Dan Wallace's TOP 5 BIBLE TRANSLATIONS

[@CruxSacraApologetics]

0:00 Categories 3:04 What makes an Accurate Bible 5:30 What Type is the ESV? 8:06 NIV vs. NLT 9:05 The NET as a Study Bible 11:02 Thoughts on the CSB 12:25 Which is Best for Beauty? Accuracy? Readability? 16:13 Dan's TOP 5 PICKS Study and Accuracy: NET Readability & Accuracy: NIV Understated Elegance: ESV Rich Wording: KJV & REB (1989) Ecumentical: NRSV 17:00 What Type is the ASV? 18:45 NRSV and Gender Neutrality 22:33 NKJV is the Least Favorite? 24:26 Not a Big Fan of the NASB? 27:38 What is the Favorite Overall Bible? 28:06 Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts 34:34 Closure

[@MM-jf1me]

Thank you!

[@rinkevichjm]

NRSV is not in accord with LA and is NOT Vatican approved

[@rinkevichjm]

Fails to acknowledge the bad translation of Tyndall and almost every English Bible that improperly translate genitives. Gal 3:22 … so that the promise from out of Jesus Christ’s faithfulness might be given to the faithful - not: so the promise by the faith of Jesus Christ might be given to the believer. Ek is not “by” and the Greek never intends the faith of Jesus Christ but Jesus Christ’s faithfulness, nor does it intend believer rather than faithful

[@NewportSolar]

The hero of the comments section 👍

[@danielprovencio7063]

Thank you for this!

[@philtheo]

According to Dan Wallace in the video: * He has three criteria in Bible translation: accuracy, readability, elegance. * For accuracy as "the translator's translation": NET * For accuracy with readibilty: NIV * For understated elegance: ESV * For elegance with "rich words" and that is "literary": KJV and REB * For ecumenical (not one of his three criteria but Wallace still mentioned it): NRSV

[@daynehaworth9258]

Thanks for summarising this brother 😀

[@fransikajohn9005]

NIV is most controversial and subtly anti-God along with some others. It not a true translation but a corruption of the original. Don't put if pass Satan to be involved in bible translation under the deception of making it it plainer. God is his own intetpreter.

[@properpropaganda9831]

NIV for accuracy? Yikes.

[@Real_LiamOBryan]

@@properpropaganda9831 I kinda feel you on this one; however, the NIV is fairly accurate to what the Greek was trying to convey, though not always.

[@makarov138]

Wonder why he doesn't mention the CSB? That's a great bible! Very clearly written.

[@JanSmith-w7g]

I have about 50 Bible translations in my house. In my family, I am the keeper of our family Bibles. I always dream that one day when Jesus assigns us work in heaven, maybe He will consider me for a position in the heavenly library. Thanks for posting this.

[@EdwinDekker71]

modern bible versions are based on the Alexandrian manuscripts (less then 50 manuscripts, mainly codex Vaticanus and codex Sinaiticus) that alter and omit many verses and even contradict each other. The AV/KJV however, is based on the traditional majority text from Antioch; 6000+ manuscripts that all agree in their reading. Modern versions are corrupt.

[@zubenelgenubi]

How nice it would be if the Bible had been correctly translated by a prophet of God with NOTHING left out, to begin with, rather than having dozens of different translations!!

[@Bruce-f4l]

Hope the whole thing wasn't just made up.

[@allgrainbrewer10]

@@Bruce-f4l It was. That's the funny part.

[@SurferKroky]

@@allgrainbrewer10prove it

[@jasongillis1336]

NET really grows on you the more you read it and investigate the textual notes and reasons for translating certain ways. I love how if there are discussions about a text, it just presents the issues from both sides and the reasons they went a particular way. I must be a nerd, because I find it enlightening and fun!

[@craigime]

It doesn't

[@bizdude57]

Net bible: John 1:18 No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known. ESV: John1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. KJV: John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him]. NASB: John1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. Trinity? No Trinity? Depends on which text you desire? Best bible translations? No such thing.

[@bizdude57]

You are correct.

[@davidricci7736]

One will never listen to Dr. Wallace without learning. I thank God for his life, gifts, and contribution to the church.

[@ericday4505]

Yes you are correct David, I absolutely love listening to this guy, and I always learn something.

[@josephsolomon3436]

Thank you for this. I have learned quite a bit from Dr. Daniel Wallace. It's always a joy to learn about different translations and textual criticism. God bless both of you for all that you do.

[@Johnny-mz9ot]

"Reinventing Jesus" is one of my favorite books

[@josephsolomon3436]

@@Johnny-mz9ot I haven't read that one. I'll have to check it out.😎

[@sigiligus]

The thing about the KJV is that it is THE titan of English literature. Even Richard Dawkins has said "any native English speaker who doesn't know a word of the King James is verging on the barbaric." It may not be the most accurate, but it is the definitive volume of the English language and culture for nearly half a millennium. Everyone with English as a first language regardless of faith should own one.

[@JohnW-cf2kw]

It is the most accurate your problem is that it doesn't use the corrupt critical text

[@susanstein6604]

The KJV is a bad transition of the original Hebrew. It’s an English translation of a Greek translation of the original Hebrew. It’s a copy of a copy of a copy.

[@EdwinDekker71]

​@@susanstein6604modern bible versions are based on the Alexandrian manuscripts (less then 50 manuscripts, mainly codex Vaticanus and codex Sinaiticus) that alter and omit many verses and even contradict each other. The AV/KJV however, is based on the traditional majority text from Antioch; 6000+ manuscripts that all agree in their reading. Modern versions are corrupt.

[@OkieAllDay]

CSB, ESV, NIV, KJV are the translations I read and memorize from

[@EdwinDekker71]

modern bible versions are based on the Alexandrian manuscripts (less then 50 manuscripts, mainly codex Vaticanus and codex Sinaiticus) that alter and omit many verses and even contradict each other. The AV/KJV however, is based on the traditional majority text from Antioch; 6000+ manuscripts that all agree in their reading. Modern versions are corrupt.

[@mikemandel5775]

"Elegance, accuracy, and readability". Brilliant! Thanks for this.

[@david.petrey]

I'm in love with Dan's bookcases!

[@GracUntoYou]

It's like the beauty and the beast's library

[@moerivera6659]

I know right 😂

[@glennkealy8466]

Totally awesome

[@RV-there-Yet]

Maybe it's a green screen =)

[@d.torrent1822]

Truly done right. 👌

[@jaine2164]

I SO appreciate Dan's Expertise. I heard him at a conference in Dallas in my 20's. He's slowly morphing me into an Apologists.😁😊

[@gibsonguitarplayer]

I have one of those green Living Bibles from the 70’s!!!! I’m 67, grew up on the RSV through high school years and my catechism class. Moved to the NIV for many years…and now I’m in love with the KJV. I just naturally translate it in my mind as I read it. Just elegant and direct to the point without a bunch of extra words.

[@tonikeltz3751]

This is my story, also. The only difference is that I never had an RSV. I let go of my Living Bible in the late 80's when a friend showed interest in the Bible. It was a sacrifice at the time I remember! I always return to KJV.

[@hdrealestate92345]

same

[@t2squared]

Yeah, I had one too. I bought it a a K-Mart. It was wonderful.

[@ArmorofTruth]

That is a FABULOUS LIBRARY! I want one just like it. Great discussion as well!

[@vickyburton2434]

Me too!❤️

[@timtodd1764]

Thank Gentlemen for this podcast. This has given me much peace in the Bible translation i have chosen. Thank you. God-bless

[@annagaiser5186]

CSB: "It's not a Southern Baptist only translation--there are some decent scholars who worked on it." I'm pretty sure that didn't come out the way Dr. Wallace intended it, but it was still the best laugh I've had in a long time!

[@jamesstandifer1683]

I would love to know Dr. Wallace’s opinion of the Berean Study Bible (BSB)

[@MagdalenaLilla]

This is a Great discussion. I'd like to hear also Bill Mounce on this topic.

[@aperson4057]

@Hdjd Udjsjwb Well Bill Mounce has been involved in two, both the ESV and the NIV. Two translations with different philosophies so he can have much to say.

[@MagdalenaLilla]

@Hdjd Udjsjwb Certainly. But Dan Wallace was also involved in the NET. It's just good to hear and learn more from different perspectives.

[@BB-bs7hm]

your bible interpreted so many times..become not book of God after interpretation

[@michaelharrington75]

@@BB-bs7hmYou have no clue what you're talking about. All of the newer translations are translated from the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. It's not as if newer translations are being created by using older translations until the original meaning is lost. The original manuscripts are used to create a new translation. The main reason there are so many translations is because of copyright issues.

[@Baltic_Hammer6162]

Bill Mounce was leading a pastor's seminar when he said he translates through a Calvinist filter. He was a Greek translator on the ESV committee and left for the NIV committee. At the seminar he said he WAS a 5 point Calvinist but years of reading/translating has left him a (quote) ""shaky 2.5 Calvinist". My question to him is...what took you so long to figure that out..!!

[@WalktheWalk-ki9kj]

I love brother Dan, he has a lively sense of humor and his explanations are interesting.

[@vickyburton2434]

I love the NET Bible. I also love to read the CSV and NKJ. I also think it is so important to read different versions.

[@rasmith_99]

Great interview Mike. Great topic and info. I’m a big fan of Dr Wallace’s work.

[@jarrodmurdock5689]

He’s right about the Revised English Bible. It’s beautiful and vastly underrated and under-appreciated. It’s a shame it isn’t more well-known. I wish Cambridge published it in more reader-friendly editions.

[@juliemora4773]

Bout to buy a NET! Thank you, God for Mr. Wallace! Thank you for giving him the want and ability to educate your Church on your Word. Thank you Mr. Wallace i have never enjoyed a book study so much. You made it clear which book was for which purpose you wanna execute which is a big help as I have been wondering which version wouod be best for study and recall.

[@billyr9162]

I immediately paused the video and went and bought the NET Bible. Couldn't even wait to the end of the video. Looked up a few verses and Shazam. It's wonderful. There still is no replacement for knowing the Greek words but this is good.

[@newapologist]

I did also 😊

[@SpaceCadet4Jesus]

@@billyr9162 Understanding the Greek words is merely the starting point of translation. A greater challenge arises when deciding between interpreting a meaning within its historical and grammatical context versus a direct, word-for-word Greek translation. It becomes even more complex when trying to present these ideas in a way that's readable and relatable for modern audiences. Translation is a demanding task best handled by highly skilled experts, which I feel has been done well in various translations. I prefer to read a trusted choice (my daily driver) while relying on comparison of various other translations along with an Interlinear, word dictionary and other tools, when in tough spots. I feel by reading the various translations that it usually suffices to assist my understanding for the most part, for a normal read. My Greek is way too weak to trust, although I'm working on it.

[@billyr9162]

@@SpaceCadet4Jesus keep working on it. Sounds like you got a long way to go

[@SpaceCadet4Jesus]

@@billyr9162 I'm likely further along in my Greek than you are, but yes I still have a long way to go. Like I said even knowing Greek isn't going to make me into a translator.

[@billyr9162]

@SpaceCadet4Jesus sound like you have a long way to go. Keep gong

[@davidmjacobson]

Very helpful. I learned a ton from his intermediate greek book (and sadly have forgotten most of it!). A little off topic, but I went and hunted down the reference at 15:14 on cultural literacy. I'm pretty sure he's talking about "Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know" by E. D. Hirsch.

[@janeEyreAddict]

I was curious about that too...but he said Alan bloom so perhaps he is referring to " the closing of the American mind"?

[@MM-jf1me]

Thank you both. I assumed he must be talking about the book David mentioned, but then found the book Jane mentioned when I tried to look up Alan Bloom in connection with cultural literacy: glad to have my assumptions confirmed by others.

[@duradim1]

I think it wise to look at the translators themselves and their philosophies and beliefs to help guide you on your selection of Bible translation. Example: Did the translators believe in the miracles of the Bible?

[@marbleman52]

I have a three volume set that has 26 different versions/translations of the entire Bible contrasted & compared where there is a significant difference in the translation for any particular verse. It has been interesting to use. My main Bible is the NKJV, called The Open Bible Expanded Edition, 1983, and I have used it since the late 1980's. But...what really started opening my eyes and mind to the wonderful Bible was when I got my first Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and began looking up the Hebrew and Greek words as I read the verses. it has opened up a whole new world of scriptural study for me. I am wondering why using a good Concordance along with whatever translation of the Bible that one chooses to use was not mentioned? I enjoyed the interview...thanks..!!

[@rhyne9388]

Most likely due to the fact that just having a Strongs alone doesn't always provide the correct word especially in Greek. You have to parse the word in order to get the correct gender and even the meaning in some instances. I like a Strongs Concordance and it has its value no question but you have to dig more into the word meaning that is provided to get its true value.

[@VicRibeiro777]

@@rhyne9388 Yes, a lexicon is preferable to just Strong's. Also, Strong's has been, and is still being abused by overzealous people that don't understand that context is very important. The purpose of Strong's was to show the reader the words BEHIND the KJV text. Not an exhaustive explanation of how those original words should be translated. Read the preface and the explanations at the start of the Original complete Strong's. It is there if people only look.

[@vickyburton2434]

Like the key Word Study Bible?

[@reksubbn3961]

I love this man and his knowledge is phenomenal. But I am having trouble reading one Bible let alone having several translations! Where do these people find the time? Do they not sleep? So impressed. And yes I also covet his library.

[@craigime]

Why are you having trouble reading one bible?

[@reksubbn3961]

@@craigime Because it is a very big book. I am not talking about casual reading but studying and meditating and applying it to life. It takes a whole lifetime so I am told. Thanks for your reply.

[@craigime]

@@reksubbn3961 "so I am told" so you never tried it yourself? I study the Bible daily and I've read through it several times. Saying "it's a very big book" is just an excuse. There's no way your that busy that you couldn't have read through the Bible at least one time in your entire life

[@davidmilam2037]

I wish I could ask Mr. Dan and Mr. Mike about this new Berean Study Bible. I've been reading from it for about two years now, and I consider it my new favorite.

[@TheCanadianCatholicChannel]

It should be added that the KJV was also reactionary to the Geneva Bible.

[@TheCanadianCatholicChannel]

Great talk btw.

[@EdwinDekker71]

modern bible versions are based on the Alexandrian manuscripts (less then 50 manuscripts, mainly codex Vaticanus and codex Sinaiticus) that alter and omit many verses and even contradict each other. The AV/KJV however, is based on the traditional majority text from Antioch; 6000+ manuscripts that all agree in their reading. Modern versions are corrupt.

[@Baltic_Hammer6162]

King James had at least one man hanged or burned at the stake for refusing to use the KJV. I know the Puritans/Pilgrims refused the KJV in favor of the Geneva. But they liked their Calvinist filters to translate along with frequent Calvinist sidenotes to make sure the reader stayed on the Geneva/Calvinist rails.

[@thomasschierer9326]

2 Timothy2 :15 Make every effort to present yourself before God as a proven worker who does not need to be ashamed, teaching the message of truth accurately

[@solomonjoshua1655]

In love with the footnotes in the NET Bible. 🧐🧑‍🎓. Beginning of a NEW era.

[@craigime]

Not really

[@Baltic_Hammer6162]

I'd been recommended the NET for several years from multiple people I trust. So I finally started to use it and its footnotes really open up the Bible. Its amazing how many words in the original Hebrew are not known as in .."What do they mean?".

[@Johanschannel7]

Very good interview! Greetings from Finland!

[@ddr5138]

The NET Bible is unnecessarily paraphrastic...I get the impression that the translators were always striving above all to sound as unlike the Tyndale tradition as possible. The notes are sometimes good, many times tedious and repetitive and state the obvious in several different ways. However in terms of layout the hardcover NET Full Notes edition is a masterpiece. That said, it's the Cambridge KJV-RV Interlinear, the NKJV and NASB for me, regardless of academic opinion.

[@craigime]

Exactly. They go out of their way to not be "traditional "

[@NeedAVacay-y5u]

It's striving for accuracy. Many of even modern Bibles will try to keep the same word order of the KJV even if it's not right. The NET and other translations out now are striving to be accurate and ignore tradition.

[@joseramonperez9609]

When a bible translation the Holy Spirit is called: "it", immediately it raises red flags indicating that the translators don't know who the Holy Spirit is, He is God, and for this reason he is not an "it", so be careful using a bible translation using "it" instead of 'he" as it should be referring to the person of the Holy Spirit who is GOD.

[@wallacetait9916]

Since the release of this video 4 years ago; there seems to have been further revisions to established translations mentioned. It would be rather exciting to have the one and only Dan Wallace comment on the further developments regarding translation approaches. We have the Berean standard Bible too that seems to be growing exponentially in popularity; I don't have or use the BSB at this time and merely reference it via on-line tools.

[@paulanderson2410]

PS I served on the Johannine writings translation group for the New American Bible revised translation, which should come out in a few years. We sought to be consistent in word translations overall, and, when the text was ambiguous in Greek, we left it so in the English rendering. Some really nice diction, I feel.

[@MikeLiconaOfficial]

Thanks for bringing that to our attention, Paul! I wish we would have covered the NAB. Very glad to know you were involved with it and I will be sure to get a copy for my own use!

[@paulanderson2410]

@@MikeLiconaOfficial thanks so much! And, the Jerusalem Bible is also a fine translation--even for a Quaker, here. (smile) I really loved the NASB in college BECAUSE it was so close to the Greek. I'm also getting Henry Cadbury's works out into a new book--fun hearing him (and a foreword by Bruce Metzger before he passed away) on RSV-project reflections. One essay is on "revision-after-revision".

[@MikeLiconaOfficial]

@@paulanderson2410 That sounds very interesting, Paul!

[@jaqian]

How does the new NAB treat gender-neutral language (it has been a criticism of previous editions)? Will the new translation use the Grail Psalms or will they use their own translation? Thx

[@SaltyPalamite]

​@@MikeLiconaOfficial Catholic here. I hope the new NABRE, whenever it comes out, is an improvement. The existing one is awful. The Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship rejected it for use in the lectionary because of its extreme use of gender-neutral language. The prose also is not very good. (Classics scholar Anthony Esolen has been railing against if for years.) Plus, the study notes are heterodox in many places, and not written from the standpoint of a believer. Personally, in the US, I wish either the RSV2CE or the ESVCE was adopted for the lectionary. (Of course, the Douay-Rheims is the gold standard IMO. When it was used, people actually attended Mass.)

[@trudakeane165]

Why interrupt this with an ad? Just let us listen without ads……..playing. Christopher Australia

[@craigime]

KZbin will put ads regardless

[@Unobserved07]

Nkjv is my favorite. I do like the esv but it's nearly impossible not to see how translators read their theology into the translation at parts. Hebrews 12 is one instance. Verse 15 when the author says "lest anyone fall short of the grace of God" (nkjv) is a better translation than "see to it no one fails to obtain the grace of God"(esv). If you are just reading through these phrases might sound the same but If you look closer in study they have much different implications. Nkjv renders a closer meaning based on the context of the passage. Also there is scholarly disagreement on the TR vs NA/UBS texts. The look on the gentleman's face on the left when the TR was mentioned was one of disdain.

[@fransikajohn9005]

That at a false version King James know nothing about it.

[@Kenneth-nVA]

@@fransikajohn9005 not understanding your statement. Are you saying that the NKJV is a false translation? Just trying to clarify

[@fransikajohn9005]

King James is attached to the 1611 version because he authorised the translation and choose the scholarly translators of 1611. The NKJV was first published in 1982 with many changes not in agreement with the AKJV. It is a false impression to attach King James to it when it is different from the original. The scriptures cannot be updated like a science text. The AKJV is my choice, I glimpse at some of the others, the majority of them false. Translators do not interpret, they translate only as interpretation belongs to the Spirit. The believers must depend on God to understand his word, he is his own interpreter. There is a devious agenda behind many of the different translations in the Roman racist religion of Christianity eg. the NIV is religiously anti-God.

[@Geronimo_Jehoshaphat]

@@fransikajohn9005 Different languages don't directly translate with literal word for word, interpretation of context and intention is required to prioritize proper meaning for actualizing the accuracy of the delivery.

[@fransikajohn9005]

@@Geronimo_Jehoshaphat meaning ought not to change. That's Satan in man interfering with interpretation which belongs to God only.

[@jeffcummings9687]

I have a few questions regarding the NET Full Notes Bible that I hope I can get some help with. Is there any difference in the paper and print quality between The NET Full Notes Bible in Hardcover versus the Net Full Notes Bible in the imitation leather or the top of the line Bible with the top grain leather. I have noticed in some Bibles, the paper quality and print quality is better in the Bibles with the higher grade level leather cover. Next question is What's the difference between the NET Full Notes Bible original edition with 60932 notes versus the new Edition? Is it worth buying both editions, or would that be redundant?

[@davidwhunt]

I found this video informative & helpful. Thank you! I enjoy using the NET (& it's notes) for sermon preparation. It's helpful to learn more here about the NET's background. Personally, I prefer the ESV to the NIV. I preached from the NIV for 7 years at the church where I previously served, then switched to the ESV 3 years ago. I prefer it for reading & preaching, one key area being that the ESV picks up imperfect tenses more often. Blessings from Australia.

[@MB-gd6be]

And how about ESV in comparison to NASB95 or Legacy Bible?

[@davidwhunt]

@@MB-gd6be I highly regard the NASB95 & consult it for every sermon I prepare. I also consult the LSB now & then. But in the circles I move in here in Australia, I find very few people who use those translations, so I prefer to preach from the ESV. I only know one person here who uses the LSB. I do like how the LSB (& NKJV) use italics for extra words the translators have put in. That's one advantage they have over the ESV.

[@Baltic_Hammer6162]

What has surprised me the most after starting using the NET, is how many words are not known what they mean or don't help guide the context to correctly understand .

[@kushluk777]

A very enlightening and interesting conversation regarding which translations of the bible follow which procedures for what reasons. Bravo!

[@rodneyjackson6181]

Despite all they said, I like the NLT, NKJV, KJV, NASB and the Geneva Bible. My top 5. A must with me is readability and accuracy. I am not too concerned with the elegance side. Give it to me straight.

[@VicRibeiro777]

Straight? Try some interlinears… 🙂

[@5crownsoutreach]

Great coverage, and the taxonomy charts are very helpful. Would like to hear his views on the Darby Bible. Darby was a genius linguist, I've appreciated his translation, and the ASV follows him pretty closely. I do wonder of their connection.

[@jimchumley2982]

Love this man. May his tribe increase.

[@sharonyoung8251]

When everyone else started reading the NIV, I was using the New English Bible. I still use it. I also use the NET and ESV study Bible for deep study but I also use the ESV, NIV, KJV, NKJ. I have most popular translations from time to time. Was raised on KJV.

[@paulanderson2410]

Wow, Dan and Mike, this is greatly helpful;' thanks so much!!!

[@wpankey57]

I primarily used the NASV for study. I've since moved to ESV. I'm VERY happy with it.

[@TedBruckner]

Yeah, the ESV is second best to being the most literal albeit's NT is lacking over 6,200 words and it has the MT OT like the KJV, etc.- all English Bibles; not the OT text the Church has preserved. St. Justin Martyr (AD 100-165) (Dialogue with Trypho, 71-73) and St. Irenaeus (AD 130-210) (Against Heresies, 3.21.1) stated that the scribes deliberately removed, altered or distorted the Messianic verses in their Scripture. The New Testament has approximately 250 direct quotations of Old Testament verses. Ninety percent of the quotations agree with the Septuagint but the majority disagree with the Masoretic Text. “Our Church holds the infallible and genuine deposit of the Holy Scriptures, of the Old Testament a true and perfect version, of the New the divine original itself.” - the “Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs” (AD 1848), a reply to the epistle of Pope Pius IX, "To the Easterns" English Bibles's Masoretic Text OT text : it's not the text the (Orthodox) Church has preserved: actually it's a falsified and mutilated revised Hebrew text named "Masoretic" [ from "Masoret" meaning "bond, collar" ]. Decent English translations of the Greek Old Testament / Septuagint ~ Seventy exist ; but the NETS translation of the Greek Old Testament is a fraud : it's based on the NRSV Masoretic Text hidden in Septuagint relatively superfluous words. To save time in seeing all i say is true you may see verses for comparison: 1) on archive.org - there search-bar : " mt vs lxx" ( i made it; contact me and I will send you the latest and improved version as PDF.) 2) And there's two charts online - one uv 25 NT quotes and their OT verses for comparison ; the other uv Proverbs - a 16 page chart - both on ecclesia . org . God Bless.

[@wpankey57]

Ted Bruckner This is fascinating stuff isn’t it? Most people couldn’t care less but, I think this subject is so interesting.

[@wpankey57]

Ναζωραῖος You got to love textual criticism!

[@adamdavidsoddities8573]

I like those too. I also like the Modern Literal Version. It's not nearly as popular of a translation and it's new testament only.

[@fbnflaviusbroadcastingnetw6786]

Ναζωραῖος how about the Biblica Hebraica?

[@KeniDiane]

I really enjoyed this conversation. I read the KJV Bible, I was recently told that I should get the ESV study Bible. What do you think? Thank you so much.

[@onemarktwoyou]

KJV may not be the height of modern scholarship, but it is the best for memorizing verses.

[@mikemaid5350]

It is better show me one error.

[@christo-chaney]

@@mikemaid5350 check our Isaiah 40.3 in Hebrew and then compare that to the KJV. Why does the KJV say “The voice of him that cries in the wilderness…” when voice doesn’t have the definite article and there is no “of him” in the original Hebrew? Also it says that the voice is in the wilderness but the Masorah that the translators used doesn’t say the voice is in the wilderness…

[@craigime]

​@@mikemaid5350just one?

[@AdjectivesRGreaterThanPronouns]

​@@craigimeMathew 12:1... was there corn in Israel back then?

[@craigime]

@@AdjectivesRGreaterThanPronouns did you reply to the right person?

[@leo11190]

Thank you for all the great information. How do you feel about HCSB?

[@aldrichemrys]

16:25

[@bijoythewimp2854]

Thanks man, I am struggling with the KJV

[@1gumbah]

I’m learning thank you so much

[@JWCFB]

Two of my very favorite people. I so enjoyed these videos.

[@DJTrulin]

I like the Nkjv prose and comparison to tradition, but just purchased a net translation with full notes. My Nkjv study bible has good notes on what some of the old idioms mean (you get used to thinking about a different time/place/culture), and many many notes on the differences between different original manuscripts, which is very helpful. Will be interesting to compare the notes between the two versions where they discuss the same translation choices).

[@chaplainmattsanders4884]

03:02 (Off-point comment here: “...paraphrastic...” I learned a new adjective today!) 16:30 On-screen Summary of Dan’s top picks. 18:00 Nice little translation tree.

[@kc8ppo]

You're a saint.

[@Marcus-ec1kx]

@@kc8ppo i second that

[@jenniferjack4346]

Thank you!

[@lukewarmnomore7523]

Timing is everything, but did Wallace know anything about the LSB...?

[@timothyromang1433]

My NET is my favorite Bible, can’t wait for my Full notes edition

[@makarov138]

To show your own translator bias, the NET translates MT 16:27 "For the Son of Man "will come" in the glory of the Father" etc. But the Greek actually says "For the Son of Man "is about to come" [3195] in the glory of the Father" etc. The time statement is left out because of futuristic translator bias.

[@pastorbills8039]

good stuff. "'word for word' and 'most accurate' are not the same question."

[@thetruthapologetics879]

Exactly, "word for word" doesn't mean "same meaning" in the new language the words are translated to. I don't see how people find it hard to understand.

[@jamesmccloud5166]

@@thetruthapologetics879 Thats not the problem. Once you introduce this heavy interpretational element in a translation, it becomes difficult to ascertain when a translator is potentially going overboard. All translation is interpretation, but some interpret more than others. A lot more than others. A better idea would be to use footnotes to either highlight what a word literally means, or to "interpret" it (in the footnotes) what it likely means. This is already done to some extent, but needs to be done more rather than make changes in the text that dont directly reflect in the originals. For instance: in the town and the city example, a two word footnote would have suffices however the text read. Some idioms just cannot be translated literally, but those are exceptions. Also, dont forget that some translators actually want to make the gospel more "palatable", and that affects the way they interpret the text. This is why many advocate a more literal translations for study purposes. This does not eliminate the problem but sure does reduce it.

[@jamesmccloud5166]

I like the NET because of its apparatus. I would never buy an NET just for reading - but for study - I think its one of the best Bible products out there.

[@thetruthapologetics879]

@@jamesmccloud5166 The literal words we need is to understand definitions and deeper meaning and cultural meaning, other than that often the interpretation expresses intended context correctly. Of course exceptions are there...

[@jamesmccloud5166]

"This is why many advocate a more literal translations for study purposes. " The idea of using a word-for-word is not to merely understand what the text says and leave it at that, but rather, to encourage to learn what the phrasing means by doing a more thorough study on it (likely using other resources). If one is only stuck with, say, the NASB and no other resource, the NASB will not be as useful to him as if he used the NASB as a starting point to get deeper in the text. For casual reading - I find the KJV or the ESV second to none. The NASB or the NKJV is probably not the best translation for devotional reading - at least for those not used to it.

[@joshyam4026]

Digitized library of Greek New Testament manuscripts --- that is extremely exciting !! I "saw" some facsimiles of famous Greek and Hebrew bible manuscripts, back in 80's when I was a university student (it was founded by a Catholic missionary, Societas Verbum Divini). Now I hope I can see similar images on my PC after almost half a century later.

[@Beefcake1982]

I got a NET after watching this and I have learned so much from it! Thank you!

[@BramptonAnglican]

This is a great video.

[@Species-rj9si]

Beware! This is actually a 35 minute commercial for the NET Bible by one of its chief editors.

[@craigime]

What are your thoughts on the NET?

[@NuTe-NdoiCiCrede]

Mike Licona I am Romania. I would like you to come to Romania and see that I am not lying to you. God bless you. for the work you do. I grew up in an orphanage, and last year I had fibroid surgery. I don't have the financial strength to go to the dentist. I pray to God to help me with my teeth. Please if you can help me, God bless you

[@GrahameGould]

This was an excellent summary of things to consider and Dan's opinion is very worthwhile. Clearly he has a lot of knowledge on the topic. I'd love to hear from other top Greek and Hebrew scholars on this issue.

[@GrahameGould]

I like that he affirmed the ESV as a good translation as I have come to the same conclusion, but without the depth and specificity of knowledge that Dan gives. I'll have to spend more time including NET in my studies.

[@michaelkelleypoetry]

I like what Dr. Wallace says about the NIV at around the 14 minute mark about both readability and accuracy. I used to preach from translations like the NASB and KJV, but I recently changed to the NIV because it is just a terrific blend of both. If I'm preparing a sermon or lesson I'll look at several translations but when I'm actually reading the text publically, I read from the NIV. If there happens to be something about the NIV in the text I'm reading from that I disagree with then I can bring it out and give my reasons why I think another translation is better. Overall, I think the NIV is the best for public reading, not too dynamic but not too wooden either.

[@Comyndoc]

The NIV 2011 version is the best and most up to date Bible for study and preaching. I do compare to the actual Greek text when in the NT, and look up key Hebrew words as well.

[@MAMoreno]

I don't care for the NIV, but I will say that the 2011 edition removed some of its main problems and generally made it more accurate. No more "the smallest of _your_ seeds" nonsense.

[@paulturner3553]

I started with the NIV some 40+ years ago, but have preferred the NAS the last 30 years. I read the RSV in the morning and the NAS at night.

[@trustobey1817]

Dr. Licona, can you make subtitles available on all your video, please🙏?

[@terryhuffaker3615]

Go to settings and turn on English auto generated captions. This a feature of You Tube.

[@lincolnrileylola]

Have KJB, NASB 1995, NIV, DOUAY-RHEIMS 1609, HalleluYah Scriptures, what are your thoughts on the CEPHER? Especial with accuracy of translation

[@ApologeticsandEvidence]

Excellent, Mike and Dan! Thank you!

[@praiseYAHalways]

Niv "faithful to meaning" But who determines that meaning, and how much of their theology goes into that printed meaning? I get the difficulties in 'word for word' translations but meaning for meaning can be quite subjective too

[@DTzant]

I’d be curious about Dr Wallace’s opinion on the differences or changes from the NIV 1984 vs NIV 2011

[@brando3342]

@David Zant My NIV from 2003 is not gender neutral, where as it seems the latest NIV has gone gender neutral. I'm really glad I have my older version because much is lost from this change and nothing is gained.

[@Airik1111bibles]

He would say they went more feminist/gender neutral .. Angry lesbians and Trans people need bibles too.😏

[@gabrielangelo9937]

"Readability and accuracy the NIV is the best... It tries to follow natural english, the work that has done into this translation... the work that is going on to it is by highly rated scholars behind it... it is examined, reexamined and re-reexamined through the decades."

[@timcarr6401]

@@brando3342 The 2003 edition is the TNIV.

[@johnbarnas879]

I love all versions of the Word, the truth comes through, and mainly read NIV. Jesus walks with me daily through the Holy Spirit who is with me and leading me. I also want to say that I love the Passion Translation. I do. It's rich.

[@Jay123hollis]

I'm not that good at reading so I used audio Bibles and the print Bible that I do use is a children's Bible called the new century version which is the closest to my reading level I could find because I can only read at a fourth grade reading level because I'm dyslexic. But I own a lot of different Bible versions on audio.

[@MM-jf1me]

Hi, Jason. I had not heard of the New Century Version Bible so I looked it up: it looks like a good translation! If you were curious about trying a different translation: I would suggest the New International Reader's Version, which is the NIV that Dan Wallace praised for readability and accuracy, except with shorter sentences and simpler words. It's target audience are children and people who speak English as a second language. I only mention the NIrV because it is also marketed for adults and so has editions with giant print, which I thought may help you, and has nice leather-looking covers. I have been wanting to listen to audio versions of the Bible. I've listened to David Suchet read the Gospels on KZbin and I really enjoyed them. Is there a certain audio Bible you would recommend?

[@Jay123hollis]

@@MM-jf1me I really like the audiobooks voice that they have on the U version app. They have a lot of different versions that are really good. So you can have your pick.

[@MM-jf1me]

@@Jay123hollis Thank you; I'm look into that app.

[@Jay123hollis]

@@MM-jf1me You're welcome do you version Bible app is really good. It also has some really good Bible study plans on it.

[@MM-jf1me]

@@Jay123hollis I hadn't heard of it before so I really appreciate the heads-up. :)

[@makarov138]

I would love to know why this gentleman prefers Critical Text bible as opposed to the Majority or TR bibles?

[@craigime]

I would love to know why you don't

[@makarov138]

@@craigime Actually for me it is the richness of the Old and Middle English usage. They got more pronouns. And the word "you" is always, without exception, plural in both the Geneva and King James bibles.

[@davidsutter1846]

Not everyone agree with Dan about NASB and NKJV!!!!!

[@whatisyouranchor]

Not everyone agrees about anything. That's not the point

[@RevanJJ]

This was the most based, practical, non-judgmental examination of the Scriptures I’ve seen. Thanks helping me pick a Bible!

[@jayman1338]

I find it ironic that a guy with Daniel’s credentials would give negative reviews to the NKJV and to the NASB while at the same time give a positive review to the Massage Bible and the Passion Bible. That makes no sense as those two I wouldn’t even use for toilet paper…It just goes to show you that no matter how big the man is their opinion is just that, an opinion. I’ll stick to my Schuyler Quentel NKJV for my daily reader and funny thing is, my go to deep study Bible is the NASB Brick! I still appreciate Dan Wallace and all his great works.

[@philtheo]

I love Dr. Wallace. 😊 And I generally agree with his analysis of the various Bible translations. But I'd only say he might consider looking again at: 1. CSB. I think the CSB is significantly different from the HCSB and I think it's mostly an improvement. 2. NASB. Specifically the NASB 2020, especially if he thinks the NASB 95 and 77 are too wooden (which I agree they are). The NASB 2020 is underrated. Of course, the NASB in all its incarnations is considered very accurate in the sense of being as transparent with the original biblical languages as is possible for a translation to be (similar to other so-called "literal" or formally equivalent translations like the LSB, LEB, KJV, NKJV, ESV). At the same time, the NASB 2020 is significantly more readable than previous NASB versions. I'd say the NASB 2020's readability is nearly right up there with the CSB and the NIV which are considered very readable, and the NASB 2020 is more readable than the ESV and most other "literal" translations (though the ESV has superior literary style and generally is written in higher register). In short, I think the NASB 2020 balances both accuracy and readability in maximal ways. The NASB 2020 is perhaps closest to the CSB with its optimal equivalence philosophy of translation. In my view, the basic difference between the NASB 2020 and the CSB is that the NASB is more "literal" (i.e. formally equivalent) than the CSB, but the CSB is more readable (i.e. clear and natural) than the NASB 2020.

[@my3461]

Thank you Dr. Licona. This was really fun and educational. I didn't know about NET Bible. Also I wonder what Dr. Wallce would say about Common English Bible and N.T. Write's translation. Also I am happy to know about you and your book, The Resurrection of Jesus. I will try to read it sometime. God bless you.

[@timcarr6401]

You meant N.T. Wright, who has the "Kingdom New Testament." I have it and it is rather poor. His version of Romans is a mess.

[@rd8370]

What are your thoughts on the pirate bible ?

[@sk-un5jq]

KJV, NKJV and NASB are my favorites. (KJV or NKJV only when reading Psalms. The majesty and beauty of olde English is incomparable to newer, wordier, 'more accurate' versions)

[@TedBruckner]

the English translation(s) of the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) but not one called NETS is crucial to use and not to use the current (and only ) Hebrew text if you want the truth and joy of reading.

[@guymontag349]

I agree. No other version, no matter how good, can compare to reading the Psalms in the KJV and NKJV.

[@craigime]

The KJV is not "Olde English "

[@abramtillabuild8477]

I'm looking now for a good Net Bible as I have a KJV, ESV, NIV, is the Net Bible by Thomas Nelson a good Net bible one to buy? Or what NET bible exactly do you recommend? as there is a few different Net bibles I have found now.

[@TedBruckner]

Peace and Grace to you, Abram, from God Almighty and Ho=is Son Lord Jesus Christ. Please allow me to share truth with you as you are inquiring as to bible tranlations to aquire. May I suggest sticking to the KHV or NKJV NT and using the OT text the Church has preserved? I use this English translation: www.amazon.com/Septuagint-Apocrypha-Greek-Testament-English/dp/1635488990/ref=sr_1_6?crid=2DZNJNYCYYIG9&dchild=1&keywords=septuagint+bible&qid=1598586452&sprefix=septua%2Caps%2C271&sr=8-6 It's the Brenton English translation un-KJV Englishized/upgraded from Middle E to Modern E. And only costs $18.77. I find it good in tandem with the ABP for checking it's faithfulness and literalness. ABP is free online : www.apostolicbible.com/text.htm As with any interlinear the glosses are not always the best or precise. My next choice would be : www.amazon.com/Lexham-English-Septuagint-New-Translation/dp/1683593448/ref=sr_1_3?crid=2DZNJNYCYYIG9&dchild=1&keywords=septuagint+bible&qid=1598586614&sprefix=septua%2Caps%2C271&sr=8-3 The NETS is a fraud. The OSB althouu having a NT ( and the NKJV NT) it's on typical now too thin paper showing words throuu from other side) and it's missing the 2nd half of Is, 22:22 and has the MT rendetion uv Cain getting to the field to slay Able; it should've been better if the produce of 2 priests over 20 years in the making. I have Thompson's )corrupted 1950 repreinting :The Septuagint Bible." I don't recommend it. I had the Researchers Library version; attractive in that the type size is good but iit lacks B's footnotes plus too many typos.

[@craigime]

You can buy the thinline NET bible

[@HeyWiseGuy]

That Dan doesn't have a better opinion of the CSB disappoints me but not in an angry way. I have invested a tidy sum in several CSB editions over the past year: Life Essentials Study Bible by Gene Getz, Tony Evans Study Bible - both authors of the study materials some of DTS's best, and of course the CSB Study Bible. I love that the CSB fills the sweet spot between the ESV and NIV. I can hand a copy to an 8 year old to an 80 year old and they'd both understand what they read without much difficulty. I think of the readability of CSB as the NLT on the Keto diet - every bit as clear using fewer words to say the same thing. 🙂 I can't argue with his translations choices for their categories. I can't remember why I gave up on the NRSV. When that first arrived in the Life Application Bible, I was pleasantly surprised by how it read. So smooth. Oh well.

[@knightrider585]

Currently I am reading the ESV. I did some research and it is mostly the same as the RSV, which I would be happy enough with, but because the ESV has a bigger market there are more options to find a printed version that I like at a reasonable price.

[@ojibwayinca8487]

I LOVE Dan's library!!

[@dcb7984]

Great video! What do you think about the Amplified Bible?

[@hudsontd7778]

Its trash read the Holy King James Bible

[@craigime]

​@@hudsontd7778ouch

[@joethomas1146]

I want Dan's library! what a great room!

[@Airik1111bibles]

Coveting is a sin brother.... I want a library of my own that looks just like that guys .😂

[@ClaireKisling]

What is the best bible for Catholics? The Ascension bible is what were using for bible study.

[@taylorj.1628]

I absolutely love Robert Alter's Hebrew Bible (AKA Old Testament) translation. It is super faithful to the literary form and repeated words and phrases in the original language. It also has notes l

[@joshyam4026]

Indeed indeed. From a Jewish perspective, he made a fresh sense out of the Hebrew idioms, especially in Psalms.

[@philtheo]

I'm not as fond of Alter's notes as I am of his translation. Alter certainly is a fine literary scholar, but he's largely beholden to a more secular Judaism and his biblical and theological notes often reflect that. However the linguistics portions of his notes are valuable to read. And his Hebrew Bible translation as a whole is pretty good. For example, I enjoyed his rendering of Ecclesiastes, especially the Hebrew word "hebel" or "hevel" which is so central to understanding the meaning of the book and which many English translations fail to capture. In fairness, it is as elusive as chasing the wind to translate "hebel" into English! In any case, Alter translates "hebel" literally as "mere breath". I think that's probably the best we can do. Or something similar like "vapor" or "mist" would work as well (e.g. Ardel Caneday's article on translating it as "vapor" and Jason DeRouchie's article on translating it as "enigma").

[@ronmelvinbalilo3459]

How about CSB? What is Dr. Daniel Wallace's comments on the CSB?

[@cpoole419]

He said it’s good, not the best. Denomination driven.

[@joe1940]

I grew up hearing the old KJV, but my favorite is the NKJV. Having said that, lately I've been reading the ESV and so far I really like it.

[@grantsmythe8625]

I also grew up with the old KJV and still read it but for study I prefer the Revised Standard Version but as it's out of print, I use and recommend the NRSV. To each their own.

[@sotiriosnovatsis4529]

KJV, NKJV and ESV are all my translations of choice. I use all three.

[@e.m.8094]

Same here! I feel like the NKJV is the easiest for me to memorize, but I do really enjoy the way the ESV phrases a lot of verses. Even though it's a looser translation, I like the NLT for devotional reading sometimes too.

[@nzbrotrev9028]

And the missing words and verses don't concern you in the ESV , surely you notice them gone .

[@craigime]

​@@nzbrotrev9028they're not missing

[@Superman111181]

He didnt really state why he disliked the ESV (other than the gender masculine battle). Does the quality and philosophy of the ESV align with Wallace?

[@moerivera6659]

Love both these men, but I take Wallace’s NET as the best translation with skepticism. I mean he was the main editor on it. So it’s biased

[@jackiepowell7513]

What's net stand for? I m a nas girl and kjv

[@syriacchristianity9007]

New English translation.

[@discodisco9770]

Haha, my thoughts exactly! 😅

[@tonikeltz3751]

I can already tell that the text size is a no go for me in that NET version. I'd rather have the notes in separate section or binding.

[@craigime]

Yeah it's not the best

[@jacobmayberry1126]

What about the David Bentley Hart translation?

[@russellclaude]

I can watch Daniel Wallace bible videos all day.

[@XlionofjudahX]

Which Bibles are most faithful to the original manuscripts?

[@androidboy1289]

I have NET Bible 📖 😁 It is Amazing! Also NASB, ESV, NKJV, and THE LIVING BIBLE...

[@chetdombrowski9387]

so where would the JPS translation fit in to all of this.. There is also the Complete Jewish Translation,CJT. These translations are supposedly a closely accurate translation of the Hebrew Torah, etc.

[@jamesmccloud5166]

Dan looks down on two of my most favorite translations: the NASB and the NKJV. And he ups the NIV - the most criticized popular English translation for its egalitarian bent. I am no scholar, and when I see a bunch of scholars who praise a translation, while others (usually Pastors and theologians) express serious reservation against it - its kinda confusing...

[@TedBruckner]

Know that the NIV is very good in conveying things in easy to understand Modern English because it's a paraphrasing/"Dynamic Equivalency" as is the NASB althouu the NASB is more literal [ word-for-word ] but both uv their NTs are, as well as all modern versions of the NT, lacking over 6,200 words. Bruce Metzger and friends are wrong; soundly proven by the Eastern Orthodox Church's statement* and Justin Martyr quoting Matthew 5:44 as it is found in the Byzemtine Text-type used by them and the English translations uv the 1500's and the KJV (+ NKJV). *“Our Church holds the infallible and genuine deposit of the Holy Scriptures, of the Old Testament a true and perfect version, of the New the divine original itself.” - the “Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs” (AD 1848), a reply to the epistle of Pope Pius IX, "To the Easterns". St. Justin Martyr (AD 100-165) (Dialogue with Trypho, 71-73) and St. Irenaeus (AD 130-210) (Against Heresies, 3.21.1) stated that the scribes deliberately removed, altered or distorted the Messianic verses in their Scripture. The New Testament has approximately 250 direct quotations of Old Testament verses. Ninety percent of the quotations agree with the Septuagint but the majority disagree with the Masoretic Text. meaning Also to know, the NETS translation of the Greek Old Testament / Septuagint ~ Seventy is a fraud : based on the NRSV Masoretic Text hidden in Septuagint relatively superfluous words.

[@jamesmccloud5166]

@@TedBruckner which translation would you recommend?

[@brando3342]

Ted Bruckner I don't think the NIV is considered a paraphrase version though. It's just a translation. Something like the NLT is a true paraphrase.

[@rodgermilner7800]

@@brando3342 The NLT isn't a paraphrase (the updated version), the message bible is however

[@fbnflaviusbroadcastingnetw6786]

Ted Bruckner True easier to read but if it’s inaccurate then what??? I’m not saying anything about the NIV or any other translation I’m just making an a point here. Readability it’s not always more accurate.

[@dpoultski2499]

NKJV and the ESV are my favorites.