• The 1901 ASV is still a very useful version, although its textual basis is outdated. The UASV is a lightly-edited edition of the ASV, but a person without a deep grasp on Greek (the Testament I checked up on). Much better to use the 2020 NASB.
    Updated American Standard Version (UASV)Add to cart

    1. I have not read the notes, which seem geared to life application, which should be a help. However, I do know the Amplified. "Grasp the full meaning behind the original Greek and Hebrew texts" is misleading advertising. For people who are patiently awaiting its release, my counsel is, stay clear of the Amplified Bible. It is based on broad misunderstanding of how language works, let alone who Greek and Hebrew work. It introduces Pick up 3-4 good English Bibles and you will be miles ahead. Take a look at a review from someone who knows languages and linguistics and they will explain why the Amplified is a dead end for the Bible student.
      The Amplified Study Bible NotesAdd to cart

      2. Thanks Michael-James. And thanks for the volume, which I did scan, although apparently not long enough to see that the chapter dedicated to me is titled “People Who Don’t Mind Their Own Business!” [people = Gary Shogren, I am guessing?]. You do know, I assume, that theologians who evaluate some Bible version or another precisely ARE going about their business! You are, with respect, completely mixing apples and oranges by comparing my translation of 1-2 Thessalonians with the Amplified, and thus I am not confident that we will not just talk past each other. My version of 1-2 Thessalonians is an “Expanded Translation”, which is what Zondervan required of its contributors in the Zondervan Exegetical Commentary. That is, I lightly paraphrase, sometimes change the syntactical order and supply antecedents for pronouns, but did not – as does the AB – import other Christian systematic theology, etc. My expanded translation is based on my exegesis of each chapter, so the rendering of every verse is immediately demonstrated (whether convincingly or no) in that material. People can read my expanded translation of both epistles in my blog, openoureyeslord.com The Amplified works on an entirely different view of human language. Not always, not often, but too often it lists some or all possible meanings of certain key words, as they might be translated in ANY context. I do nothing at all like this in Thessalonians. The Amplified also suggests glosses that cannot be found in any lexicon: dunamis in 1 Thess 1:5 as “INHERENT power”; “draws us to himself as REALLY meaning “investing us with all the privileges and rewards of the new life in Christ, the Messiah.” You seem to have cherry-picked parallels between my translation and the Amplified, selecting ones where the AB and I come up with something similar. Well – of course we did! But your method is unscientific! The scientific method also searches diligently for examples that contradict one’s hypothesis. So: why did you not mention – 1 Thess 2:4 AB: “to please God who examines our hearts [expecting our best].” Gary: “expecting our best” is a truth, to be sure, but that is not what dokimazo/δοκιμαζω means: it may mean to test, or to test and approve, but “expecting our best” is foreign to its semantic range. This is why the same verb can be used in 1 Thess 5:21 ("test all prophecies") with no hint that it means "test and hope it turns out genuine." OR 1 Thess 5:14 AB And we earnestly beseech you, brethren, admonish (warn and seriously advise) those who are out of line [the loafers, the disorderly, and the unruly]. Gary: in fact, loafers and disorderly/unruly are two different concepts. I spend a lot of time on the ataktos/ατακτος word group, which does NOT mean “loafer”. But once someone reads the AB, that is what people’s Bibles will have assured them. Well, slack shall be cut here, give that many Bible versions mistranslate it, as I note: “Several translations go well beyond what Paul actually says. ‘Undisciplined’ (NJB) assumes too much. Later on in 2 Thess 3, the disorderly may have been highly disciplined and motivated. ‘Lazy’ (NLT, HCSB) is incorrect, as is ‘idle(r)’ (ESV, GNB, NIV, NRSV, REB). While laziness may be a cause for disorderliness, the inverse is not true: ‘disorderly’ does not mean ‘lazy’.” OR 2 Thess 2:7 AB: For the mystery of lawlessness [rebellion against divine authority and the coming reign of lawlessness]. Gary: readers will be forgiven, I think, if they mistakenly take the material in brackets to be the meaning, always, of anomia/ανομια. It does not. In this epistle that is its “reference” but not its “significance”. Or 2:9 AB: attended by great power and with all sorts of [pretended] miracles and signs and delusive marvels Gary: the text does not say “pretended”. That is one possible interpretation, but interpretation it is. To name a few. Of course there are many passages where I have no objection to what the Amplified does, but I suggest that if the foundation is shaky, than we should be wary of the whole project. You do mention John 14:16, which in fact demonstrates my point: that the Amplified gives a list of synonyms that a Greek word, parákletos/παρακλητος, MIGHT take in some passage, but which are not relevant for this particular one: AB: And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper (Comforter, Advocate, Intercessor— Counselor, Strengthener, Standby), to translate parákletos. Gary: This can only lead the reader further from the text, not closer. parákletos does not, at least on the surface, refer to an Intercessor here and probably not Advocate either (but it does in 1 John 2:1), and certainly not Standby. But yet again, the student of the Bible will most naturally conclude that ANY AND ALL OF THESE MEANINGS are valid for John 14:16. parákletos in John 14:16 is not an easy translation, but we CAN say that it can mean all kinds of things that do not relate to the context. Why does the AB translate Luke thus? AB: Luke 1:30 as “And the angel said to her, Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found grace (free, spontaneous, absolute favor and loving-kindness) with God.” Gary: Sure, arguably, in the context this is valid , but that is a sermon, it is not at all what charis means! At best, the material in parentheses is commentary, not translation. And why does not the AB render the charis differently in Acts 7:10 “And delivered him from all his distressing afflictions and won him goodwill and favor and wisdom and understanding [the AB not using brackets here, as it would in other texts] in the sight of Pharaoh.” If it were consistent, the AB ought to have “And delivered him from all his distressing afflictions and won him goodwill and favor [free, spontaneous, absolute favor and loving-kindness] and wisdom and understanding in the sight of Pharaoh.” Eph 2:8 AB “For it is by grace [God’s remarkable compassion and favor drawing you to Christ] that you have been saved [actually delivered from judgment and given eternal life] through faith.” Gary: But ... neither “grace” nor “save” mean these glosses as such! And so, the reader, again, is going to conclude, “The Greek word charis/χαρις LITERALLY means ‘God’s remarkable compassion and favor drawing you to Christ’ (it does not) and that sozo/σωζω AT HEART MEANS ‘actually delivered from judgment and given eternal life’ (IT does not).” But again, who would condemn a Sunday School teacher who says, “Now folks, the word charis literally means – that is, this is its meaning in every circumstance! - ‘God’s remarkable compassion and favor drawing you to Christ’? To quote Dan Wallace – a wonderful statement found in a comment on the blog piece that sent you my way – “The bigger issue is that it offers a cafeteria approach to assigning meaning to words in Scripture… I have watched people in a Bible study simply pick their favorite alternative reading of a particular word or phrase in a verse, that completely distorts the original intended meaning of the author.” Shall we cite 2 Peter 1 AB for an example of illegitimate totality transfer (aka “semantic sprawl”)? SIMON PETER, a servant and apostle (special messenger) of Jesus Christ, to those who have received (obtained an equal privilege of) like precious faith with ourselves in and through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: 2 May grace (God’s favor) and peace (which is perfect well-being, all necessary good, all spiritual prosperity, and freedom from fears and agitating passions and moral conflicts) be multiplied to you in [the full, personal, precise, and correct] knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord. Gary: what we have here is a SERMON on peace And just flipping through at random, I found this one: James 5:16 AB Confess to one another therefore your faults (your slips, your false steps, your offenses, your sins) and pray [also] for one another, that you may be healed and restored [to a spiritual tone of mind and heart]. Gary: Hamartia/Αμαρτια I guess could refer to slips, false steps, but hardly in this context. Iaomai/Ιαομαι, not sure where the AB got “healed and restored [to a spiritual tone of mind and heart].” I am no superexpert in this field – Craig Blomberg, Mark Strauss and others have written about the Amplified and I defer to them. (You mention that Strauss seems to prefer the NIV – there is a good reason: he is in fact one of its editors.) Nevertheless, I do serve as an editor for a new Bible translation for Wycliffe Associates and have taught and written regularly in Spanish and English about translations. My only concern is not to defend or accuse a particular version, but that people read and understand the Bible with the least number of distractions. An additional thought: you quoted and objected to a question I asked a pastor who believed the Amplified Bible gave reliable information about the Hebrew and Greek. If I recall correctly, since mine was a casual comment. My point was, that if this pastor does not know the original languages, then how in the world can he judge that one version is more accurate than another? I work daily in three languages and can report that, if people do not know the relevant languages well, there is no way they can tell whether any given translation is accurate. I do not know if the man reads the languages or not – that is, truly knows them, not just relying on Strong’s. And simply comparing one version with another will reveal how and why the Amplified is accurate. Thanks for the quote from Carson, which I repeat approvingly: “to try to import the word’s entire semantic range into every occurrence (as in the Amplified Bible) is to fail to understand how language works” (Collected Writings on Scripture, p. 41). We can come to the light once we realize that we do not use everyday English in that way! If we tried to imagine an Amplified version of Carson, with a dictionary of synonyms (and that is what the AB often does), then things become instantly clear: “to try to import [to bring goods or services into a country from abroad, to transfer data or information from one computer system to another, to convey or express an idea, to absorb or assimilate, to exert influence] the word’s entire semantic range into every occurrence (as in the Amplified Bible) is to fail to understand how language works.” Blessings, Gary
        Open Our Eyes, Lord!
        Gary Shogren's Blog
        openoureyeslord.com
      3. Dear Professor Shogren, Thank you for your reply! You made my day. :) Please note that I am mostly interested in this topic from a linguistics perspective. I am NOT a Christian (I don't even own a Bible), but I am looking forward to immersing myself in the examples you have provided. This time last year, I was discussing the AMP with Craig Blomberg (see pages 194-224). It took me a few months to research the passages he indicated; in the end he thanked me, describing my efforts as very assiduous: "You’ve been very kind to point out that if the book ever goes to a new edition, we have some editing to do!" Similarly with Mark Strauss (see pages 117-126; 225ff), who was the lead New Testament scholar for the Expanded Bible--it has been very interesting to compare Strauss' EXB with the AMP. I have read your reply in its entirety a few times. When I have a first-draft response, I'll let you know here. Cheers!
      4. I don't believe you ever responded on that third party's blog, which is why I replied here as well. Please do not think that the chapter title refers to you personally LOL Perhaps I will change the chapter title to "P as in...People Who Meddle in Divine Matters" ;)

    2. De nada recomiendo esta versión. Por supuesto, algunos versículos son confiables, pero si la confiabilidad es la cuestión, es mejor utilizar la NVI, NTV, LBLA, RVA o hasta la RV 60 (cuya debilidad, en mi opinión, es en el hecho de que utiliza el Textus receptus. He invertido cientos y cientos de horas, a lo largo de muchas, muchas semanas, a lo largo de seis meses: lo suficiente para sacar una conclusión informada sobre la traducción y sobre sus materiales de estudio. Y cuanto más he leído, más preocupado me he sentido. La implicación – es lo que escucho de unos lectores – es que, ¡ésta es la Biblia más fiable!, porque es la traducción más literal, únicamente basada en el texto original, y porque tienen a los mejores eruditos trabajando en un Consejo Consultivo (cuya membresía es secreto). Todo esto explica el sentido de la palabra “sin compromisos” que la SBIA puso en la promoción de la BTX-IV en Logos Bible Software: “Fiel a sus predecesoras, la IV Edición ha sido realizada bajo la disciplina de Traducción Contextual, que expresa sin compromisos, no lo que el Autor Sagrado pudo haber dicho sino lo que Él dice en el hebreo, arameo y griego”. El mensaje es claro: ¡La BTX-IV no tolera el compromiso; las demás versiones sí! Este tipo de contrariedad es popular en el History Channel, pero no sirve entre los eruditos bíblicos. Hay una falta grave de erudición y una preferencia a lo sensacionalista, por ejemplo, en su noción rara, de que según Gn 1:14 Dios realmente puso “maldiciones” en los cielos, no “luminarias.” No es así, a pesar de las páginas de “evidencia” que ponen en las notas – la persona quien lo escribió aparentemente no puede leer los manuscritos de Qumrán, que es toda la prueba que cita. Y que totalmente respalda la traducción “luminarias.” Vivimos en una época de la falsa “democratización de la pericia”. Durante el COVID, millones de personas se presentaron de repente como expertos en epidemiología. En la misma línea de la democratización de la pericia, la SBIA da a entender en su sitio web, en sus videos de YouTube, en Facebook, que puede recurrir a la población en general para llevar a cabo los trabajos increíblemente meticulosos de la crítica textual = la ciencia de determinar el texto original de cada libro de la Biblia; también la traducción de hebreo y griego. Alguien me ha comentado que es que no importa si una persona no tiene título universitario, pues «cualquiera puede hoy hacer su propia traducción», según lo que nos dice la Reforma, y al negar la democratización de la traducción de la Biblia, ¡hablo como católico! De hecho, no, no creo que todo el mundo deba traducir la Biblia. ¡SÍ insisto que conocen los idiomas relevantes! Estoy de acuerdo con los Reformadores en creer eso, y de hecho Lutero, Calvino, Tyndale, luego Wesley fueron todos expertos en muchos idiomas. Para empezar, Lutero tuvo doctorado en la exégesis del Nuevo Testamento griego y luego contrató a un rabino para que le enseñara hebreo. William Tyndale conoció ocho idiomas, tres antiguos y cinco modernos. Él realizó la primera traducción del Nuevo Testamento del griego al inglés sin la ayuda de Logos o internet. Con respecto a la teología, la Sociedad Bíblica Iberoamericana promulga un error doctrinal muy grave, porque involucra la persona de nuestro Señor. El error doctrinal más importante de la SBIA y de la BTX-IV es la idea rara, de que María no fue la madre biológica de Jesús: «Cigoto Divino colocado por el Espíritu Santo en el vientre de la virgen María, de la cual nació» pero que María no fue su madre genética o biológica o (su palabra) de su «esencia». Esta es una negación de la encarnación de Cristo y desde el cuarto siglo la iglesia católica, ortodoxa y luego protestante ha rechazado esta doctrina como falsa. La afirmación de la plena humanidad de Jesús por María de nada exige, como la SBIA asevera, «la herejía católica romana de que María fue concebida sin pecado.» Esta nota fue escrita por una persona quien no entiende el Credo Niceno ni la idea católica de la concepción purísima, cual fue afirmado como dogma solamente en 1854 (¡d. C.!). La SBIA también condena condena a gritos a los que publican Biblias que contienen los apócrifos (¡y yo también rechazo esos libros!), pero su rechazo de la verdadera humanidad de Jesús va años luz más allá en el error doctrinal. Su política es que, si uno no rechaza la plena humanidad de Jesús por María, tal persona no es permitida a trabajar en la BTX. También he demostrado que la BTX-IV está llena de "plagio", o sea, material copiado y pegado de otras fuentes sin permiso del editorial. En términos sencillos, es robo. Es un asunto para otro día. Si quiere leer mi reseña de 50 páginas, vaya a mi blog: googlee mi nombre y “BTX-IV”.
      Biblia Textual 4 Edición
      Add to cart

      1. Buenas noches, pero lo que venden aquí es la Biblia física o solo digital? Es mejor la versión 3? Gracias.

      2. Gracias. De hecho, no manejo la publicacion. Logos siempre vende los libros en forma digital. Mis observaciones tienen que ver by la cuarta edicion.

    3. "Are We Living in the Last Days?" - from the description of the book's contents this does not seem a correct title!
      Are We Living in the Last Days? Four Views of the Hope We Share about Revelation and Christ’s ReturnAdd to cart

      1. Note that the Revelation commentary seems to be the older volume by Ford, NOT the 2015 one by Koester. All the other NT ones listed seem to be the latest contributions.
        Anchor Yale Bible Commentary | AYBC (92 vols.)Add to cart

        1. Note that this is the original edition, not the 2021 second edition.
          Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy, 2nd ed.Add to cart

          1. Thanks for heads up - Is there much of a difference between both editions do you know personally?

        2. Please note that this is the 2007 edition, and that there is a newer edition.
          Old Testament Commentary SurveyAdd to cart

          1. Moreover, the sixth edition may be coming out soon (?), as the fifth edition was published in 2013, which would make this (4th) edition well dated.

        3. Strongs is NOT a research dictionary, nor does it add much at all to the user's knowledge of the biblical vocabulary. Much better to purchade Mounce or even Vine's.
          New Strong's Dictionary of Hebrew and Greek Words
          Add to cart

          1. While I much prefer the classic Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of Greek and Herew becaue it's a much more complete work, I wouldn't say this would add nothing to one's knowledge of Biblical vocabulary. There are a variety of very important Greek words and even Hebrew words that other dictionaries use bad translations to fit their agenda. Such as the constant incorrect usage of YHWH from the Tetragrammatron. God's name is Yehovah in the English and I don't have Hebrew fonts that work with Google. However, many dictionaries and commentaries and Interlinears and Lexicons don't get all the jots and tiddles right and you'd think in their scholarly learning they would which is why I said they have an agenda.

          2. Hi Brad, I cannot think of any Hebrew scholar who would say that Yehovah is the correct spelling of the tetragrammaton. Maybe their are some, and I ask that they correct me if I'm wrong. Yehovah is POINTED that way in the Masoretic text, but they did not intend to make that the pronunciation of the divine name, but rather a signal that the reader should say "Adonai" when coming to that word. Blessings, Gary