0:00

Help your children draw and know more

0:02

of Scripture because our world today is

0:04

directly attacking Christians

0:12

and the only way we're able to stand firm is

0:14

if we know Scripture. We have faith in God and

0:16

we stand firm in His word. Welcome

0:24

to the Mama Bear Apologetics Podcast, a

0:26

podcast where we teach you to roar

0:28

like a mother. By roar,

0:30

we mean recognize the message, offer

0:32

discernment, argue for a healthier approach,

0:34

and reinforce these ideas with your

0:36

kids. Unless you want to growl

0:38

around your house. I mean, that's cool too. They

0:40

like, check it, we keep it real. That's

0:45

so bad. You're awesome. Mama

0:47

Bear Apologetics is a listener supported program, so

0:50

if you like what we do, head on

0:52

over to the Mama Bear Apologetics website

0:54

and click support. It's time

0:56

to rise up, ladies. Rise up,

0:58

Mama Bears. This might not affect your faith,

1:01

but it might affect your children. Hi,

1:06

everyone. Welcome

1:12

to another Mama Bear Apologetics Podcast,

1:14

a podcast dedicated to helping you

1:16

raise kiddos who think critically, love

1:18

biblically, and stand firm in the

1:20

faith. I'm your host, Amy

1:23

Davison, and today we're going to take a

1:25

look at a topic that is sometimes divisive

1:27

but doesn't have to be. Today

1:30

we're going to take a look at Bible

1:32

translations. Now it always

1:34

happens that around holidays like Christmas,

1:36

Easter, or perhaps your child's baptism,

1:39

that parents are wanting to go

1:41

out and buy a Bible for their children.

1:44

Or perhaps maybe you are a new believer

1:46

and you are just overwhelmed with all the

1:48

different styles out there. Well,

1:50

do not fear because today's podcast is

1:52

all about helping you understand the

1:54

different methods in which Scripture is relayed

1:57

so that you can pick a Bible

1:59

that bests Where you're at

2:01

and you studying needs. Now.

2:03

Like I said, sometimes is can be a

2:05

little bit divisive and our goal is not

2:08

to pick a fight but to to speak

2:10

truth in this matter after all as Tell

2:12

Spurgeon says we are to visit many good

2:14

books but to live in the bible and

2:16

being able to pick one is is isn't

2:18

a fantastic was that not only as a

2:21

believer but to do that as a parent

2:23

with your kids. To for this podcast what

2:25

we're going to do is we're going to

2:27

look at the three types of translations. Formal.

2:30

Functional. And optimal. And we're also

2:32

going to take a look at one that

2:35

is growing in popularity but isn't considered a

2:37

translation and will explain why in a second

2:39

and that's called the paraphrase. We're going to

2:42

take a look at how they translate, scripts

2:44

are gonna read i'm from all different perspectives

2:46

and then we're going to offer tips on

2:48

how to pick a bible with and for

2:51

your child. We're also gonna share which bible

2:53

translation we hear and Mama Bear use because

2:55

we actually get that fast quite often. and

2:57

if there's time we're going to dive into

3:00

a hot topic. Regarding one particular translation,

3:02

but only if they're same. If

3:04

not, then Will does make this and other podcasts because I

3:06

know I'm going to get asked. Now.

3:09

One thing I think we take for

3:11

granted is the ability to come home

3:14

and go in and pick up or

3:16

bibles and read scripture in English. I

3:18

don't know if he knew this, but

3:20

back in the day this was considered

3:22

a capital offense. In fact, the early

3:24

bible translators nearly all of them were

3:27

murdered. Just for bringing you scripts

3:29

or for the ability for you to read

3:31

Sassoon English it is incredible and such. Wyclef

3:33

when he commissioned the Bible Study written in

3:35

English, one of the charges that was leveled

3:38

at him as oh my gosh, how could

3:40

he do this? Why Cliff made it common

3:42

to all meaning scripture. Amazing com into all,

3:44

even to women. Yes, because there is nothing

3:47

more terrifying than a woman who knows her

3:49

scripture. So ladies were going to be diving

3:51

into that today. But. First,

3:53

a little background on how you have

3:56

your bible. Nephews never paid attention to

3:58

those first few pages with in your

4:00

bibles. You may want to open those

4:03

up and read it because it's fascinating.

4:05

It explains not only who was on

4:07

the translation committee but the documents that

4:09

they used now for bible translations today

4:12

and I'm referring to those like Tj

4:14

V and Kgb. He has be an

4:16

ivy and more than I'm about to

4:19

list. What these depend upon are various

4:21

to manuscripts throughout history Ever the Old

4:23

Testament which relied upon his with called

4:26

the biblio have breaker Stuttgart can via

4:28

that. This is the most. Up

4:30

to date accurate translation of the

4:32

Hebrew scripts based on the oldest

4:34

complete manuscript of the Hebrew Bible

4:36

Complete Hebrew Bible and that is

4:38

called the Leningrad Codex which was

4:40

written around eighty one thousand and

4:42

eight. Know. It's really amazing

4:44

is when the Dead Sea Scrolls

4:46

were found This. Pushed. Back

4:48

be ancient documents a millennia meaning

4:51

that now we have document stating

4:53

from the year to secede B

4:55

C of the Hebrew Bible to

4:57

eighty fifty at absolutely incredible. Never.

5:01

New Testament with often use is

5:03

the United Battle Societies Greek New

5:05

Testament or the Nestle and Aligned

5:07

Nova to cement and Greets. Now

5:10

these are the New Testament transcripts

5:12

that have been reconstructed from all

5:14

available fragments, documents and manuscripts using

5:16

text. So Criticism meaning they have

5:18

all been studied and using textual

5:21

criticism meaning the ability to compare

5:23

these ancient documents and discern what

5:25

the original autographs most likely said

5:27

They had found that they've been

5:30

able to recreate. The original autograph,

5:32

especially from the New Testament. Between

5:34

ninety six to ninety seven percent

5:36

accurate, meaning that they are identical

5:38

to what the original autographs would

5:40

have said, and that three to

5:43

four percent variation is on non

5:45

doctrinal issues, meaning that mainly numbers

5:47

or perhaps turns of freezing. Others

5:50

such as the Big Ones neither. other

5:52

documents that are also used with me

5:54

all the New Testament such as the

5:56

Sumerian penitent, ancient scrabble traditions, the sent

5:58

to a gym, the sea he added

6:00

piss and pcts who's had a brother

6:02

that one. And

6:05

the Jackson had breaker of Jerome. So.

6:07

It is fantastic. the amount of documents there

6:09

used to be able to reconstruct what scripture

6:12

said in the original autographs, and we can

6:14

take faith in what we read that it

6:16

is in fact accurate. Know

6:18

Speaking specifically for the King James

6:20

or the New King James, they

6:22

often rely sometimes solely on the

6:24

text as receptors, which means any

6:26

document that can be. Traced

6:28

back to arrest miss the Latin Bowl

6:30

game, the King James Sixteen Eleven version,

6:33

and in the new King James version,

6:35

they do also use the Dead Sea

6:37

Scrolls. Now, as we talk about translations,

6:40

they will be put into three separate

6:42

categories: formal, functional, and optimal. But they

6:44

don't all sit into their equally. I

6:47

mean, it's it's They're usually a blending

6:49

of each. And that's because all translation

6:51

is a form of interpretation. so they

6:54

do have to blend in the translators'

6:56

interpretation of what the tax originally. Meant

6:58

to some extent, well being faithful to

7:01

the literal, Taxed and all translations have

7:03

their strengths and weaknesses so is often

7:05

asked which translation is the best one

7:07

on for going to see later. That

7:10

really depends on what you're trying to

7:12

do. Are you trying to maybe read

7:14

from a bible in a year standpoint?

7:17

If that's the case, then a more

7:19

functional translation which will hear about the

7:21

second might better suit your needs. or

7:23

if you're doing a very indepth burst

7:26

by burst study a more formal translation.

7:28

Might suit. Your needs. And

7:30

we're going to take a look at both of

7:32

those today and see the pros and cons and

7:34

what as for to look and day. So.

7:37

here we go the very first

7:39

one is called the formal equivalence translation

7:41

know what the formal equivalence translations

7:43

these are often called the literal equivalents

7:46

their goal is to give as

7:48

fast as possible a word for word

7:50

equivalent to every hebrew greek or

7:52

aromatic words in there translation the even

7:54

strive to keep the original word

7:56

order whenever possible and like all translations

7:59

that we're going to be talking

8:01

about today, they are done by a

8:03

massive committee. These are usually upwards

8:06

of 30 to over 100

8:08

people taking years of diligent

8:10

study for these translations. And

8:13

some of the examples of formal

8:15

equivalence are the new American

8:17

Standard version, the English Standard version,

8:19

and of course KJV and KJV,

8:21

ESV, and the RSC. Now,

8:25

the pros to these translations. They

8:28

are the closest to reading the

8:30

scripture in its original Greek, Hebrew,

8:32

and Aramaic. And often

8:34

these translations, when they have to

8:36

put in clarity words, because anytime

8:38

you're translating one language into a

8:40

receptor language, you are going to

8:42

have to change the way in which the sentence

8:45

is structured and add words for

8:47

clarity. They will often put these in

8:49

italics. This translation

8:51

is often because of its faithfulness to

8:53

the literal word for word, they will

8:56

often be very descriptive in their descriptions.

8:58

So, you know, instead of saying so

9:00

and so killed so and so it's

9:03

going to maybe go into, man, he

9:05

lopped his head off and took off

9:07

an arm. It can be a little

9:09

graphic. In fact, one of the more

9:12

funny examples of this graphic imagery is

9:14

found in Isaiah 1611, where it talks

9:16

about, my bowels shall sound like a

9:19

harp. So we've got some dated

9:22

language there. Bowels was mainly meaning like

9:24

the heart of an individual. So modern

9:27

translations, like more of the NIV will say,

9:29

my heart shall sound like a harp. But

9:32

this guy used bowels, which, you know,

9:34

in 15th and 16th century would have

9:36

really resonated with the audience. But as

9:38

a mom of boys or anyone who's

9:41

ever worked with middle schoolers and high

9:43

schoolers, the second you start using bowels

9:46

in there, it's just not going to hit

9:48

right with these teams. So a little

9:50

bit of an example there. Now,

9:52

some of the cons to formal

9:54

equivalence is that they are not

9:56

truly identical in form. And this

9:58

just isn't possible. We're going

10:00

to see this here. I've got some examples.

10:03

That's because when you take

10:05

something literal, it sounds almost like

10:07

jumbled gibberish. In fact, that's what's

10:10

kind of seen as the downside is

10:12

that literal is not always

10:15

faithful, meaning not always faithful to

10:17

the meaning. When

10:19

you read it, you can sometimes get confused with

10:21

what's going on. Fidelity

10:23

to Scripture, what's

10:25

described here, requires converting the

10:27

lexical, grammatical, idiomatic, meaning common

10:29

sayings of the day, and

10:31

figurative elements of the original

10:34

language into corresponding package of

10:36

the receptor language, meaning it

10:38

has to all be translated

10:40

into modern English. The

10:42

phrases that were common

10:44

in ancient times or even in

10:47

15th century England are not the same ones that

10:49

are common today. To be able to

10:51

translate it to modern audience and their ability

10:53

to understand it, some changes are going to have

10:55

to be made. Now, for

10:58

sake of argument, I've got a

11:00

few examples of literal word for

11:02

word. The sentence structure hasn't been

11:05

changed at all. Examples of Scripture.

11:07

Let's just pretend that

11:09

you were fully capable of reading

11:12

Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Boom, you

11:14

have that superpower. This is exactly

11:17

what Scripture would sound like in that language.

11:19

Here we go. This is John 4.15. Says

11:23

to him, the woman, Sir, give to

11:25

me this the water, that not I

11:27

first, nor come here to draw. Not

11:32

the greatest. If you are familiar with Scripture,

11:34

you will know that this is the story

11:36

of Jesus communicating with the woman at the

11:38

well, and that he's talking

11:40

about living water. But if you were

11:42

brand new to Scripture, you probably would

11:44

have no idea what this gal is

11:46

talking about. Let's use another

11:48

one. Matthew 1.18. Of

11:52

the but Jesus Christ, the birth

11:54

thus was, being betrothed, the mother

11:56

of him, Mary, to Joseph, before

11:59

of to... come together them, she

12:01

was found in belly having from

12:03

Holy Spirit." Just

12:06

wow, you got to take a minute to

12:08

really just kind of marinate on that one.

12:10

I mean, it really does show why these

12:13

translators, they are just worth their weight in

12:15

gold because not only do they translate this,

12:17

they then have to reorder the sentence so

12:19

that we English speakers understand exactly what's going

12:21

on. Now here's another one, Matthew 17, 18.

12:26

And rebuked it the Jesus and came out

12:28

of him the demon and was healed the

12:30

boy from that hour that. Matthew 17, 18.

12:33

Now we're going to

12:35

use that one here because we're going to show

12:37

how different verses translate it. So

12:39

that is the literal word for word. I'll

12:41

read it once again, Matthew 17, 18. And

12:45

rebuked it the Jesus and came out

12:47

from him the demon and was healed

12:49

the boy from that hour that. I

12:51

mean, if you were just approaching this and you'd

12:53

never interacted with scripture, you would be thinking, okay,

12:55

wait a second, who

12:58

rebuked Jesus and why was there a

13:00

demon in him? And what's

13:02

going on with a boy and the timing

13:04

of day? It can just be really confusing.

13:07

So let's see how the King James translate this.

13:09

This is a formal equivalence. So

13:11

this is, and Jesus rebuked the

13:13

devil and he departed out of him and

13:16

the child was cured from that very hour.

13:19

Oh my gosh, so much easier to

13:21

understand what's going on simply by reordering

13:23

the words and adding some

13:25

clarifying words in there, none of which affect

13:27

the doctrine of the text. The

13:30

new King James translate this very similar only instead

13:32

of saying the devil, they say the

13:35

demon. And Jesus rebuked the demon, meaning

13:37

the one who was possessing the boy and it

13:39

came out of him and the child

13:41

was cured from that very hour. Now

13:44

some other translations like the functional,

13:46

which means more toward phrase, whereas

13:48

formal is word for word, functional

13:50

is more thought for thought. So

13:52

their emphasis is focusing on the

13:54

meaning behind the passage. It

13:57

is translated as, this is the contemporary.

13:59

the temporary English version, then Jesus

14:01

spoke sternly to the demon. So

14:05

they're emphasizing even some emotion behind Jesus, which

14:07

is not included in the original text. It

14:11

went out of the boy and right then he

14:13

was healed. Now the NIV,

14:15

which is the 1973 translation, this is considered

14:17

optimal, which we'll see in a second. Jesus

14:20

rebuked the demon and it came out of the

14:23

boy and he was healed from that moment. So

14:26

while we see some slight variations between whether

14:28

or not it was that very hour to

14:30

that very moment

14:32

or healed and

14:35

right then he was healed, we have the

14:37

exact same meaning that was conveyed. And

14:39

we understand that Jesus rebuked the demonic

14:42

force that was possessing the child and

14:44

instantaneously that child was healed. So

14:47

there we're seeing examples of the

14:49

literal word for word translation and just how

14:51

it was spoken of to where we have

14:54

to be careful with, you know, if we

14:56

translate it word for word, we are going

14:58

to lose the meaning behind the text. Instead,

15:00

we do have to do some reordering with

15:02

the words to understand what is going on.

15:05

And this is absolutely normal for any sort

15:07

of language translation. If you are translating any

15:09

language into another language, you are going to

15:12

have to do that regardless. So

15:15

this can be, like I said,

15:17

this can kind of seem like a bit

15:19

of a con, a little misleading because when

15:21

we think of formal translation, they claim word

15:23

for word translation. Yes, for

15:25

the most part, they try to get every single

15:27

word, but not always. Sometimes they do

15:29

have to add clarity words and

15:31

they do have to switch around the word

15:34

order to understand the meaning. But we're just

15:36

seeing there that we are able to grasp

15:38

what's going on regardless of the translation. So

15:40

one of the cons is that it can be a little

15:42

misleading saying that it is a word for word form

15:45

for form translation because that isn't always the case. Now

15:49

with regards to other passages, sometimes

15:52

more formal translations are not the easiest

15:54

to read. And I'm referring

15:56

to especially the 1611 version of the King

15:59

James, where they... infused a lot of 15th

16:01

century English phrasing within that translation. So

16:04

a lot of these and thou's. There's

16:06

also a lot of language that is

16:08

incredibly dated and that made sense in

16:10

that time period in England, but today

16:12

would not make sense to anyone listening.

16:14

In fact, let's just do a pop

16:16

quiz. Let's see how many of you

16:19

know some of these words. So how

16:21

many of you know what a beezum

16:23

is? Go ahead. If you're

16:25

in the car, shout out what is a beezan?

16:27

It's actually a broom that was

16:29

used in one of the later translations, but if you

16:32

were reading that you would have to go, what is

16:34

a beezan? Here's another one. What about

16:36

a wimple? Now, if you watch Call the Midwife, you

16:38

might actually know what this is. A

16:40

wimple is the cloth head covering worn

16:42

by women, typically nuns, but sometimes it

16:45

became a fashion statement back in the

16:47

day. So ladies, especially of higher standing

16:49

would be wearing these. So

16:51

a wimple is a cloth head covering. But again, if

16:53

you encountered that in scripture, you would have to Google

16:56

what in the world is a wimple? What

16:58

about a crisping pin? Does anybody know what a

17:00

crisping pin? Now, you know,

17:03

when I first read that, I was thinking,

17:05

okay, this has to do with posting bread

17:08

or something to that effect. And I was

17:10

so off, it is actually considered to be

17:12

an ancient ornate purse that ladies would carry

17:14

around. So ladies, instead of grabbing your clutch

17:17

or your purse or your tote, you

17:19

just tell your husband, honey, can you grab my crisping pin?

17:21

And then just wait and see how confused he'll get. And

17:25

this can even, this dated

17:27

language also plays into types of phrasing

17:29

too. So I was reading one of

17:31

the original King James translations of Abraham

17:33

and how he was taking Isaac up

17:35

to be sacrificed. And what was described

17:37

as Abraham was getting ready was that

17:39

he saddled up

17:42

his alternative name for

17:44

a donkey. Now, again, just like

17:46

with, you know, our bowels sounding like

17:48

a harp, if you read the phrase

17:50

that he saddled up his alternative

17:53

word for a donkey to a bunch of

17:55

kids and middle schoolers, they are going to

17:57

be snickering and they're totally going to have the meaning

17:59

lost. So now we say he settled

18:01

up his donkey and went up with

18:04

Isaac. So it is

18:06

not a bad thing to be able to change

18:09

language to adapt with how language

18:11

changes in culture. In fact, this

18:14

was common. Even Jerome understood this

18:16

importance. In fact, Jerome, who originally

18:18

translated the Latin Vulgate in AD

18:20

383, 404, listen to his

18:24

understanding of translations because translations is

18:26

a difficult, almost impossible art to

18:29

master. Why is this? Because

18:31

language varies so in their

18:33

order of words, in their

18:35

individual metaphors, and of

18:38

their native idioms. Main turns of

18:40

phrase. The translator is thus

18:42

faced with a choice between a

18:44

literal word-for-word rendering, which is certain

18:46

to sound absurd and be so

18:48

atravasty to the original, and

18:51

something very much freer. He's referring to more of

18:53

like a functional equivalent. In which

18:55

case, he's liable to be accused of

18:57

being unfaithful. So even Jerome

18:59

understood the tension and the weight of

19:01

translating scripture. He knew that literal word-for-word

19:04

translation is going to be confusing. It's

19:06

going to be, as he says, a

19:08

travesty of the original. But

19:10

yet, if it's translated into something more

19:13

freer, meaning a translation that is easily

19:15

understood by the common man, well, then

19:17

you get accused of being unfaithful. So

19:20

kind of a darned-if-you-do, darned-if-you-don't

19:23

situation. So all that

19:25

to say that our translators are incredible for

19:27

the work that they do. And

19:29

when we look at more of these translations,

19:31

especially more of the formal type, this can

19:33

be one of the setbacks, is some of

19:36

the ways in which they translate it. Because

19:38

they are so dedicated to attempting

19:40

as much word-for-word, or even the original

19:42

order of the phrasing, that not only

19:44

can the language be dated, the sentences

19:47

can be clunky. It

19:49

can be difficult for the average individual to

19:52

read. And

19:54

yeah, it can just be a little bit more to

19:56

work through. The dated language can be problematic. one

20:00

of the aspects of the more formal

20:02

translation. So let's take a look

20:04

really quick at functional equivalents. Now

20:07

this is often called the dynamic equivalents because it

20:09

is more of a thought for thought. They're

20:12

not so bound by word for word

20:14

translation, meaning that they are actually understanding,

20:16

okay, what is the meaning behind this

20:18

text? And if the words are getting

20:20

confusing, well then let's paraphrase the meaning

20:23

behind the text. So they're

20:25

not so concerned with preserving the exact

20:27

number of words or what's said is

20:29

equivalent grammar grammatical constructions. Meaning they're not

20:31

as dedicated to formal and doing word

20:33

for word, you gotta be hypercritical on

20:36

that. They're not as focused on that.

20:38

Instead, they strive for more of the

20:40

original meaning and the impact that that

20:42

meaning would have had on the original

20:44

people. So they're often going to use

20:46

the same words as long as the meaning is clear,

20:49

but if it's not, then they will

20:51

translate it and paraphrase perhaps the meaning

20:53

behind it in a way so that

20:56

common man can understand. Now,

20:58

if this occurs, oftentimes there will

21:00

be footnotes noted within your

21:02

Bibles at the bottom. So that's a blessing to

21:04

have in there. And depending

21:06

on which translation you have, the

21:09

amount of which the passages are

21:11

paraphrased, it's gonna vary. In fact,

21:13

we'll include several copies of sort

21:17

of this translational chart that says, okay, where

21:19

does it fall on the formal versus the

21:21

functional? And again, it really even

21:23

depends on which company is putting them out on

21:26

where these different translations fall. But

21:28

for the most part, the functional,

21:30

the thought for thought is considered

21:32

like the new international readers version,

21:34

the contemporary English version, or

21:36

the new living translation of 1996. So

21:39

the pros behind the functional are pretty

21:41

obvious. For one, they are easier to

21:43

read from modern audiences, especially children. So

21:45

the new international readers version is often

21:48

one that is first given to kids.

21:50

In fact, one of the Bibles I've

21:52

got up here is my

21:54

son's old NIRV. Now,

21:56

especially for those of individuals who English

21:58

is not their second language. language, then

22:00

the more functional explanation of scripture is

22:02

easier for them to grasp. It actually

22:05

reads more like a book. And

22:07

those, again, with weaker reading or

22:09

comprehension skills, the further they

22:11

are on the functional scale, the more accessible they

22:13

are to those folks. So these

22:15

are also based on ancient texts,

22:18

but some are not bound to more

22:20

of a literal rendering. In fact, when

22:22

I was reading the first few pages

22:24

of my son's NIRV, what was said

22:26

is that we actually base this on

22:28

the NIV translations. However, to make it

22:30

easier for kids, we shorten sentences and

22:32

we paraphrase a lot more in there.

22:34

So that translation is actually more of

22:36

a translation of a translation in that

22:38

sense. Now the

22:41

cons of this are pretty obvious.

22:43

The further you get away from

22:45

word for word translation, the closer

22:47

you get to a paraphrase. And

22:49

that's problematic because paraphrases are

22:52

one individual's perception of scripture.

22:54

They're not an actual translation

22:56

of scriptures. So that's a

22:58

problem. Next, there's the

23:00

potential loss of impact of the

23:02

original reading. I mean, when

23:04

you read scripture, it is

23:06

powerful. And we're going to see this here in a

23:08

second, how that impact can be lost if you

23:11

drift more into the paraphrase. But

23:13

again, this is just that functional side. It

23:16

varies depending on where your Bible falls.

23:18

And this is more accessible for easier

23:20

reading. So what's theorized is if you

23:22

are doing a Bible of the year

23:25

plan, or if you're reading big chunks

23:27

of scripture, a more functional translation might

23:29

be easier for reading because then it

23:31

reads more like, you know, your average

23:33

book. Now,

23:35

then there's the optimal equivalence. So

23:38

the optimal equivalence is a blend

23:40

of formal and functional to kind

23:42

of hit that happy medium. It's

23:44

a blend of each form. And

23:46

what they do is they use

23:48

word for word translation, except when

23:50

the translation is perhaps confusing, ambiguous,

23:52

or if it would be clunky,

23:54

then they go and

23:56

okay, well, let's re Reword it just a

23:58

little bit to make sure that. The meaning is

24:00

not lost. The list you is also done

24:03

by a committee using all the into transcripts

24:05

that I just told you about and it

24:07

is one of those that again it's it's

24:09

that. Kind of ideal blending

24:11

of both. So you will see this

24:14

and the and I be translation, especially

24:16

the older and I be translations are

24:18

Betty at Nineteen Seventy Three by me

24:20

and that's the one that uses that

24:23

file. The Christian Standard Bible also uses

24:25

Optimal Equivalence and New English translation. so

24:27

the pros are. Like we said, it's

24:29

a great blending of both words, but

24:32

declines are that Clarity Words are often

24:34

not added in italics. So unless some

24:36

formal translations and I've seen this and

24:38

King James versions, any words they. Add

24:40

they will kind of. they will put it

24:42

in italics a media we recognize when a

24:45

translator was like okay we had to add

24:47

this word year for people understand what was

24:49

going on. Be optimal. Equivalents:

24:51

Translations often do not have these

24:53

words and italic. see you don't

24:55

know which one's the translators. It.

25:01

Is. Superior years is that your

25:03

children will suited. Of all

25:06

for jersey is walking. Away from

25:08

their faith that alarming rate only

25:10

four percent of Jersey Foods to

25:12

a pitiful worldview. We recently had

25:14

an engaging conversation with Doctor Just

25:16

an air President of Sell It

25:18

Ministries about how you can equip

25:20

in support your team to develop

25:22

a biblical worldview. Through. Their To

25:25

Meet Student Conferences in Colorado in

25:27

Georgia. After attending these conferences, over

25:29

eighty percent of students hold a

25:31

Biblical Worldview Summit. Ministry Student conferences

25:34

allow high school and college students

25:36

to unpack their faith with trust.

25:40

The defensive. Systems

25:42

and strengthen their biblical worldview. Sixteen

25:45

to twenty two year old need

25:47

preparation for the cultural pressures they

25:49

will face in college and beyond.

25:51

Dip Conference give them confidence to

25:53

talk. about any device of topic they

25:55

encounter send a soon it to a two

25:58

week session in colorado or georgia you And

26:00

we're looking for 24 for $200

26:02

for our website at summit.org.

26:05

And we're registered today.

26:16

Now, lastly, lastly is the paraphrase.

26:19

And this is not a translation for a

26:21

reason I just gave. A

26:23

paraphrase is one individual and

26:25

their perceptions or how they

26:27

perceive or how

26:29

the text feels to them. So

26:32

while all the others, whether it's

26:34

formal, functional, or optimal, are done

26:36

by a committee over the span

26:39

of years, surveying the original Hebrew,

26:41

Greek, and Aramaic text, a paraphrase

26:43

is one individual reading scripture and

26:46

then offering kind of their own

26:48

summary of what that scripture is. Now,

26:51

this will use the most

26:53

common idioms today. In fact, it just went

26:55

around not too long ago about

26:57

this sort of a modern translation of

26:59

the Bible. And it was talking about

27:01

Mary simping for Jesus. So using more

27:03

of that modern language. So that is

27:05

most definitely a paraphrase, but it

27:08

also uses very dated idioms that are just

27:10

not going to stand the test of time.

27:12

So that's why it's not a translation at

27:14

all. Nobody in 10 years is

27:16

going to use simping. In fact, I'd even say

27:18

even in a couple years, simping is going to

27:21

be outdated and replaced with something else. That would

27:23

kind of like be using, you know, chabra in

27:25

a Bible translation. It's just not going to work

27:27

out. But these paraphrases use

27:29

most common idioms. And like I said,

27:31

they're done by one individual sometimes over

27:34

just the span of a month or

27:36

a few months because they're just reading scripture and just

27:38

saying, okay, this is what I think now

27:41

examples of this are the message

27:43

by Eugene Peterson and the Living

27:45

Bible. So the pros

27:47

of paraphrases are it is the most

27:49

accessible reading out there because it reads

27:52

just like an average book. But

27:54

the problem is that the original

27:56

text is very, very

27:58

weakened or complete. lost and

28:01

it's dependent upon one single person who

28:03

does not have the accountability that these

28:06

Bible translation committees have. And

28:09

it's not recommended for serious study at all. So

28:12

to see perhaps the biggest difference between these

28:14

translations is let's take a look at Romans

28:17

12.2. So we're going

28:19

to look at some functional translation, formal

28:21

then optimal, and then we're going to take

28:23

a look at paraphrase. So Romans 12.2 here's

28:26

how a functional translation, this is

28:28

a new living translation, reads, don't

28:32

copy the behavior and customs of this world,

28:34

but let God transform you into a new person

28:36

by changing the way you think. Then

28:39

you will learn to know God's will for

28:41

you, which is good and pleasing and perfect.

28:44

Name, E S E, which is more formal. Do

28:47

not be conformed to this world, but be

28:49

transformed by the renewal of your mind that

28:51

by testing you may discern what is the

28:54

will of God, what is good and acceptable

28:56

and perfect. So you can see

28:58

quite a bit of difference there between functional and

29:00

formal. Formal is more straight

29:02

and to the point. Functional

29:04

offers sort of some explanation that do

29:06

not be conformed to this world of

29:08

the E S E is now don't

29:10

copy behaviors and customs. So they're more

29:12

explaining this, not being

29:15

conformed, what that actually means. In

29:17

N I B, which is optimal, it says, do

29:19

not conform to the pattern of this world, but

29:21

be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then

29:24

you'll be able to test and approve what

29:26

God's will is, his good, pleasing and perfect

29:28

will. So you can see there that

29:30

is very similar to the E S E except

29:32

for perhaps a small clarifying that they tack on

29:34

will at the end of it. So at the

29:37

end of it, his good, pleasing, perfect will, you

29:39

understand what that's talking about. So

29:41

there's the difference between Romans 12.2. Now

29:44

here's the message. So same

29:47

passage. This is how the message describes it. Unlike

29:50

the culture around you, always dragging you

29:52

down to its level of immaturity. God

29:55

brings the best out of you, develops

29:57

well-formed maturity in you. Now,

30:01

so let me say that again. This is the translation of

30:03

Romans 12 to you with the message. Unlike

30:06

the culture around you, always dragging you

30:08

down to its level of immaturity, God

30:10

brings the best out of you, develops

30:12

well-formed maturity in you. Now, compared

30:14

to a more functional, or excuse me, more formal,

30:17

do not be conformed to the pattern of this

30:19

world, but be transformed by the renewal of your

30:21

mind, that by testing, you may discern what is

30:23

the will of God, what is

30:26

good and acceptable and perfect. So

30:29

you can see a vast difference between

30:31

a paraphrase and between a

30:33

translation of what scripture says. The

30:36

message actually reads more like

30:38

a Bible story, more like a commentary on the

30:40

passage rather than the passage itself. And

30:43

that's why it's encouraged that if

30:45

you were doing Bible study for

30:47

edification to read actual translations and

30:49

not paraphrases. Now paraphrases can

30:51

be helpful if you're explaining to someone who

30:53

may be of a foreign language or

30:56

who has never had really any Bible

30:58

interaction before. It's a

31:00

great way to sort of summarize and

31:02

help them flesh out ideas. But we

31:05

should always be pointing people back to

31:07

scripture, not to a person's perception of

31:09

scripture that's important. Remember, it is scripture

31:11

that is God-breathed, useful for teaching and

31:14

edification and rebuking. It's

31:16

not a paraphrase. So I just want to

31:18

offer encouragement. If you are reading the message

31:20

that this is a great jumping off point,

31:22

but then maybe start bumping up your study,

31:25

start with a functional translation and

31:27

then move more toward a formal

31:30

translation as you grow in your knowledge

31:32

and wisdom and strength. Which

31:36

translation is best out of those? As

31:38

we said, that's actually asking the wrong

31:40

question because each translation style has its

31:44

own strength and weakness. If

31:47

you love reading Shakespeare or

31:50

perhaps Victorian literature and you are

31:52

just lost in the words and

31:54

the cadence of old sentence structure,

31:56

then a more formal equivalent will

31:58

suit you better. It is also

32:00

best for great word studies.

32:03

But if you like perhaps a more accessible

32:05

reach, but you still want to have it

32:07

be as close as possible to a literal

32:10

word for word, then an optimal translation would

32:12

be best for you. And if you are

32:14

just starting out on your on reading scripture

32:17

and you just want to be able

32:19

to understand what God's word is saying,

32:21

but maybe you were intimidated by some

32:23

maybe more archaic phrasing, then perhaps a

32:26

more functional translation would best suit you.

32:29

Now what's encouraged is to not stick with

32:31

just one translation. Instead what you should be

32:33

doing is actually have a multitude of translations.

32:35

In fact I'm surrounded by all sorts right

32:37

now. I've got the

32:39

N-E-T translation which is awesome, N-A-S-B,

32:44

I've got my N-I-V here, which actually there

32:46

are really great styles of Bibles as well,

32:49

not just with translations, but like okay so

32:51

just my husband was so sweet when we

32:53

were dating he actually gave me this Bible

32:55

as an engagement present which is just like

32:58

awesome. So this is my N-I-V Bible and

33:00

it's a study Bible which is fantastic

33:03

because at the bottom you've got all

33:05

these incredible notes, cross-references, there's

33:07

great diagrams in there. If you

33:09

are someone who loves facts, details,

33:11

easy access to being able to

33:14

do more research, then

33:16

a study Bible is invaluable. You

33:18

absolutely love it. In fact I've

33:20

also got this one here. This

33:22

is the N-R-S-V and this

33:24

is a cultural application study Bible. Look at

33:26

how awesome this is. I mean not only

33:28

do we have pictures of ancient texts, we've

33:31

got huge explanation of what's

33:33

going on within the culture at the moment

33:35

which is so important for understanding context of

33:38

scripture. Context is king in any

33:40

hermeneutical study and understanding the culture

33:42

with which the original documents were

33:44

written is invaluable to understanding culture

33:47

then, scripture then, as well as

33:49

how it is to be applied

33:51

today. Now if

33:53

you are the journaling type Then

33:56

you are going to love journaling. Bibles. In Fact:

33:59

This one's this one. The from Havana Reliable.

34:01

It's absolutely beautiful. and check this out he

34:03

that scripture. but then you have these great

34:05

options off on the site to where you've

34:07

got all these rooms for amazing notes. I

34:09

mean if I if I can have my

34:12

way I would love to have the bible

34:14

the has this on the side and then

34:16

all the cultural notes and the bottom. I

34:18

mean the thing would be a foot and

34:20

a half long and probably wig and twenty

34:22

pounds but it would be incredible. I just

34:25

I would just love that. And.

34:27

For kids? What? Ah, what are some great

34:30

ways to do things with your kids? And

34:32

I know it's pure and site. We can

34:34

get so excited for kids, especially when they

34:36

profess to seize that We want to go

34:39

out and buy them a bible. but I

34:41

want to offer another option instead of been

34:43

buying a bible for your child by a

34:46

bible with your child. Make a day of

34:48

it. Go out to lunch and consider your

34:50

child's take into account your child's comprehension and

34:52

reading level. And then go and

34:55

purchase a bible together. Go to your

34:57

local christian bookstore or the church has

34:59

a bookstore in there that sold bibles.

35:01

Go ahead and pick one together. Let

35:03

them look at the different types, the

35:05

different notes that are there Any more

35:07

of a journaling Ted? Maybe they want

35:09

to have all the details. I study

35:11

bible. Fantastic. Especially for kids because you're

35:13

not always gonna be there or available

35:15

to her. V Concrete Study noted the

35:17

bottom of their bible. It's like having

35:19

a tutor in their lap. That just

35:21

as right they're able to help steward.

35:24

Then as the reading scripture. You

35:26

want to make sure that you are picking

35:29

a translation that your child going to understand

35:31

to where it maybe there's one that are

35:33

struggling with that's not a problem. Get on

35:35

the translation that they understand and then as

35:38

they grow and become laser will then you

35:40

can shift from a more functional to maybe

35:42

more full see you want to be able

35:44

to it's sort of in the military will

35:47

december, Gum Beach or with flexible be flexible

35:49

and adaptive to your child's these. if they're

35:51

struggling, change because you don't want your children

35:53

to see scripture as a stumbling block. Instead

35:55

you want. to see it have them see it

35:58

as something beautiful so for example And again, this

36:00

is just an example. It's a description of what

36:02

we did in my house, not a prescription for

36:04

you. I'm just sharing what we did in our

36:06

house. So my son, when we

36:08

were first getting him a Bible, he is

36:11

dyslexic. And so we chose the auction Bible

36:13

because not only were I able to read

36:15

the stories to him, he was able to

36:18

see the pictures, really grasp the image. And

36:20

alongside of that, I was reading out of

36:22

my own Bible. We would go back to

36:24

the original scripture and read as the own

36:27

Bible. And now he's so much stronger reader.

36:29

We do actual translations there. So again,

36:31

just something I'm sharing that we did together. So pick

36:33

them together. And most importantly,

36:35

let your child see you reading

36:38

scripture. You should be doing research

36:40

and study because they need that model.

36:42

And then whenever possible, read with your

36:44

child. It's awesome. Now,

36:47

the question we hear at Mama Bear get

36:49

asked quite often is what translation does Mama

36:51

Bear use? And I'm here

36:53

to tell you that the translation that Mama Bear

36:55

uses is all

36:57

of them. Yes, I am 100% accurate.

37:00

We use every single one. We

37:03

are cross-referencing. In fact, a lot

37:05

of us have either logos, Bible software,

37:08

or like what I love is on

37:10

my phone, I've got Bible hub. Get

37:12

the app Bible hub. It's fantastic. You

37:14

look at passages and elicit in every

37:16

single translation. It gives you the Greeks,

37:19

the Hebrew, the Aramaic. It packs in

37:21

commentaries. Oh my gosh, I love this.

37:23

I use this all the time. And the reason we

37:25

use all of them is because you cannot

37:28

do translation like it was said earlier,

37:30

you cannot do translation without a bit

37:32

of interpretation. And so when you can

37:34

compare varying translations, you not only get

37:37

this beautiful overarching picture of scripture, you

37:39

get alternative words and phrasing. And it's

37:41

wonderful because we can draw closer to

37:43

God's word. I mean, I read

37:46

out of the NIV primarily,

37:48

but I've got other passages as well,

37:50

other translations as well. But even though

37:52

I read out of primarily the

37:55

older translation of the NIV, I cannot recite

37:57

the Lord's Prayer without doing it in. the

38:00

KJV method.

38:03

And so it's, yeah,

38:05

when you are able to incorporate varying translations

38:08

as well, it just gives a more overarching

38:10

picture of what Scripture is saying. And

38:12

it's awesome. Now, I think we've got a

38:14

little bit of extra time left. So I'm just

38:17

going to touch on an issue that has been

38:19

quite a hot button topic, but

38:21

it's one that we need to speak truth

38:23

into. And so I ask for your grace

38:25

when addressing this. And I also

38:27

asked too, that you will lean on

38:29

the Holy Spirit for guidance. And

38:32

the question is, is what about KJV

38:34

only? There is a movement

38:36

that tries to say

38:38

that the KJV is the only

38:40

true translation out there. In fact,

38:42

if you are reading any other

38:44

translation other than the King James

38:46

Version, then you are sinning, you

38:49

are reading corrupted Scripture, you're being

38:51

completely misled, and you need to

38:53

not read that translation. And this

38:55

is based on several arguments. So I'm going to go

38:57

over a few of these. So

38:59

some of the stance behind this

39:01

KJV only movement is based on Revelations 2219

39:04

and Deuteronomy 4.2, which commands

39:07

not to add or take away from God's Word.

39:10

And what they attest is that

39:12

while other translations left out specific

39:14

scriptures like Jesus's interaction with the

39:17

adulterous woman, and therefore because they

39:19

left out those scriptures, then therefore

39:21

this is a false translation. It's

39:23

manipulative. It is not truly the Word

39:25

of God. And this is

39:27

a misunderstanding of actually what was

39:29

going on. So when older documents

39:31

were found, meaning documents that were

39:34

closer to the original autographs, those

39:36

passages, specifically that story, especially, were

39:38

not included in the documents closest

39:40

to the original autographs. Now, the

39:42

documents that are closer to the

39:45

original autographs are considered more faithful,

39:47

because again, there's less years for

39:49

perhaps scribal errors to creep in.

39:52

And so they were not originally put

39:54

in those scriptures. So that is why

39:56

initially they were not included in some

39:58

translations like the NIV. This

40:00

was not because of a manipulation. It's

40:02

because the earlier documents did not have

40:05

them. The later documents, more of church

40:07

tradition, had them in. And

40:09

so nowadays, you will actually find that these

40:12

passages are in fact in your Bible, all

40:15

the Bible translations, but they will have either

40:17

an asterisk or brackets highlighting

40:19

that the earliest document do not include

40:21

these stories. So again, it was a

40:23

misrepresentation of the data as well as

40:26

the translation process that is put in

40:28

there. And they

40:30

are actually included because they are consistent with

40:32

the nature of God and they are anchored

40:35

in church tradition. So they're added, but it

40:37

is prefaced that the earliest documents do not

40:39

contain these. And it's also

40:41

important to remember too, that the

40:44

commands within there not to add or take away from

40:46

God's word. It's talking to

40:48

the commands within revelation as

40:50

well as God's teachings. So

40:53

this is not saying, oh, if you add

40:55

in a clarifying word, then all of

40:57

a sudden you're misrepresenting scripture. Now that's

40:59

not true because if that's the case,

41:01

then every single translation to include the

41:03

King James would also be in violation

41:05

of those commands. So we have to

41:07

be careful in how we're applying these

41:09

passages because we could be putting a

41:11

stumbling block if we're saying, oh no,

41:13

this has been misled. All of these

41:15

translations are corrupted. That is not actually

41:17

the case. So

41:19

along with this mindset is

41:22

the argument, well, the King James

41:24

B is the only complete Bible

41:26

out there. Because these

41:28

passages were originally included. And

41:30

that's referring to like John 7 53 through 8 11, the

41:32

end of Mark, that sort of thing. But

41:37

like I said, that's actually not the

41:39

case because earliest copies did not include

41:42

those passages in there. And

41:44

the original key JV also had

41:46

the Apocrypha, which is

41:48

not included in today's translation. So is

41:52

It only the KJV 1611 version

41:54

with the Apocrypha? That is the

41:56

complete. I Mean, there's some debate

41:58

here. Not only that,

42:01

but the Kgb itself when three

42:03

six major rewrites until about Seventeen

42:05

Sixty Nine edition which most King

42:07

James Bible also rooted in that

42:09

Seventeen Sixty Nine edition. So then

42:11

the question goes. well. Which.

42:13

Tgv and we talking about. Another

42:16

argument that's presented as well. No arrests.

42:18

Miss was divinely inspired and see you,

42:21

the budding priest And he had a

42:23

passion for the Greek language. But.

42:26

He was not divine, He not divinely

42:28

inspired. In fact, the only divined, divinely

42:30

inspired, worthy and regional autographs written by

42:32

the Apostles. And then the question goes

42:34

well, you know which edition of his

42:36

work was inspired to? There's three major

42:39

additions to Arrest Mrs Work and the

42:41

first one was so badly put together.

42:43

The exit made fun of the what

42:45

he did as he basically took as

42:47

many documents as he could push them

42:49

together. which I believe the only is

42:51

about sixty seven Greek documents. He.

42:54

Pushed them together and just put some editor

42:56

notes on the top. And so it was

42:58

so badly translated that he got poke fun

43:00

of. he felt really embarrassed that then he

43:02

came out with his second edition and then

43:04

later in the third edition and sell cable.

43:06

Which when are we talking about and as

43:08

he was divinely inspired then why are there

43:10

Even in his first edition? So many errors

43:12

and mistakes and even he admitted that he

43:14

rushed it out. And see

43:16

get he, he wasn't actually divinely inspired.

43:19

Now along the lines of their

43:21

seen other Texas reset this is

43:23

considered superior and perfect but again

43:25

this is not some singular document.

43:27

The Texas Receptacle is all the

43:30

documents that can be traced back

43:32

to Rasmus. So from his first,

43:34

second and third editions any document

43:36

that can come together that's considered

43:38

the Texas Receptacle and of the

43:40

problem is as they all very

43:42

in different ways and some additions

43:44

are have more errors than the

43:46

others so that's not really a

43:48

way. That we can attribute them

43:50

being superior and perfect is they

43:52

are full of those errors. Again,

43:54

the only Perfect Superior documents are

43:56

the original autographs and I've heard

43:59

and of. And I'm, I think

44:01

I know which apologist said it, but I'm not going to say

44:03

his name just in case I misrepresent this. And

44:05

I don't want to misrepresent him, but I

44:07

have heard it said that there's probably

44:09

a very good reason why God did

44:11

not allow the original autographs to be

44:13

able to be maintained. And,

44:16

you know, we do not have

44:18

them today. And that's because we human

44:20

beings have a tendency to idolize things.

44:22

And not only could the

44:24

original autographs be idolized, they could also

44:26

be abused, warped and corrupted. And so

44:28

it's probably a good thing that we

44:30

do not have the original autographs. I

44:32

mean, just look at the arguments that

44:34

we're seeing just with a 15th century

44:36

translation. So another

44:38

argument here is that King James and

44:41

his translators were divinely inspired to create

44:43

a new translation. And again,

44:45

not exactly the case. So King James

44:47

was politically motivated. He did not like

44:49

that the Geneva Bible had a lot

44:51

of footnotes in it that were Calvinistic

44:53

and leaning, but also those footnotes had

44:56

remarks in there that if the people

44:58

were commanded by the King to do

45:00

something unholy against God, that they could

45:02

rebel against the King and they shouldn't

45:04

listen to the King, and that the

45:07

King had to submit himself to God. And

45:09

being a monarch who believed in the sort

45:12

of divine authority, he was not keen on

45:14

that. So King James wanted an edition of

45:16

the Bible put out that

45:18

took out all those Calvinistic footnotes as well as

45:20

took out any footnotes that said, hey, if your

45:23

King asked you to do something that violates the

45:25

command of God, you don't have to listen to

45:27

your King. So there was some political motivation in

45:29

there as well. And

45:32

the last one, which I actually stumbled upon in

45:34

a chat room, yes, those

45:36

things still exist, Cora and Reddit,

45:38

is it's believed that the King

45:40

James isn't copyrighted and all other

45:42

translations are copyrighted. Therefore, this is

45:44

proof that the King James is

45:46

divine and holy because you cannot

45:48

copyright the words of God. But

45:51

this is also false. So the King James

45:53

was and still is copyrighted. It's based out

45:55

of England. It is still under copyright.

45:58

And the copyright doesn't. somehow

46:00

construe the authority of God's Word, it just

46:02

ensures that the translators who worked so hard

46:05

to get you that scripture and put in

46:07

all those footnotes and the binding that they

46:09

get paid for their time and cited for

46:11

their work. In fact, most Bibles, if you

46:13

read the front, they are very gracious. I

46:15

mean, you can quote, I believe

46:17

in my one Bible, it's something like 144

46:20

scriptures, you can go ahead and

46:22

put verbatim without even seeking

46:25

permission from the publishing house to do so.

46:28

So, I mean, again, incredibly gracious

46:30

what we have, but the copyright

46:32

has no bearing on the authority of

46:34

God. It just ensures the people who

46:36

were translating it and the committees and

46:38

the years of painstaking research and work

46:40

that they put into translating these scriptures,

46:42

that they're compensated for their work. I

46:45

mean, that's biblical, you know, pay the

46:47

man, pay the worker his wages. So,

46:50

final thoughts about this KJV only

46:54

movement. The King

46:56

James Bible is a fantastic

46:58

translation to read from it,

47:00

especially the closer you get

47:02

to the original 1611. It's

47:04

considered beautiful. It's considered a

47:06

work of art. Again, it's

47:09

very similar to the speak of Shakespeare. And

47:12

so it is, it's beautiful to find translation.

47:14

We should read it, but we

47:16

shouldn't DFA it. And we

47:18

also shouldn't be telling people that

47:20

if they read other translations, actual

47:23

translations, that they are all of

47:25

a sudden being warped and manipulated

47:27

and, and, you know, using

47:29

false arguments like, oh, passages were intentionally

47:31

left off and, no, no, no. For

47:34

one, that's perpetuating falsehood. Two,

47:36

that's putting a stumbling block in front of a

47:39

believer who's trying to go and get to know

47:41

their savior. And three, you're

47:43

actually creating a command that

47:46

as if God said, you know, go there for and

47:48

make disciples of all nations and do thou do

47:51

so with vine, you know, King James Bible.

47:53

No, God never said that. That's in

47:55

a way putting a command, an extra command of

47:58

God before that individual. which

48:00

is a direct violation of Deuteronomy

48:02

4.2 in Revelation. So we

48:05

just ask that when you are pursuing a

48:08

translation, pick one that you're

48:10

able to read, that you're able to understand. Dive

48:12

into other translations as well. Research the

48:15

original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic behind the

48:17

passages, which you can do on apps,

48:20

like I mentioned, like biblehub.com, which is

48:22

fantastic. You can even see for regardless

48:24

of what translation, each Greek, Hebrew, and

48:26

Aramaic word, what they mean and how

48:28

they were put together, as well as

48:30

the commentaries behind these works. Help

48:33

your children draw and know more of scripture

48:35

because our world today is directly attacking Christians. And

48:38

the only way we're able to stand for them

48:40

is if we know scripture. We have faith in

48:42

God and we stand for him in his word.

48:46

So go pick a great Bible, read it with

48:48

your child, and help them to

48:50

understand that God's word is a blessing to

48:52

be able to behold, because it took thousands

48:55

of years just to get it to you and

48:57

so many lives were lost just for us to

48:59

freely be able to pick up scripture. So

49:02

do them some respect and honor, as well as honor

49:04

God by picking up your Bible and reading it to

49:06

me. Thank you so

49:09

much for joining us on a Mama Bear

49:11

Apologetics podcast. If you wanna know more about

49:13

Mama Bear Apologetics, go to our website, mamabear,

49:15

which is M-A-M-A, bearapologetics.com.

49:19

We have got resources, blogs, audio blogs, and

49:21

podcasts available to you. And if you would

49:23

like a speaker to come to your church,

49:25

hit our speaker request page, and we would

49:27

be happy to be able to come to

49:30

your area and be able to bless and

49:32

join a ministry with you. Thank

49:34

you so much and we'll see you next time. This

49:39

has been a Mama Bear Apologetics recording.

49:42

To learn more about Mama Bear

49:44

Apologetics, please visit us on the

49:47

web at www.mamabearapologetics.com. We

49:51

hope you learned a little more about how to

49:53

fix your ideas, accept the good, reject the bad,

49:55

and now you can go teach your kids to do the same.

49:58

Do you have any questions? and maybe

50:00

some ideas about future podcast episodes. Send

50:03

us an email to [email protected]

50:05

and we'll do our best.

50:08

Rise up ladies! Rise up Mama

50:10

Bears! We are all in this together. www.amabears.com