible:
“A group of translators from the United States of America were chosen from among the Baptist, Congregationalist, Dutch Reformed, Friends, Methodist, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Protestant Episcopal, and Unitarian, to simultaneously collaborate with the translators of the RV to produce a version in ‘American’ English. This counterpart to the RV of 1885 is the American Standard Version of 1901 (ASV) and is largely identical to the Revised Version. The most noticeable difference is the restoration of Jehovah in approximately 7000 places rather than the LORD to represent the Divine Name, the Tetragrammaton. Amazing! While not as ‘authorized’ as the RV, nonetheless, the American Standard Version was approved.
The ASV with Jehovah faithfully restored was appreciated because it, as the Preface says, “let the written words speak for themselves.” It thus earned the name The Standard Bible in American seminaries by Christians who knew it was time to think for themselves rather than to let their thinking be anchored to the past interpretations of men....The Divine Name-Jehovah occurs at least 6973 times in the authentic record of the Bible. To put this into perspective, the Almighty God, Jehovah, is identified by his own unique name, 7 times more, than is “The mighty God,” Jesus, ( 7777 refWIP Isa 9:6, 7) by his own name. (Jesus occurs 983 times in the AKJV) Contrary to what unfaithful men say-Jehovah is not just one of God’s many names-it is his Great Name forever.- Ezk 36:22, 23; Exo 3:15
The short and simple fact is, that when Bibles display lord instead of Jehovah, they are not letting God’s word speak for itself. Someone else is talking and the reader can be sure that it is not the Almighty God or Jesus Christ.
The world is divided into three camps-those that are blind and couldn’t care less about the Divine Name or outright oppose it-those that are in the dark and know little or nothing about it-and finally, those who are in the light and see the treasure of God’s Divine Name. ( 7777 refWIP 1Th 5:1- 5) Once we have thoroughly researched what has been presented, we will be in full possession of the facts. We ought then be confident, that it is not an act of arrogance, when peaceably we present the Bible with Jehovah’s great name all throughout its pages, to our families, friends and fellow humankind everywhere. We can be sure it will strengthen those that are downhearted about this life but who love the truth. ( 7777 refWIP Isa 61:1, 2)”
I urge you to read this translation of the Bible if you want to have a good relationship with God Almighty and His Son, our redeemer, Christ Jesus. dnkjb.net/preface_dnkjb_online.htm
I like the NASB for study and the NKJV for use in conjunction with my Devotional.
Thank you for this brother! You habe no idea how much this helped me!
Hi, how do you do?
I have every translation and more but am glued to KJV but am trying to use my NASB and ESV and I do use the RSV-CE and Halleluyah Scriptures from time to time I love them all I have 137 Bibles in my room
Wow! You have more Bibles than me! 😮😁
I use the ERV and the Amplified.
I used to use an NASB and an NIV. The NASB was more more for study purposes the NIV more for devotional purposes. A little over fifteen years ago I switched to the ESV and HCSB. However, neither of those two need to niched into only study or only devotional. At times I use the HCSB for both and others just the ESV. Lately, the last several months only the ESV. I do on occasion however still refer to my NASB because my version is a study Bible.
The New King James Version has used Passover and corrected the error of Easter.
Helpful, thank you!
This is true for popular versions, of which the NASB is most literal but there are more literal versions out there which are not very popular. Unfortunately many of these are one person translations and/or have some serious bias involved.
Also the NASB is being revised, so something to look forward to!
According to scripture the most accurate Bible is written on the heart of God’s people.
Now concerning the list shown in this UA-cam video the man appears to be ignorant about Young’s Literal Translation and of a later group who used Young’s plus the majority text and Dead Sea Scrolls to upgrade Young’s to the Literal Standard Version.
I like to read different translations of the bible. I am enjoying The Recovery Bible complete with Notes.
3:21 about letting others choose which word is "correct", it's not that simple. Some of the Greek words occur very seldomly in the vast corpus of Greek writing of that period, the sample size being small, and the precise meaning not at all clear. Sometimes the meaning of a single Greek word is extremely complex, with no close English equivalent, like porneia, for which one book takes two or three pages to explore. (In Greek usages some forms of homosexual activity was considered porneia, while other forms weren't.)
I personally prefer the CSB the more I read it. It is very accurate and easy to understand. My old preference was for the HCSB and the NIV as those are the bible translations I have used for most of my life. I still use NIV for then I am walking around my college campus and recently purchased an ESV. I do have the NASB and KJV but I do not use them as much
How does the CSB compare in accuracy to the NIV in your opinion?
@@konstantinallinforchrist9867 the CSB is more accurate than the NIV to the original manuscripts used by the translators. While the NIV is a very accurate translation, it does sacrifice accuracy for readability in some areas. The NIV is a dynamic equivalence/thought for thought(could argue for optimal equivalence) while the CSB is what’s called an optimal equivalence.
@@warrenrhinerson6373 Thank you, God bless
@@konstantinallinforchrist9867 you’re welcome. Here’s a good one if you want to try it out
CSB Large Print Personal Size Reference Bible, Charcoal LeatherTouch smile.amazon.com/dp/1433647710/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_glt_fabc_WJ048H01FJRH3JAVS785
I’m really enjoying the interlinear and diaglott and comparing them. I was raised on the kjv, very poetic! I love reading as many translations and versions of the Bible as I can. My everyday go to is the New World Translation tho. It’s my favorite.
Interesting. Why is it your favorite, if I may ask?
@@Untitled-ee6ks it is the most accurate, while also being easily understood. It also restores God’s name to all the places it originally appeared in the manuscripts. All over 7,000 of them.
My every day bible is the NASB. It's plenty readable to me. I'm a bible teacher and I key in on specific words. I need to know what those words are. Esv is good also
I just acquired an NASB not that long ago, b=though my preferred translation is the HCSB
I also favor the ESV. It reads much more smoothly than the NASB. It is also a very accurate translation. I also like to read the KJV--mostly for its literary beauty. I read virtually all of the English translations of the bible (thanks to my Logos Bible Software program). But when all is said and done I rely on the ESV. NASB is a close 2nd.
Both quote Jesus in a lie, John 7:8. There is a huge difference between not going and not going yet.
Amazingly, some people need more proof than that. Do your research. Read: Look What's Missing by David Daniels Chick Publication. Chick.com.
@@judyswiderski2682 , I just wanted to let you know that I have made the KJV my primary Bible for study, reading, and meditation. Other translations simply do not have the "high voltage" of the KJV. Blessings to you.
@@Pastor4all52
May He bless you with words that will reach many in this time of need. For the need will certainly increase as perilous times unfold. As many of us can plainly see.
I pray that He will use you to bring many to Him. Proverbs 22:17-21, Proverbs 13:13.
It just computedee that the KJB is your primary bible. What fellowship does darkness have with light?
Is not the Holy Spirit sufficient to teach you? 1 John 2:27
It is your decision. The Q is, does it please God?
Thank you for this video
Thanks!
I think you're right. I could translate Directly from the Nestle/Alan's Text but it's like hacking through a jungle with a machete. Using the NASB is like FLYING Over the jungle in a Piper Cub. 🛩️
Thanks for the comment and I like the analogy!
This clarifies my use of the NASB and the questions I have about the ESV. Basically, what was the difference between the two? However, I would like to know your thoughts on the NIV.
There is a guy named Kevin Zadai, he talks about the niv version, He is a solid man of God, and He doesn’t have a favorable opinion of it. It is one version that should be discontinued. I’ve heard from other teachers that it should be avoided.
The YLT or Young’s Literal Translation is by far the most accurate. I cross reference it with the ASV for an easier read and the Strongs concordance. The translation you read definitely matters and can lead to far different conclusions on matters and theology. Also having a firm grasp on historical context and customs of the times help to understand the biblical authors intents.
I fully agree. In Mathew 18:34, it's the difference between interpreting the word "torturer" vs the word "inquisitor." This completely changes the meaning of what's going on, and torturer seems to make little sense with relation to what's going on in context, but inquisitor makes perfect sense.
Take a look at this book. ''The Four Gospels at a Glance''. That sums up a lot. The puzzles (verses) are put together nicely. All questions resolve themselves, and all of this without any comments from the author. It came out late last year. In the various comparative tests, it always comes out as the winner. A real helper for the reader. I can only recommend.
www.amazon.com/-/es/American-Standard-Version-Asv/dp/3752610328/ref=sr_1_2?__mk_es_US=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&crid=2SSY6ZWMVBPUF&dchild=1&keywords=the+four+gospels+at+a+glance&qid=1619626380&sprefix=the+four+gospels+at+%2Caps%2C246&sr=8-2
@@NKWTI I looked up over 12 translations of the verse in Matthew you posted. 10 of them said torture or tormentors. Only one mentioned inquisitor. How do you figure it’s the correct translation?
I like the KJV, NKJV, NET, and NLT.
NKJV is my go to. It contains the poetic flow of the KJV yet it also is readable enough for me to enjoy and grow in the word. Great video. I appreciate the breakdown.
Love the poetry of the KJV
I prefer the NASB and I use it for the devotional I find the ESV lifeless to be honest. I was brought up KJV and nothing can beat it for the poetry of the bible and it’s just beautifully written. I took a chance on a CSB translation and really enjoyed along with the NIV.
One of the translators of the NASB has revoked his association with the translation due to how terrible it is. The NIV might even be worse.
Accuracy and literalness are two different things. The NRSV and CSB are probably the two most accurate translations for most English-speaking Christians.
The NASB has a reputation for literalness which you continue and yet time after time within the NASB it paraphrases with footnotes to the literal meaning. Most times the literal meaning makes perfect sense but the translators for whatever reason chose to paraphrase instead.
Yeah if you want literal try Young's literal translation
I fully agree. The NASB is really not that literal at all, unless you read the "Lit." footnotes. Super aggravating and not worth it. Many times the NKJV is much more literal and has the "lit" from the NASB within the text of the NKJV.
Thae NASB is from the Alexandrian manuscripts. It quotes Jesus in a lie! John 7:8 there is a huge difference between not going and not going yet.
Read: Look What's Missing by David Daniels chick Publication. Chick.com.
Here are a few, Acts 15:18, Roman's 9:32, 14:6, 21. 1 John 4:2, 19, 5:7 !!!
God said He preserves His word. Psalm12:6,7. They do not acknowledge that. How can they, they have changed His word hundreds of times.
Their very existence asks, Did God say?
Thanks for posting, good video
Old testament:
Deutronomy 18:17-18
“I(God) will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers;I will put my words in his mouth and he will tell them everything I command him."
From these verses we conclude that the prophet in this prophecy must have the following three characteristics:
1) That he will be like Moses.
2) That he will come from the brothers of the Israelites,
3) That God will put His words in to the mouth of this prophet and that he will declare what God commands him.
Let us examine these three characteristics in more depth:
1)A prophet like Moses:
There were hardly any two prophets who were so much alike as Moses and Muhammad.
Their similarities:
a)Both were given a comprehensive law and code of life
b)Both encountered their enemies and were victorious in miraculous ways
c)Both were accepted as prophets and statesmen
d)Both migrated following conspiracies to assassinate them
e)Both had a family,marrige,children etc
f)Both had a normal birth and dead
Jesus have more differences than similarities matching with moses Like:
a)Birth
b)family,Marrige and children
c) Moses was accepted as by his people and became Statesman but Jesus was rejected by his own people and was not a statesman.
So, this prophecy refers to the Prophet Muhammad and not to Jesus, because Muhammad is more like Moses than Jesus.
2)From the brothers of the Israelites:
Abraham had two sons Ishmael and Isaac(Genesis 21).Ishmael became the grandfather of the Arab nation and Isaac became the grandfather of the Jewish nation.The prophet spoken of was not to come from among the Jews themselves but from among their brothers that is the Ishmaelites.Muhammad a descendant of Ishmael is indeed this prophet and Because Jesus and other prophets was descendant of issac there are not the promised prophet.
Interesting fact is no other prophet has fulfil this prophecy expect Muhammad.
3) God will put His words in the mouth of this prophet:
a)The words of God (Holy Quran) were truly put into Muhammad’s mouth.God sent the Angel Gabriel to teach Muhammad the exact words of God (Holy Quran) and asked him to dictate them to the people as he heard them.The words are therefore not his own.They did not come from his own thoughts, but were put into his mouth by the Angel Gabriel.During the life time of Muhammad and under his supervision these words were then memorized and written by his companions.
b)Also,this prophecy in Deuteronomy mentioned that this prophet will speak the words of God in the name of God.If we looked to the Holy Quran we will find that all its chapters, except Chapter 9 are preceded or begin with the phrase, “In the Name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful"
So Muhammad has fulfil this prophecy also.
Still now if you think that it was Jesus so i have to take help from New testament
John 1:19-25 "when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him(John the baptist), "Who are you?" 20. He confessed, and did not deny, but confessed, "I am not the Christ." 21. And they asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not.""Are you the Prophet?" And he answered, "No." 22. So they said to him, "Who are you? We need to give an answer to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?" 23. He said, "I am the voice of one crying out in the wilderness, 'Make straight the way of the Lord,' as the prophet Isaiah said." 24. (Now they had been sent from the Pharisees.) 25. They asked him, "Then why are you baptizing, if you are neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?"
So according to John 1:20-21 and John 1:25 We come to know that Jews were waiting for 3 people to come
1.Christ
2.Elijah
3.A prophet
and all of them are different people not one.Because if they were one Jews direcetly said that "Are you the one christ,Elijah and prophet" and by bible we came to know that Jesus was the christ and John the baptist is Elijah(John 11:14).Now you can say that maybe the prophet came earlier but if he had came earlier the jewish would have known about him and in bible(New testament) we Can find that prophet by name.But bible says he(Comforter,Helper) will come in future.
Reference :
John 16:7,
"Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Comforter will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send him to you"
John 14:16
"[For] I will ask [God] the [Creator], and He will give you another Comforter, so that he may abide with you forever".
So it is clear that according both New testament and Old testament another messenger will arrive and that is no one but Prophet Muhammad because he has fulfil all the prophecy.
Note that God has said in the Deuteronomy 18:19
“If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account.”
This means that whoever believes in the Bible must believe in what this prophet(Muhammad) says.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Wait...NASB is 'a dry read' ? Its not a mystery novel it's the Bible. Sure we can color it up by being 'less' literal to sound prettier...but not for me. Give me what it says and let me deal with that without changing it to sound more flowy.
All I want is a modern English translation of the Septuagint and Textus Receptus... Basically I want an Interlinear Bible with the Septuagint instead of the Masoretic text. I don't have time to learn Koine Greek... But I might try with a readers Septuagint... Apparently I can download all these things I'm rambling about and print my own bible.
Surely there are septuagint translations in modern english?
@@lisenpedersen ya, I found an orthodox bible that is good and ebible.org/eng-Brenton/
I just read that the NASB was in the line of KJV, so I have no idea what is going on with these Bibles. At this point, It feels as though people are trying to force you into their ministry's by confusing the historical truths of translations.
I couldn’t agree more.
I must disagree with you dear sir. I've used the NASB 1977 since 1986 when I started Bible College, and I've never found it hard to understand. Maybe one here or one there, a rarity. I use multiple versions and I find clumsy translations in ALL versions. This is a fact! God bless.
Elias no it doesn't, you will think so only if you are a KJV onlyist/Byzantine fan. The truth is that the KJV ADDED a vast amount of verses.
Elias I don't see any of your objestins. No reason to be discouraged! Firstly yes I've read and studdied many bible translations including the Arabic and have compared them to their respective GK text. I read GK and Arabic fluently. I also speak Arabic, as my mom and wife are Lebanese. Your problem seems to be that you incorrectly think that in translation you can go word by word, and that every word must be in the English text, you are mistaken. In English you Can not for example put down the GK word (the τον) in Jn 1:1 “the God” my advice to you is to research how translations are made, this will answer all your objections that are baseless. God bless. As far as I’m concerned the most accurate is the NASB 1977.
Elias ua-cam.com/video/MxwYK2duyPg/v-deo.html
I like many translations. For the BEST.... New World Translation is for scholar understanding.
The New World Translation is not regarded by any credible translation scholar as being an accurate translation. It is regarded (rightly) as actually a perversion, put out by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Jason BeDuhn is appealed to as a "scholar" who endorses the NWT. He is a professor of religious studies. That is not by any means the same thing as an accredited translation scholar.
JWs are told by their leaders (whom they follow with no questions, so “masters” is a more accurate term than leaders) that the people who put it together were well-qualified to do so. Okay so who are they and what and where are their credentials in translation studies? If the JW claim of them being well-qualified is true, then produce the names and credentials so everyone can see for themselves. But that doesn't happen.
The truth is - When anyone reads the NWT, they are reading a book that was put together by people whom you have no idea at all whether they were qualified to do translation work. The NWT was created by the JWs in order to say what their doctrines say - Their doctrines came first - then the NWT was created to back them. This is totally backwards.
Seriously - Think about this - The JW doctrines came first, and then a "Bible" was created that supports them. Does that sound "right" to you?
No one need take my word for this - Go here and make up your own mind: www.gotquestions.org/New-World-Translation.html
The NWT is a very biased translation that steps into the field of exegesis. Even though it might restore God's Name in the OT, it casually uses God's name (although not the actual transliteration of it) with no reverence, and very daringly and unjustifiably inserts the divine name in the NT. It also shows great disrespect and undermines our Lord Jesus' position and denies His deity. The scholarly skills of the NWT Committee are also highly questionable, particularly when it comes to the NT and the actual lack of accurate knowledge of Koine Greek.
I'm an American, and your British accent has some strange twang in it that sounds strangely familiar .. I'm from the tri state Ga, AL, TN area .. I think we might have been related dozens of generations ago
Accords with Bible Numerics, the most accurate translation is the Numerics new testament.
The first Bible that I started reading was a OKJV nelsons. Lots of cross reference.
My Bible got stolen now i got Nkjv so much cross referencing missing lots of blank spaces in the middle column i asked Bible shops in SA they said i have to order it 😢.
I understand your thinking toward people wanting the easier Bibles that they can also understand what they are reading. Now, my first question is does the NASB, and the ESV omit verses and words and take out the word Christ or Jesus in certain verses? Through my research of Bible versions, I have learned that we can use the Strong's concordance and the greens interlinear or the companion Bible, to help us in our studies. The biggest factor is IF these Bible translations like the NASB, ESV are omitting verses or words that would be completely unbiblical. What I have been trying to wrap my mind around is, that we have over 100 translations in English, and they all cannot possibly be correct, and give the Word of Truth. I have compared it in my own mind as a sort of Plagiarism over Plagiarism. Its like us reading a book like Romeo and Juliet, and getting the first translation from that old English into the best translation of English for us today, ,,,and then someone comes along and does another translation and another, up to the 100. Well that would water down and lose the truth of that story. I do know that the translation was made from a language like Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Chaldee, to English, so I can imagine the difficulty. I do read the Authorized Version, and do find errors with certain words, which thankfully I am able to search and find the word using the Strong's. .....So what do you think about what I am saying?, is there some validity to my thoughts? I appreciate your time, and I am not criticizing what your doing, we are to edify and exhort one another, and its all out of the love for Yahushua.
Hi Jay, thanks for the comment and question. I think that when it comes to Bible translations it can become a minefield. I have to trust that those scholars who sit and discuss the original Hebrew and Greek documents are being true to the Word of God and not trying to add or take anything away. I studied Greek at college and struggled with it and didn't even start Hebrew! We also have to factor in, for example, most of what Jesus said is written in Greek whereas we know that He spoke in Aramaic and there must have been a few translation difficulties from Aramaic to Greek. I don't think that anything is watered down because we have more access to Hebrew and Greek manuscripts than ever before and there is a fair amount of scholarly debate about the accuracy of these that are used. I think you are right to use a concordance and it is also right to see what different translations say and then to try to understand what the original writer once wrote. We also have the unknown factors of the mistakes that the early transcribers made, but in saying that there is good evidence with the number of fragments that we have now we can be pretty certain of what we have is accurate. This is why I like to read bibles that are debated and put together through committee rather than an individual because these issues are hammered out. I hope this helps and just to add that this is all about people using the giftings that God has given them and I have to trust that these people are doing just that because unfortunately, it is not one of mine. I think that most of the publishers would answer an email if you sent it to them asking some questions that you have. I hope this helps, Dan.
What manuscripts do they use to translate these Bibles also matter I believe through my understanding that most of them use the eastern text the early church did not when you look back over the first few centuries when you read over sermon notes they quoted mostly the texus receptius. Hope I spelled that right...
Yes, the ESV leaves verses out. Not just words. You need to look at who translated it, the scholars and the publishing company. Most are Calvinists. The Bible is "Calvinist-leaning". Their doctrine influences the way they view prophecy for example. That is reflected in the Bible, with verses taken out!
I use the NASB as my everyday Bible, for devotions and study etc. It is harder to read sometimes but I think that draws you into the text and forces you to really focus on what's being said. Just my opinion, but the most important thing is to understand what you read and to read it often. God bless! 🙂
Thanks for the comment and you are absolutely right about reading it more and often!
♥️stick to Jesus. No religion
That chart makes no sense...The Amplified bible is a paraphrase ? It should be Youngs, Nasb, NKJV , KJV , ESV, CSB then the RSV , NIV and so on then around the land of the message you can have the Amplified bible. I'm only sharing from memory so I might be off a bit but I know the Amp is far from literal.
Airik1111 always there to save the day! I was thinking the same thing. 👍🏻
I know the critical issues, but choose the AV because I don't agree with the presuppositions behind the Critical Text.
I use the Nasb and niv
As some have commented, the Young's Literal Translation, is closer to the originals than the NASB. The NASB is not the easiest to read, but not bad.
I am not a scholar, but just a person who has done some reading on the subject.
My personal preferences are the. KJV, and the NKJV, but I use many others as well.
My favorite thought for thought is the 1984 NIV.
I do not care much for the gender neutral versions.
shirley goss If you favor NIV, dig deeper. NIV in important places has language that gets far away or even sometimes opposite of the original meanings. I am not clear that its authors intentionally make these mistakes, but their choices of language effectively mean something different than the conclusions of many other good translation. I would suggest always having NKJV at least riding shotgun next to you whenever you go with NIV. Sometimes NIV is spot on, so I use its more accessible wording. But be wary of using it exclusively.
I tried the NASB 1995 for a while but though accurate it does not read smoothly for me. The ESV 2016 is my modern literal translation of choice now. I still read the Authorised version too. It was the Bible of my childhood and I still think its cadances are beautiful.
Well, the NASV is most accurate to the Alexandrian manuscripts, while the KJV comes from the Byzantine received text.
How can any bible, that cuts out verses, be said to be the most literal, let alone the most accurate?
I often use the living Bible paraphrase.
I agree with you but no discussion of the KJV from a British pastor 😊? I read the ESV but mostly the KJV. It's still the language of Shakespeare so it can't be all bad. Very beautiful actually.
King James Version (received text) adds to the text and is based on very late manuscripts. The modern versions are what you would have without KJV added words or phrases. The NASB is the most accurate out there. I don't like it's format on the page, but it's atleast better than the other English versions and the KJV, which are the cause for the many false doctrines out there.
The spirit of Satan's has infiltrate the body of Christ with all this lies!
I find the NASB a bit ponderous to read. I use the ESV, NKJV and Authorised mostly occasionally reaching for the NIV and Amplified.
I think the NKJV is more literal than it gets credit for.
I’ve always enjoyed reading various bibles, translations, and so on. When I need to know exactly what is meant, the New World Translation has been proven source for accuracy.
Mormon?
I highly disagree. The NWT is a very biased translation that steps into the field of exegesis. It casually uses God's name with no reverence, and very daringly and unjustifiably inserts the divine name in the NT. It also shows great disrespect and undermines our Lord Jesus' position and denies His deity. The scholarly skills of the Translation Committee are also highly questionable, particularly when it comes to the NT and the accurate knowledge of Koine Greek.
Suptuigent is best for old testement what's best for new testament?
King James and New world Translation are also very beneficial for Understanding better
Thank you for this! I am reading a different version each time through :) I had not yet considered the NASB & now I will.
I’ll stick with the one with no copy right!
It doesn’t matter witch Bible you use cause every one has there own interpretation
You can make the Bible say anything you want
So you should listen to jahovah and discuss what the Bible is taking about
And try to be honest about the whole thing
Thank you it would help a bit if you read a verse in all these examples so we would get a better understanding of what your saying
Douay-Rheims for me. But literal isn't always better, so much as understanding the context of first century hebrew and greek writers. It's more important to keep that context than be literally translated.
Context is king!
Do you know these things yourself or you’re repeating things?
"Literal" is not necessarily better.
True!
@@monoingles Hi Dan! You sound British to me am I correct? Can you answer a question for me please? Why do all theologians claim 'Jesus' is God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost or Spirit? Why do theologians insist a woman who gives birth to a Son, a Male who is to shepherd the earth with an iron rod is their churches? How can a Church bring forth a Divine Child?
And why do theologians deny Hebrews 1:6 is prophetically stating that He (God Almighty) did make the oath that he would again bring His Firstborn into the inhabited earth?
Are you 'Tiger Dan' who I knew from the internet who was teaching prophesy of Daniel etc..?
I have an interlinear a ESV and a NASB. I read from the NASB but if I do not understand a verse I check the other translations. Sometimes I even refer to my NIV or Good news bible. Helpful video Sir. Thank you.
Nice! the Hebrew tetregramaton for the name of God' that the paganized church' from long ago had removed from its KJV of 1611 writ' near 7000 times yet which is still' is found six plus times in their trusted "translated or "version" the most strategic areas- Ex 6:3; Ps 83:18; Is 12:2; 26:4; out side of the example of Christ' all but "one" follow suit with "catholic" cult' has duped many into believing a lie as actuality "blasphemy" Jesus disciples believed the "truth" that Jesus taught. -Acts --5:28---31; is not sperious' Gods word the Bible does not contradict itself' God is never referred to as in the plural sense' allways singular' we get the sense of the unity in the words of Jesus last recorded prayer to his God before he was murdered for teaching the 'truth' John 17:1-26; Confirm' John --20:17--; also' they dont teach accurate mean- ings of hallelu-Jah.. the name Jesus' and Elijah' (Prophet of GOD long be- fore ther was a Christian.. God is how many? Deuteronomy 6:4; see Gods words delivered by an angel' a clear directive -Isaiah 43:7,10-13; Jesus tells why' and who' their daddy really is -John 8:19,40-47 truth does matter -Matthew 7:13-23; (Jesus)
you have the issue of how words develop and change both in the original language, and then in the changing and developing language which we use. There is the the issue that words are nuanced in the the original and in the contemporary language, and nuancing is also dynamic. For me, the Jesus Seminar addressed this issue head on, and transformed how I see the Bible. How, when and why was each biblical book written and how many contributors wrote it? I’m just a scientist, not a linguist.. I feel the David Suchet, by reading the Bible in balanced spoken English, puts the icing on the cake of linguistics.
"They read from the book of the law of God translating to give sense so the people understood the reading" Habakkuk 8:8 Different people have differing degrees of English litearcy. A person with a high degree of literacy can appreciate more literal translations whereas others benefit from less literal translations. The point is gaining understanding of scripture. As long as a person reads even a paraphrase that captures the essence of what scripture is saying then it's a good translation for them. The caveat is when a person is reading a sketchy paraphrase that does not correctly render the spirit, meaning or intent of the orginal languages which results in deception. I'd stay away from most paraphrased translations, especially the message, the passion and the voice. A child, a person with a reading or comprehension disability or someone speaking English as a 2nd language may benefit a paraphrase so long as it was assembled by a team of legit scholars and not by an individual. It's always a good idea for leaders to research translations especially if they have people with low English literacy to help them find a good fit with a good translation or valid paraphrase.
Well said
I agree, as long as the Truth gets to you I dont see what it matters. Its helping probably millions come to Jesus.
What you say makes sense, however, one needs to understand the intent behind many of the revised and modern versions. There is a war going on between Truth and Error. As Christian,s we need to be informed and not speculate things and put forth our thought as the gospel. God has already given us the saving truth. We must also, remember that" devotion to error can never produce true righteousness." Check out my teaching on the subject.ua-cam.com/video/zCYX662v60A/v-deo.html. I only touched the tip of the iceberg. It is way larger than what the Beat thinks it is or most people for that fact. God Bless.
Where’s the standards used for this table of bible translation?
I grew up on the King James. I have a James Moffat translation that I enjoy.
A GOOD BIBLE WILL INCLUDE GOD'S NAME THAT 7S WHY I USE THE NEW WORLD TRANSACTION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES PUBLISHED BY JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES MARVIN FROM UTAH
Yeah those mentioned bibles are great translations of the wrong underlying base text(NA).
Hebrew is my language. Only 10 years ago I began to understand its depths. Most Hebrew speakers do not enter its depths. Hebrew is a sacred language, no less. Every word is encoded in essence. The meaning of the "Hebrew " is "}to convey". Hebrew conveys in every word a variety of potentials. Each word is a kind of divine dictionary and each letter has infinite depths, from the form of the letter to the letters name. The Torah is not a collection of children's stories and it has depths. These are movements of consciousness. The Bible can not be translated into another language because when you do that you left with a hollow story without its true essence. The essence is revealed and changed, as you rise in consciousness. Ten years ago, my wife began to receive direct information about Hebrew, a knowledge that was hidden up until now and is amazing! She wrote a book on the subject..Even the name of Jesus was distorted. Jesus' name in translation to Hebrew is "salvation", "yeshua" "ישוע" that is his Hebrew meaning and in English or Latin you only get a hollow name. Hebrew validates every word . The combinations that come from every word are ingenious, it is divine complexity.
Can you prove the new testament was written in Hebrew?
Thank you for your comment , I hope all who read it , understand the beauty of what you yourself have found. I am a gentile believer in Yeshua and for some years now have been learning about the Jewish roots of my faith. I also speak Spanish ( I grew up bilingual ) and understand that you loose a richness of the words when translating into another language and wanted to know the scriptures from the meaning of the language it was birthed from. I decided to study the scriptures in the Hebrew language , and I am studying with "Holy Language Institute " on line . A wonderful young man , Izzy Avraham is the founder and instructor. In this course I am learning from a Hebrew (who is a believer ) and am beginning to understand " the true essence " of the scriptures. You can find Izzy Avraham on You Tube also www.holylanguage.com. I pray for all people everywhere who want a closer relationship with Adoni , our Father and with our Lord Yeshua Hamashiach. May God richly bless you all .
@@johnraymond1861 can you prove its not?
Very well said my brother. I hope you uncover the truth of what was spoken in those times.
I know Jesus spoke Hebrew because he quoting old testament scripture but I want the proof of was written in Hebrew
Thank you brother 👍