You are “Uber-eloquent” in all your videos and you go out of your way to “speak the truth in love” and with respect for the other brothers in Christ. Thank you for your insight as well as your example!
I've been basically binge watching your channel for about a week now. Excellent work, points, and attitude towards a tough subject. Not only am I trying to learn as much about the defense of non-kjv translations, but I'm also trying to pick up on your kind approach and confidence to not be pulled into needless arguments. God bless
Some 55 years years ago, I attempted to read the Bible in the KJV. It was like reading a foreign language I didn’t understand. After giving up and setting it, and religion aside for quite a while, I tried again, with the NKJV. What a difference for me. I got it! Were it not for the NKJV, I might not be a Bible believing, saved child of God today. And now I can, for the most part understand the KJV when I pick it up, or listen to someone preach from it. I also own and read from the NASB, ESV, CSB, and occasionally the NET, NIV, and NLT. I’m not a Bible scholar, but I do not find anything in the NKJV so theologically wrong that it makes me want to discard it in favor of any of the others- including the KJV. Wouldn’t be where I am in my faith without the NKJV. What could possibly be wrong with that?
Your total and utter ignorance and utter contempt for the Pure and Preserved word of Almighty God. That's what's wrong with you. In 1997 the King James Bible ( along with the 23 most popular modern heresies they call bibles ) were subjected to the Flesch - Kincaid grade level indicator process. The KJV came out on top in every category being graded for a 9 year old in Western education systems. If you can't understand the Pure and Preserved word of Almighty God you are lost. The Holy Ghost isn't guiding you into all truth. satan has led you to his lies, corruption and omissions in the vatican approved modern heretic books. Do your research and find out the source of the evil modern ' translations '. FYI, there are over 60,000 words less in the niv than the AV ( KJV ). Ever wondered why ? There are numerous alterations and omissions in the nkjv. Get Gail Riplingers ' New Age Bible Versions '.
@@colvinator1611 Not a charitable Christian are you? You need to go back to reading your KJV bible and see what it says in 2 Timothy 2:24 & 25; Phil 2:1-4; Eph 4:1-6 for example. God bless.
I grew up in a KJV-mostly church from the 70's-1990. Memorized hundreds of verses in the King James. Eventually got gripped by English that I finally understood well (1984 NIV and original, not-yet gender politically-correct NCV). It's my strong belief that people argue for the KJV not mostly based on sound reasoning, but because of an acquired taste for the sound and style of it. Like music genre preference, or the way people sit in the exact same pew/row/section of church each Sunday. The ritual and the known-ness conveys a sense of psychological comfort.
That may be some people's reasoning, but there are certainly many people who prefer the KJV for scholarly reasons. I used to read the NIV, then moved to the NASB, and finally made the jump to the KJV, and it wasn't just because I liked the language.
Capitalising Deity is a plus as is the many textual footnotes The footnotes in the NKJV have enabled me to come to the realization that the modern manuscript's are better than the TR
Do you reccomend the two Word Study Bibles you are holding up at the end of the video? Are they both helpful to have, or is one enough? (i.e. are they repetitive?).
I haven't read many of the words studies. I can't give a definitive opinion. I generally shy away from encouraging people who haven't studied Hebrew and Greek to use those languages. =| But I don't discourage them from study; I encourage them either to watch Aleph with Beth or Alpha with Angela-or to study language, or both! I think a deep dive into language and hermeneutics is more likely to be helpful to most believers than the kind of diving word study Bibles will do for you. Does that make sense?
Whew... finally made it through both parts. I will echo my initial comment on the previous video that first and foremost I appreciate and greatly value the time, energy, and effort you put into your work. It is astonishing to even ponder the time you have spent on these two videos alone. I tip my metaphorical hat to you. I find myself understanding both sides of this whole debate. I surely can follow your argument and understand how you come to your conclusions on the NKJV (I do use it myself after all). I do not think your logic is at fault, nor do I think your intentions are anything but fair and good. And as I have repeatedly said, I totally agree with your stance on the issue surrounding dead words and false friends. I do however understand the concerns of the KJVO camp. Regardless of their stated reasoning in any particular argument, I think the true source of the problem is the framing of the underlying question itself. The question to them isn’t “should we start using the NKJV as a replacement for the KJV?” The actual question is “are we willing to give up having our one source of God’s word and trust that modern translations will hold faithful over time?” I don’t personally think pushback of the NKJV comes primarily from a fear of the small textual and translational differences between the KJV and NKJV, though some do make that their main issue, and that is always the path the intellectual argument ends up on. I think the underlying concern stems from the idea that once you untie the boat from its steady and unmoving mooring post, you leave your boat to the whims of the sea. In this case the sea being the unending flow of modern translations of the Bible. You are correct that if a church moved from the KJV to the NKJV, it would likely see little change to its doctrine overnight. But to many that one simple decision means that boat begins its slow but unstoppable drift towards unknown waters. Maybe at first that drift is of little concern, and maybe you could make a valid argument that the drift is in the correct direction (better understanding of original underlying texts), but once the boat is untied from its unmoving rock, it is truly impossible to know what direction it will go given a long enough time frame. Today it is too easy to find churches whose doctrine is simply… bad. That preach from the pulpit demonstrably false doctrine, openly advocating for things explicitly condemned by any simple reading of the Bible. It is also INSANELY worrying to witness in real time how much censorship and intentional moderation is being done to books to make them ‘socially acceptable.’ Books that aren’t even 50 years old are already being rewritten, having sections sanitized because they are just not up to the current social standards. This is tied to the fact that there is also a fair bit of open hostility to Christianity today. So there is a fear. There is a REAL fear, a fear that is not foolish or without merit. That fear is, once you agree to let go of the KJV, have it to stop being the steady mooring post of your church, is there a new steady, unchanging mooring post in which the church can tie its boat to for the next 400+ years? If your answer to that question is, “We don’t have one single new version of the Bible that we will all rely on, but look how many new modern translations we have, we are actually spoiled by how many we have.” Then many KJVO will simply say “Sorry, I do not want any of the tea you are drinking. I will gladly take my difficult to read Bible that is not constantly up for debate and change over the 75 easy to understand Bibles that will be deemed outdated next year and be updated again and again by every new generation of seminary PhDs.” So they resist any change at all. That is at least my personal take on this whole issue. Maybe I am alone, but I doubt it. Sorry for the long comment.
The problem with this kind of fear is that it leads to churches not making necessary changes over time. At a certain point, "That's the way it's always been" just doesn't cut it as a reason. For one, that's not how it's always been, as a cursory glance at history will tell us. ("We can't use a guitar! We've always used a piano," says someone who isn't aware of the earlier controversy over introducing pianos into church services.) For another, the goal should be to emulate the first century church, not the 19th century church (or even the 17th century church). And since we recognize that emulating the first century church *doesn't* mean that we kiss each other as a greeting and throw out the A/C units (in favor of gaudy hand fans, of course!), we should also recognize that things such as Bible translations should be modernized at some point, too.
@@casey1167 Frequently, it isn't a change of meaning in the text at all, but rather a misunderstanding of the KJV's intended meaning in the first place.
@@MAMoreno No..... I have spent years on Bible versions.... it is flat out changes for the sake of changes. Regardless if you believe the publisher are following the law for the derivative copyright or not, the changes in meaning are all over the place.
I appreciate your grace in refuting misleading charges against modern translations. These cases of insufficient sampling and those in "The King James Only Controversy" by James White are frustratingly specious, failing to see the forest for the trees. When the greater context (paragraph, book, author, whole Bible) is taken into consideration, these concerns melt away. I agree that reading multiple translations is helpful, especially for the reader who is not skilled in the ancient languages. Sometimes reading a familiar passage worded differently than one is accustomed to can make one sit up and say, "Hey, is that what it means?" and encourage one to study it in greater detail.
✔ It's been some time since I put together this material, and I have not heard back from Albert Hembd or the Trinitarian Bible Society (though I have spoken to a few individual TBS folks and had at least one good conversation). I'm sad this division has occurred, and that it has not been fixed.
I use Nrsv in church, Niv at jail ministry, and Hcsb in zoom bible study with friends. That’s what everyone used when I joined those groups. The gospel is secure in these versions. I don’t understand the focus on this issue when the church at large has so much work to do.
Isaiah 44:8 in the KJV has "God" twice in the verse yet its two different Hebrew words. The NKJV and all new translations corrected this verse .... "Is there a God besides Me? Indeed there is no other ROCK; I know not one. Rock fits the context of the chapter and blessed my reading it during a bible study many years ago. This verse in the NKJV was the first step I took towards leaving kjv onlyism. The NKJV was feeding my soul and a simple verse used in ignorance by an elder made me start using the kjv . I was young and followed those I was under....I lost many years of understanding God's word fully . I'm not angry about that cause I learned from it all for the better. I love the nkjv .
I was a new believer when someone on Facebook convinced me to throw it out my NIV and buy a KJV. My cousin showed my errors of ways and I dropped KJV onlyism but would only really read translations with Elizabethan English like Tyndale New Testament, KJV and brenton Septuagint. I now see that thees and thous are not essential and that there are faithful modern translations out there.
@Syriac Christianity It took me years to break free from the chains and trust other versions. ...Kjvonly really messed up my head, I ruined many good friendships pushing the lie. Never again .
I found places in the video where the audio was really low and hard to hear even though I have my volume all the way up. Your passionate moments were good. But the quiet moments were quite quiet.
Wonderful modern translations ?? You mean the vile Christ insulting vatican approved heresies spawned in the philosophical swamp of Alexandria ?? Consisting of 44 manuscripts which include the fake Siniaticus ( so called Aleph ) and the vaticanus ( codex B ) which rejects the first 9 chapters of Genesis and the complete book of Revelation and more. If you find modern ' bibles ' wonderful you are lost and are a Christ insulter. You're not on your own though. Looking at these comments it's obvious the word of Almighty God is held in utter contempt. Almighty God says He has preserved His pure word and it is the King James Bible in English. You need to get saved along with the rest of the modern 'bible' brigade. Revelation 22 : 18-19, Deuteronomy 4 : 2, Jeremiah 26 : 2-6, Psalm 12 : 6-7 et al ( KJV ).
First, great videos on this topic, as well as your others! Second, I find your argument against the use of capitalization fairly weak. I find translations that do not capitalize require the reader to ‘guess’, since most are not either scholars or have a commentary handy. Ideally, I believe in capitalizing pronouns relating to the Persons of the Godhead and a footnote when possibly not.
You make a good case. I think that burden should be on the reader, and that carrying that burden will help readers. But as I hope I show in this video, I'm not dogmatic here. I don't think the NKJV translators were morally wrong. I'm actually glad to have a major translation or two that uses conventions like this. Also consider this video: ua-cam.com/video/vJQ-_rr-UK4/v-deo.html
I find it to be an interesting coincidence that a greater number of manuscripts is seen as resulting in a greater confidence of the contents of the autographs, and utilizing multiple translations can give the reader a greater confidence of correct understanding.
Just out of curiosity, did you read Mr. Hamd's list and silently think _"Here are a few he _*_MISSED_*_ that would have made his point even more strongly"?_
Too many preachers cling to the KJV because they have made *PET DOCTRINES* out of its wording that simply has different meaning today. I come from a long tradition of attending churches that practice *expository preaching.* But I’ve heard too many sermons on TV and radio where a preacher preaches a sermon on a *SINGLE VERSE,* often from the KJV. Translate it correctly, and their pet doctrine evaporates!
Hi, how are you doing? Normally I'm in the SDA channels trying to get through to them. 🙏 I'll give you one. The Adventist cult use- Galatians 2:16 KJVS Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. - to say the Old Covenant is still binding. It doesn't doesn't hold true in NKJV - Galatians 2:16 NKJV knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. Get with me sometime. I just found your channel and your very fluid in your summation. 🕊️
@@RandomTChance And, of course, they prefer the Exodus 20 accounting of the _Ten Commandments_ to the somewhat expanded one in Deuteronomy 5: where verse 15 explains: _”Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the Lord your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. _*_Therefore_*_ the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.”_ So, instead of the _”Memorial of creation”_ the SDAs claim it to be, it seems to be rather a _”memorial of the exodus”!_
Oh... I really like the capitalization of pronouns of deity. Do you explain your view on this anywhere? I'd be interested to hear why you think it has outlived its usefulness? Or confuses more readers than it helps? Also why it was ill conceived?
Idolators cling very strongly to what they worship and sometimes don't grasp that they have put something up on a pedestal. Considering all the sects over the past 400 years whose Bible was the King James should be reason enough to have alternate translations if for no other reason than to bring clarity to Scripture used to support doctrinal differences. I look on KJOnly as a modern version of the Pharisees. Keep educating the body of Christ with your honest and humble elucidations .
Good job! Personally, I would use at least *FOUR* translations for in-depth *STUDY:* KJV, NKJV, NIV, and NASB. For reading, I prefer the NIV for its readability. I did sort of like (past tense) the NLT until I came to a few passages where I detected a _slanted paraphrase,_ even though it's titled as a _"Translation"._ Then there's the *Amplified Bible,* provided you have time to read twice the number of words, then taking time to try to decide for yourself which of the various shades of meaning for a particular word to accept.
I like to make a positive comment. I've been with you since you first started doing your videos. I enjoy them and learn much from them. You are a true Wordsmith. I keep learning so much from you. I'm so grateful. During the time of confusion about the King James translation and other translations of the Bible, I found you and a few others. But you have been the most helpful. I would like to suggest that perhaps one of the reasons that the new King James did not use a minimum approach or a minimalist approach to translating the Bible from the King James Version. It could be the copyright laws. In order for Thomas Nelson to copyright their translation, they called the new King James. They needed to have sufficient changes made to validate a copyright. I believe if they had used a minimalist approach, they would not have qualified for a copyright of the new King James translation. Now, of course, this is just a guess on my part. I was at the counter when the new King James first came out, and I was given the opportunity to sell this new translation of the Bible. I was working at a time for the international Bible society, which will be the sponsors with the NIV. But that didn't stop me from also promoting the new King James translation of the Bible. Because I found the new King James translation to be very helpful to those who insisted on using only the King James translation and not wanting NIV.
The problem with many KJVO people is that any change is wrong to them. Case in point; many KJVO say to look up hard words in Webster's 1828 dictionary. But ask them about reading Webster's 1833 Common Version and its 🤯. Personally, I love both the KJV & NKJV. It's like #1a & #1b
@@markwardonwords Well, I am all for updates to archaic words, so not sure I would fall into this camp. Also use of the Webster's is not discouraged by anyone I know. But I find it very inconsistent for proponents of modern versions to point out "errors" of archaic words or phrases that "cause error" when there is no similar rigger done on changes in modern versions which impact meaning. At some point maybe publishing the FormVA for the ESV2016, NLT2015 and CSB2020 would be good for transparency.
An enemy hath done this! Oh, nope. It was me. Made a mistake! I've gotten better at audio after getting a nice donation of sound equipment from a viewer!
Usually when I talk to people and they promote King James only I ask them to show me in the Bible where it says we are to put our faith and trust in one translation and why that translation should be the King James that usually ends the conversation pretty quickly
You have not spoken to very man KJVO people evidently. Or at least you have not actually got to a point of gaining an understanding as to the major issue KJVO people have with the varying modern translations which as a mater of law do not agree with each other.
@@casey1167 there is nothing wrong with being King James only however if you are teaching others to be King James only you are teaching opinion and not something that is taught in the Bible and I could go as far as to say you are adding your own Doctrine to the Bible which goes against revelation 22:18-19
I used that Bible because I was asked to by the pastor who was putting together the series. I actually agree that using tons of different translations for no apparent reason is off-putting. Rick Warren did this in A Purpose-Driven Life, as I recall. But, Tiny Bibles, that book is probably going to be a 2024 release now. =(
@@markwardonwords I think any inference that Rick Warren or Andy Stanley.... okay, not the time or place to discuss that. ;) Frankly, I have sat through may sermons where multiple versions, plus the Greek and Hebrew, were used, and I zoned out. I will respect if a person uses the NASB1995 or NKJV because they believe either of them to be the best, even if I disagree. But using multiple is running foul of 2 Peter 1:20 pretty fast.
@@markwardonwords Well, great example of version shopping to match my sermon, NASB2020: "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture becomes a matter of someone’s own interpretation" Now I now this disagrees with the ESV and CSB, but since I want it to say "becomes a matter" (present tense) I will go with the NASB2020. But I do think the KJV is correct as it is reflective of Gen 40:8. I hope you are not saying my beloved NASB2020 is wrong... ;)
KJV only people reject everything. People reject the NKJV because it's too TR for critical text readers(1) and most KJV readers because they don't understand their KJV
Excellent! Thank you, Mark, once again. As I'm sure I've mentioned far too many times now, the copious footnotes is one of my favourite features of the NKJV 🙂
The Berean Standard Bible is a CT edition that has the same kind of textual variant footnotes that avoid opinions ("best", "most reliable", etc.). It also has a draft of a Majority Text version online.
Good video. I recently found your channel trying to figure out what a KJVO friend was on about. I appreciate the information you give out. FWIW I don't think reading the quotes of your doctrinal opponents with a mocking voice helps your case brother. Just an observation. Your information speaks for itself. No need to do all that.
He might just be trying to do a different voice from his own voice in order to show that he's quoting somebody. It might not be intended to be mocking.
@@markwardonwords Frankly Mark, you do it a lot. I realize there are a lot of people in my camp that are not exactly gracious in their comments, but you do hold yourself out as the expert and teacher in the matter.
The KJVO camp is a bit more broad than people realize. You have the re-inspirationist on one side, and the "grew up with and prefer" on the other side. Than you have people like me who are pretty well studied and see the changes made to modern versions a perversion caused by the Derivative Copyright Law requirements. The same would be true with tradition Hebrew Text and TR people, there is a wide range of arguments in that area also. To lump all KJVO as "Ruckmanites" is a winning argument for a portion of the KJVO, but really does not impact the core.
Protestant beliefs are typically or traditionally sourced from the KJV in centuries past. The new translations can cause all sorts of questions. Trying to explain KJV theology in modern translations results in time wasted explaining the new vocabulary of the new translations. Also, under no circumstances did Jesus change the dietary rules of the Jews. He would have been stoned for even suggesting pork was food, yet translators do all they can to find excuses to let Christians eat bacon. Jesus died to free us from sin, not for pork eating. Changing the vocabulary can cause all sorts of problems trying to understand Revelation, Daniel, and Ezekiel and other prophesy passages. Lastly, the Bible is still very popular, and every publisher wants their own copy to make a profit. Profits don't bode well for Bible integrity. I am not against new translations. I read them. I have a very nice NASB1995. I just find the kjv more convenient.
sorenpx Translators can use church fathers to gauge whether certain verses belong there or not and verses such as 1 John 5:7 have nothing to back it up.
My husband and we're wondering if the NLT Bible is safe to read. We were told that it wasn't, and that we needed to read the NKJV. We are very confused and have no help at all in what we should do. We are having a hard time understanding the NKJV. Could you please help us. Love your videos. God Bless you and your family.
Go for it! It's good to know that the NLT is a bit more interpretive than the NKJV; the latter is more literal. But I'd encourage you to try the NLT, for sure. The Filament editions look nice.
If you're cautious about the NLT, you might consider trying something like the CSB first. The NLT sounds more like natural English and less like a translation, but in doing so, it has to make hard interpretive decisions in places where scholars disagree, which might explain why someone told you that it was untrustworthy.
Thanks Mark for your help. To tell you the truth it was our church that told us that the NLT was not good and that we had to watch the wording. I'm very confused I have only been a new believer for a couple of years and when someone in the church says that well it sure sends you on a confused whirlwind. God Bless you.
@@heavenbound563 Their motivation is good. Believe the best about their intentions, I urge you! And try the CSB as my friend M.A. said. That won’t trip their alarm bells.
Dear sister.The not is a truly great translation. I have found the nlt to be more accurate than nkj in several places (example Rom 11:13)..the apostle Paul is the apostle to the gentiles, not an apostle so enjoy and trust the nlt. You wont regret it.Toni's husband
Hey Mark, in the Greek, and inthe Hebrew here you go..... “And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” King James Version (KJV)
The Greek--that is, the Greek that has actually been copied down in the manuscript tradition, not the Greek that Erasmus translated from Latin to complete his edition of Revelation because the commentary he was using as a source for the text was missing the final pages--does not say "book of life" in Revelation 22.19. It says "tree of life." In Greek, that's ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς. See the World English Bible and the Majority Standard Bible, both of which follow the Byzantine Majority Text instead of the 16th century Vulgate-infused texts of Erasmus, Estienne, and Beza. Or just look at the footnote in the NKJV.
From which book? The New Testament hadn’t been compiled during the time that that verse was written down. Remember that the first Christians only had the complete OT, with some letters and a plethora of different writings, with most being rejected as the NT was formed.
I like the new king James version, I believe it corrects a lot of the mistakes in the king James version. I usually have on my phone the Young’s literal translation and anything I need to write in the margin that I believe would help I put in there because they’re more accurate on present tense passages
Mistakes you say tommyboy in the King James Bible? So you know better than 54 born again multi lingual ( All Greek / Hebrew generational ) academics who spent 7 years meticulously perfecting the Receied text and Masoretic Hebrew O/T into English ? You prefer the nkjv who's old testament was ' translated ' for Hitler ( Biblia Hebraica [ Stuttgarten 1937 ] ) by Jew hating nazi party members ? ( The Kittel's [ father and son] check the forword in your evil book. The liars who publish it don't tell you the truth about their ' translators' ) ? You need to get saved tommyboy, you're in a desperate place denouncing the truth of Almighty God. Proverbs 13 : 13 ( KJV )
A solution for the problem of second-person pronouns is to use "you" alone only when it's singular and variations such as "you all", "all of you" (e.g. LSB), and "you brothers" when it's plural.
The area where I lived until about 2 years ago, has a strong Pacific island language influence. It's common to hear you for singular, and yous (use?) for the dual and plural forms.
are you aware that in Michael Hollner's book the King James Only Debate.... he names you as a "False Friend.".. in his introduction ......in your regards to your quoting of 2 Timothy 2:14 and 2 Timothy 2:16 .. but your disregard for 2 Timothy 2:15.. that is "wedged .. in the middle of those 2 verses... in order to get you point across...?..
Perhaps to KJ Bible believers the "thee's & Ye's" have meaning. When Jesus said to Nicodemus Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. John.3.7 KJV Jesus meant thee to the singular man, Nicodemus, to whom Jesus was speaking, but Jesus meant the whole Jewish nation when He used the plural "Ye." Therefore it was a prophetic statement concerning the future when all Israel will be saved. Maybe just another Wardism?
I actually know the answer to your supposition. The thee's and ye's do NOT have meaning for most KJV-Onlyists. Their pastors, at least, did poorly when tested. Check out kjbstudyproject.com.
@@markwardonwords can't tell from your answer for sure, but it seems you probably knew the value of the "thee's & Ye's." Rather than teach the value of the pronouns you propose getting rid of them? Once I was in the Doctor's office who gave me a long explanation of my problem. I asked for the explanation in plain English. Perhaps I should have also insisted all the medical journals should have been re-written? I still feel our differences are that you feel the KJV is/was a great translation for it's time, but now it needs an upgrade, whereas I feel the KJV is exactly worded as God wanted for the English speaking world. There is indeed a definite wording for a medical journal to make a definite point. I really think it would be beneficial to your position in our eternal future if you would concentrate your efforts of read-ability to the works of Shakespeare. PS: did that KJV website delve into the doctrines found in the KJV concerning our salvation today? For some strange reason I doubt it did. There is one thing you have said to which I strongly agree,,,,,we need better teachers!
@@markwardonwords the only last words I might have is that from years and years of visiting with various folks through this medium, everyone has their own "ism's." One of mine is the only real judge of what is truly the word of God is the combined thoughts of each and every member of the Body of Christ. Certainly we should measure each "ism" against scripture, but that's the rub, maintaining the scriptures just to have something with which to measure.
@@markwardonwords just another thought......Dan 7:10 indicates only 1% of all folks ever born will be eternally with the Lord, we simply must stick together and not let the 99% influence us with the ways of the world.
As you said translation and interpretation they go side by side especially in a huge work such as the bible. I do agree that the NKJV editors/translators should've had updated only the archaic words in the KJV while keeping everything else as it was, with no footnotes comparing the underlying text with the critical text. However, I have on question and I don't know if you would ever answer it, TR or the mss on which TR is based have been passed down by the church so basically we know that the people who passed it down to us believed in Jesus Christ, the trinity, and all the doctrines that we believe them today. so we know the source of the TR. What makes you to trust the alexandrian text on which the CT is based when you do not know the source of that text especially the text was originated in a geographic area where the heresies were circulating? isn't it that the CT is not but merely a work of academia? BTW, English is my third language. I love the TR and trust it more than the CT however I'm not a native English and I find KJV to be very difficult to ready for me therefore I try to read in the NKJV or the ESV.
It's not that simple. Arius had been educated in Antioch. Several of the people at the Nicene Council who agreed with Arius (or at least partially agreed) were from Antioch. Meanwhile, some of his greatest opponents, such as Alexander and Athanasius, were key religious figures in Alexandria. So the Arian heresy is associated with both locations that appear in the "two streams" discussion, not just Alexandria.
Thanks Mark as always for the video. I see in all your videos your charitable approach to dealing with differences among Bible translations. Your general response in most cases is that there are various legitimate textual or translation choices in a given passage. Hembd doesn't seem to share this approach, as he rejects differences from the KJV. I've thought about why some people are satisfied by your approach while some others go along with Hembd's view. Your approach of explaining the various legitimate textual and translation choices helps to dispel the false allegation that modern translators are under some nefarious conspiracy to intentionally corrupt the text. Your approach is effective to that end. Not to be critical of your approach (I'm only hoping to "add to" your point rather than criticizing it), but I don't think your approach by itself can resolve the issue of why people stay or go toward KJV-Onlyism. I think the problem has to do with the rhetoric and doctrine of Bible preservation as articulated and understood in Evangelical circles. If we accept the premise that there is no absolutely correct textual reading or translation of a word, then we are faced with two outcomes: 1. KJV Onlyists are wrong on the facts but their rhetoric regarding Bible preservation is consistent. 2. Non-Onlyists are correct on the facts but their rhetoric regarding Bible preservation is not consistent. Scholars have always known about variant readings and translations even during the Reformation (e.g. the KJV's "Translators to the Readers"), but these differences did not seem to take up a large part of the laity's consciousness as they do now. The doctrines of Sola Scriptura took off during the Reformation, and in modern times the Fundamentalist movement and Evangelical calls for Bible inerrancy have cemented the rhetoric among the Evangelical laity that we do in fact have a perfect and inerrant Bible. Churches' Statements of Belief often qualify this notion by referring to the original autographs, but we still colloquially refer to having "the inerrant word of God with us". Inerrant means inerrant. 100%. No error. The Evangelical world is still using the same rhetoric of a "every jot and tittle" view of scripture preservation that has been upheld since the Reformation and Fundamentalism. But the difference now is that these differences in jots and tittles (not counting the mere synonyms) are more accessible to the laity. A single congregation can have multiple Bible translations present, so the laity is exposed to the differences (sometimes involving an entire large chunk of text, such as the Ending of Mark). So the laity is dealing with a disorienting experience that could result in several outcomes. One outcome is for people to be persuaded by the consistent rhetoric of KJV-Onlyism and therefore go with them. Another outcome is for people to accept the premise that there is no absolutely correct textual reading or translation of a word and continue to live under the cognitive dissonance of continuing to hear the same rhetoric (shared by both KJV-Onlyists and Evangelicals) that we do indeed have "the inerrant word of God with us" but not seeing that demonstrated by the prima facie evidence. There is a third way, which is to qualify what it means to have the "inerrant word of God with us" in a more academic way (as you do). But my point is that we are dealing with the laity for the most part. And when Evangelical pastors tell their congregation that "We have the inerrant word of God with us" when they don't actually believe it in the absolute way as understood by the laity (there is no "meeting of the minds"), this breeds confusion and openings for inerrancy extremism on one end and inerrancy denialism on the other. Biblical Evangelicals are good at formulating and articulating internal doctrines of the Bible. But when it comes to meta-doctrines such as canonicity and inerrancy, we are failing many within the laity by presenting shallow catch-phrase theology. Biblical Evangelicals decry those careless preachers who peddle shallow unqualified absolutist misconstrueable phrases like "God will prosper you", but we might be doing the same by carelessly putting out shallow unqualified absolutist misconstrueable statements about inerrancy. We give them baby theology, and when they grow up and learn possible alternatives (KJV-Onlyism or inerrancy denialism), they go their way based on their predispositions and experiences.
I'm with you. Well put, as always. I don't mean at all to dismiss your comment by replying only briefly, but I think I just want to express simple, straightforward agreement-and then explain what comforts me in this situation. It's that God is the one who made it like this; as I often say, he's the one who gave us this situation. He's the one who gave us language with its minor ambiguities and with the impossibility of absolutely perfect translation. He's the one who gave us textual variants. So if there is cognitive dissonance to be had, he gave it to us. And I trust him!
So, please explain your statement: "modern translators are under some nefarious conspiracy to intentionally corrupt the text" with the application FormVA used by Bible publisher stating their version is different enough from all other extant versions not to run afoul of their copyright and also make enough changes related to "new authorship" to obtain a derivative copyright of their own.
@@markwardonwords "So if there is cognitive dissonance to be had, he gave it to us. And I trust him!" -- Well, not exactly. You are telling the Church to trust the translation decisions they make which go against all extant translation decision based on (to a large extent) faith in the scholarship of the translators. When these scholars disagree, in the four major versions copyrighted in the last 20 years (ESV2016, CSB2020, LSB2021, NASB2020), we are to chalk this up to complexity which appears to be growing exponentially in every new version or revision of existing version.
@@casey1167 Have you used many commentaries based on a single book of the Bible? It's not uncommon for the commentator to provide their own translation of the text rather than using an existing version (unless the publisher/editor demands they do so). And they never have much trouble producing a translation that sparks no issues with copyright law. They can hit that minimum requirement without even trying. Why? Because you don't have to give a scholar a "new authorship" mandate in order to get that scholar to come up with a text that's sufficiently different from the sort of text that gets produced by a committee. Every committee translation is a compromise. The KJV is naturally safer than Tyndale's version, for instance. In fact, the greatest single-translator idiosyncrasies of Tyndale's New Testament had already been ironed out long before the 50 or so scholars of 1611 got to it.
@@MAMoreno you have me at somewhat of a disadvantage because I have never really used a commentary produced in the last 100 years. I would agree the KJV is naturally safer than the Tyndale's version. I really doubt the translators of the KJV found any issues to resolve, all the issues were well known and already in discussion.
You also have to deal with not violating the copyright of other modern versions of the Bible while at the same time make enough changes to be able to apply for the copyright yourself.
@@CCiPencil No, the KJV is not copyrighted too. The comparison to the Crown Copyright is not even an apples and oranges comparison. Modern bible versions have a copyright under the following using FormVA: 17 U.S.C. 103: "The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material."
@@casey1167 would that be because it’s copyrighted under the English crown? And it’s been out for so long that it doesn’t qualify for copyrighting in US? I’m not very familiar with copyright law nuances, asking for clarification. Thanks for the response
@@CCiPencil You are asking a question that is not a short answer... The KJV is the Authorized Version, and is still has the Crown Copyright in the UK. Permission to print must be sought in the UK to print, but the USA did not honor the Crown Copyright after the revolution so it is free to print in the USA without authorization although some publisher still get permission. The grounds for the Crown Copyright are not the same as the US Copyright. In the USA after 1947 all "bibles" are under the 17 U.S.C. 103 Copyright Law (as I quoted before) which dictates they must be be distinguished enough from all other pre-existing or extant versions of the "bible" to be considered a new work of authorship. Per legal zoom: "However, there have been numerous court cases interpreting the law, which complicate things and render this definition incomplete. There must be major or substantial new material for a work to be considered copyrightable as a derivative work. The new material must be sufficiently original and creative to be copyrightable by itself." So, any "bible" post 1947 must: 1. Not violating someone else copyright 2. Meet the requirements for a derivative copyright. So, if a "bible" has a US Copyright they are saying they followed the law under 17 U.S.C 103, and they are not violating another "bible" version's Copyright protection. On FormVA (the Copyright application) the publisher states this. Thus, what you see when comparing modern "bible" version against each other (not even against the KJV) is every single chapter will have multiple verses where the meaning of the verse is different (showing new authorship) and the wording will always be different in other verses even if the meaning has not changed in order not to violate another's copyright. The rebuttal to this is "Godly Scholars" made the decision for changes, but this simply does not hold up when the changes to every book of the Bible just happen to meet the requirements under US Copyright Law.
People need to read God's word in the language they use on a daily basis. I heard the KJV growing up because that's what people used. I remember in the early 80s my mother bought a NKJV Bible with a pink leather cover. All of her friends loved it and they went out and bought their own copy. I'm not going to bash others, but this KJV-only thing seems a little culty to me.
Well, here are the options, believe the KJV is the correct translation of the correct manuscripts or believe what the modern "bibles" teach which is no "bible" is correct in its entirety. Therefor you must look to an "expert" to really know what the Word of God is. Either way you are in the same position.
@@markwardonwords "holding to one form of the Scriptural text as their only and final authority. This could be a Greek/Hebrew text, a manuscript, or a version." -- okay, wanted to make sure I was using your definition. So, yes that would be a fair label to assign to me related to the Greek/Hebrew textual choices made by the KJB translators. As with any belief, reason will take you so far and then there is a faith based portion to get you to 100%. I find the TR/Masoretic textual absolutism of the KJB to contain a much smaller "faith" portion than what would be required to have in a Critical Text belief system. The theological problems with the Critical Text belief far outweigh problems of belief in correct majority text selections made by the KJB guys. "textual absolutism" with the KJB would not be an accurate assignment though. To have that belief would be double inspiration. I am sure there are some short sections of the Bible Webster could have done better than the KJB translators, or to that matter the MEV2014 and the NKJV1984. (but has a whole the MEV and NKJV are not acceptable.) From an objective standpoint how is your belief system in the Critical Text (both OT and NT) different than my belief in the TR/Masoretic text? We both believe that men (Christian and non-Christian) made choices on what should be included. The only difference is I have a static text where you can not know were your text will be in the coming years. There are books an all the decisions the KJB translators made related to text, you simply can't know all the decisions on text made by all the modern versions. You cannot make a statement if they are correct or not without stating others are incorrect. I can promote the KJB with all the hair involved, but you are stuck promoting the NLT with no knowledge of what changes Dr. Nijay Gupta will be making to the next revision. So, partly guilty as charged.
“And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” King James Version (KJV)
My friend, the New King James Version and the Modern English Version both use the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts as the King James. And they translate those texts into fully intelligible contemporary English, which means they meet the principle of 1 Corinthians 14, edification requires intelligibility. I recommend the NKJV and MEV to you.
@@markwardonwords So, what do we do when the MEV does not agree with the KJV? For example: 1 Corinthians 1:18? In your article: "When 2 Bible Translations Disagree, Which One Is Right?" you state: "... considered viable options by highly trained people, all of whom-readers should presume-had good reasons for what they did." Why? How is a translator different than a pastor??? Should I just take Andy Stanley's theology ??
@@casey1167 Naturally, I can't tell you to trust any human completely. What I can tell you is that God is the one who gave you this situation, the one in which you have to trust fallen, finite humans to translate God's word for you. You're going to have to trust *someone.* And if you do trust the KJV translators, trust their judgment when they said in their preface that "They that are wise had rather have their judgements at liberty in differences of readings than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other" (and I believe they meant both translation options and text-critical variants). And, in general, I say trust the major evangelical institutions that gave us the major evangelical English Bibles. Pastors are not trained to the level that Doug Moo is; and their work is not vetted by a team of equally trained people. What they produce is not inspired, not perfect. But it's the best humans can do at this time.
@@markwardonwords If you were making an argument for the NKJV or the NASB1977 I would agree with your statements though disagree with the KJB being the correct Bible. Your evaluation based on individuals is problematic, whether be Moo, Waite, Metzger or Ruckman. I spent 5 years at Liberty because I thought Jerry Falwell was great, but I did not see him lacking human traits. Translation and Theology are to be judged on their own merits. The issue you have (as you note in “When 2 Bible Translations Disagree, Which One Is Right?") is we are not dealing with small changes. As reflected in the Notes to the 1611 the variations are not significant. We also have the benefit of cumulative knowledge, just as the KJB translators looked to prior translations both in English and foreign languages. Your argument of superior scholarship simply is not reflected. If your understanding of translation increases your variation in translation is going to decrease in a linear fashion. The exact opposite is happening. Regardless of your opinion of the Copyright Law, a version cannot violate another publisher’s copyright. Thus, if you have a perfect translation it legally cannot be replicated. That is not my opinion, that is the law, is reflected in all modern versions, and you have clearly shown that in your aboved mentioned article. You simply cannot get around the fact all modern bible publisher have filed a FormVA.
@@casey1167 Casey at the bat struck out. The fact is that all KJV translators had to follow the King of England, and even give in to some of his preferences, rather than stick to their manuscript and English principles 100%
Having read Art Farstead’s (sp?) The head of the NKJV project in his own words was to do a translation of the same manuscripts of the KJV in the tradition of the KJV, no where do I remember him saying anything about updating the English it was a new translation
I've got the book on my desk right now! It's been a while since I read it. I need to go back through it. I can't speak with certainty right now as to the question you raise.
I found it interesting that the British usage text of the NKJV (formerly called the Revised Authorised Version) removed the reverential caps when it was introduced from the States. (This is a correction to my hasty comment in the Live chat.)
The NKJV remove the Name of God " LORD in Hebrew it means YAHWEH in the old testament 6000 times .Wake church. The Name of the Holy Spirit, the Comforter removed.
The translators of the NKJV did not believe in the TR. For a TR person, I’m not going to read a translation that claimed to use it if the translators themselves didn’t believe in the TR. The MEV is a much better translation for a TR person who wants the KJV in todays English.
The translators of the KJV did not believe the TR was completely accurate either. This is clear if you read the preface. Also, there are some textual critical marginal notes in the KJV (not as many as other translations have, but it shows that they did not believe the translation or the text it was translated from was perfect).
@@curtthegamer934 The KJV translators had access to the critical text and rejected it. The critical text is only based upon 5% of existing manuscripts. The TR is much more reliable containing 95% of existing manuscripts. I’m for Christians being able to understand the Bible but if you don’t know Greek or Hebrew, the KJV is the most accurate translation we have available in English. While the KJV might have a couple of problems with archaic words, it isn’t as difficult to understand as others seem. Their are some tough readings with genealogies and the beginning of 1 Chronicles but the New Testament is very easy to read in the KJV.
You say the KJV is the most accurate. What about the book of Revelation? It’s clear they didn’t have an actual manuscript to work with at least with last bit of it. Is it the most accurate? Sure if you know and understand English from 500 years ago, I don’t. For me, it’s far less accurate than the English I know and the older manuscripts we have, especially with regard to the book of revelation. KJV still the greatest work of English ever but not the greatest Bible for me to know God.
@@CCiPencil I should have said from the beginning that I am not KJV Only. I am TR Only. I am a huge fan of the MEV. It succeeded in making the KJV easier to understand. The only verse that KJV Onlyists go after the MEV is 1 Corinthians 1:18 because it says “being saved” instead of “are saved.” But both say the same thing if you look into the Greek. Those that teach you can lose your your salvation ignore the plain verses from the gospel of John saying everlasting/eternal life. The MEV despite being from a charismatic publisher doesn’t have an charismatic leanings.
@@michaeltravers3095 I honestly haven’t looked at the MEV. I’ll check it out. Thank you for your response. Question about the TR approach? I’m honestly just trying to learn. Been a Christian for less than 2 years. Is it because it’s based on the Byzantine manuscripts? Could be wrong about that. I’ve heard they are generally better, that could be because Islam destroyed so many others, not sure. Thoughts?
It was a good defense of the NKJV. Though I think it's fine, as a translation. Sometimes I wonder if the Title was a little ambitious. As it seems more after the tradition of KJV, than merely revision. But, it's close, so it's not a major problem.
I would like for KJV onlyists to explain the following discrepancy in the KJV text. KJV 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads “ Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord.” I know that there are some really bad eight year olds, but I don’t think that there are any that you would truly describe as evil. 2 Kings KJV 24:8-9 reads “Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem. And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, according to all that his father had done.” To its credit, the NKJV in its footnote on 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads “Heb. mss., LXX, Syr. eighteen and 2 Kin. 24:8” CT Bibles use the LXX in 2 Chronicles 36:9 stating that Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king, and note in footnotes that the Masoretic text states that Jehoiachin was eight years old.
To get a sense of how this discrepancy was interpreted at the time, see this marginal note from the Geneva Bible: *That is, he began his reign at eight years old, and reigned ten years when his father was alive, and after his father’s death, which was the eighteenth year of his age, he reigned alone three months and ten days.* While the NKJV (cf. NRSV, LSB) sticks with "eight," the MEV goes for "eighteen" (in agreement with most other 21st century translations).
@@MAMoreno I've heard that explanation before, but I find it unlikely because it seems that the passage that said he was eight when he began to reign would have continued with "and he reigned ten years." The fact that it still continues with "and he reigned three months" is very suspect.
i think there are less kjv only people than one imagines. most people have no problem with reading both versions. most people like the nkjv. the bigger issue is textual base. why did the alexandrian texts not get copied in any meaningful numbers? why were they sidelined? why were they not widespread? i have not yet heard a convincing reply to these questions. kjvonlyists frustrate me-i think the best thing to do is nothing. the nkjv will become more accepted in time just as the kjv itself and subsequent updates were.... i would get rid of the translation notes though.
In "WHICH TEXTUS RECEPTUS? A CRITIQUE OF CONFESSIONAL BIBLIOLOGY" by Mark Ward you make the argument very clearly there really is no difference in the deficiency of Bibliology between KJVO and TR-Only (and can be inferred to Majority Text) proponents. How would I be incorrect to find your promotion of non-KJV Bible based on the TR or Majority text to be disingenuous?
A fair question. I believe I've been consistent and open, not disingenuous. TR-Onlyism, empirically, nearly everywhere I look, is KJV-Onylism. But logically, it need not be. That's all I'm saying. I would be genuinely, truly happy for all of mainstream KJV-Onlyism to switch to the NKJV or MEV. Yes, I'd love for them to come all the way to my position, or at least give me liberty to have mine without condemning me; but I absolutely believe they have Christian liberty to use a TR-based Bible.
@@markwardonwords I understand your statement... But... you state "KJV-onlyism is not a Christian liberty issue,..." If a person is TR than by default they will be KJV if it can be shown to them the KJV is the best translation of the TR, which I feel is the case especially when it come to the Masoretic Text in the OT. (The MEV from my review has changes in meaning in the OT, and I am but a lay person.) Your purpose, or calling is to help people move from a Bible version you feel is "...makes void the Word of God by human tradition..." than the logical results of you mission would be to move people towards the Best Translation possible which you do not believe is TR based, thus you would not suggest trading one inferior translation for another inferior translation. So, I am confused. I would never condemn a person for using a Modern Bible version, but I do know their Bible does conflict with mine in multiple places in every chapter of the Bible. And by calling people such as myself "extremist" who "make void the Word of God" sort of condemning me??? ;) And KJVO goes well beyond a "correct translation of the correct manuscripts" which you do not touch on but is a very real issue.
@@casey1167 I believe that mandated, exclusive use of the KJV is wrong. Dividing the church over the doctrines of KJV-Onlyism, doctrines the Bible does not teach, is wrong. I condemn those things. Are you guilty of those things? And do you believe that the KJV itself is inspired and perfect? That is what I call extremism.
@@markwardonwords I go to four services a week between Seattle Baptist and Open Door Baptist. Except for Sunday Morning on average we are reading between twenty to forty-five verses of which a few will be congregational reading from our personal Bibles, or someone will read from their Bible. It's not a mandate you have to show up with a KJV, and some don't but they wind up grabbing the pew Bible so they can follow. And what is the Doctrines of KJV-Onlyism? you would have to agree it is not just the KJV. And that really is the issue in most Churches today. And perfect and inspired... come on Mark, I have been commenting enough that you know I agree that would be heresy. And I don't know anyone who believes that. But I would never leave the KJV based on the offerings today. Whether you believe as I do change are made for Copyright purposes, or I guess your belief of complete coincidences in Godly Scholarship result is the absolute identical results through out every chapter of the bibles, no modern Bible can agree in meaning with the KJV. (really, I have less faith in the KJV than you do in the Copyright Law not being followed) KJV is Correct translation of correct manuscripts, and I understand issue with 1John5:7&8, Rev16:5, etc. But one thing you promote which has caused a lot of people to become more KJVO is the idea all modern versions are equal. I know from experience, fighting the NASB1977 was hard, but once I was told the NASB1977, NASB1995 and NLT1996 were all equally correct I had no choice but to go KJV. You have to know the next revisions of the NIV & NLT at least are going to be bad, will you at that point warn against them?
@@markwardonwords And Mark, Denomination (SBC, Methodist, etc.) and Churches are fracturing right now across the country and world (German Bishops) related to Female Pastors and welcoming and affirming of LGBTQ+. You might not like the KJV, but in the big picture a group of Christian that believe the KJV is the correct translation of the correct manuscripts regardless of archaic words and "false friends" is the absolute tiniest problem the Church faces today. And let's be honest, a conservative Church in general is a KJV Church, or a Church that was KJV in the last generation.
Is there not a modern Bible based on the same texts (use the TBS Greek edition and the Christian Corrected Hebrew) as the KJV and purposely makes the same translation choices and interpretations? We have so many translations surely there is one? I feel if the NKJV had actually did this we wouldn't be where we are because It just looks dishonest to say you are just revising the old language and then you make different interpretive choices even if they are fair. The people who hold to the KJV don't want new interpretations they want the same ones that were made in ~1611 (or that Tyndale made in 80% of the cases) and that the whole English speaking church used for hundreds of years. Everyone I know would rather try to muddle through the old English to try to find that meaning, than read modern English with a different message. They don't trust the modern Bibles *because* they are making different choices, fair though they be. The Orthodox would also agree with this point, the traditional Christian readings need to stay. See the first edition of the RSV in Isaiah 7:14, that ruined many peoples trust and the NKJV did something like that to many peoples eyes in the TR/KJV world.
I, too, wish the NKJV translators had done what you describe. But the rub comes in your phrase, "fair though they be." Why should the NKJV translators have stuck with all the minute choices made by the KJV translators? The answer can only be pragmatic, not principled. It can only be, "Make the same choices as the KJV translators because they're already accepted and trusted by lots of people." It can't be, "Make the same choices as the KJV translators, because they were all correct." I'm not so sure the NKJV would have been accepted by the current KJV-Only crowd, even if it had made all the same choices as the KJV. They would have found places where it appeared to them that the NKJV made a different choice (because they didn't understand what was going on), and they would have felt totally free to reject the entire thing based on one alleged mistake. I think Matthew 7:13-14 provides a good example. (Do I discuss that passage in this video?) English has changed in such a way that it's a little difficult to stick with the KJV translators' choices. They had two words for "narrow" ("narrow" and "strait") and we don't really.
@@markwardonwords I disagree it can't be on the principle of honesty. That is what they said they were going to do, and to many people it looks like they broke that promise. As far as if they were correct or not you said yourself the KJV translators weren't wrong they just made different decisions, so it is more like a confession of faith. "We believe in this interpretation." The same as a creed or other confession of faith. I'm sure if you were to hold to the Westminster confession of faith and at some point it needs to be updated and rather than keep the Calvinistic language that it was intended to have, the updaters took the chance to make it Arminian you would reject it even if the choices they made were reasonable because the point of a confession/creed is that it doesn't change meaning over time. When you have "No creed but the Bible" the translation interpretation choices matter more to you. KJVOists believe the KJV made 100% correct choices the same way a Presbyterian believes the Westminster 100% accurately reflects the Bible's teachings. Is that wrong? Wouldn't that make all creeds wrong? The problem is that since they feel like they have been lied too, they would rather hold to something they struggle to understand than risk someone trying to trick them into a different "confession of faith" For instance, Imagine I updated the language of your church's confession of faith to allow infant baptism and then told you it was more accurate or changed a Presbyterians confession by "updating" baptism to the English word immersed. That would be more "accurate" and understandable but it would fundamentally alter the confession, unmooring it from it's history and make me seem dishonest in the process. "Young woman" is a fair translation in Isaiah 7:14 but as a Christian I would reject it even through I acknowledge it is a "fair" choice from a Jewish perspective because it contradicts my faith in the new testament. "Fair" just isn't good enough. I hope this made some sense as it is late and I'm tired. I hope you have a Merry Christmas!
@@markwardonwords When you get a chance I would like your thoughts on what I replied/commented. It is something I have ran into talking to the pastors and parishioners in my area.
@@DrGero15 That really does make excellent sense. Very insightful, especially this: "When you have ‘No creed but the Bible’ the translation interpretation choices matter more to you. KJVOists believe the KJV made 100% correct choices the same way a Presbyterian believes the Westminster 100% accurately reflects the Bible's teachings." Do you feel confident in saying that the NKJV represented itself originally as a mere English update? I'm not denying this, but I wasn't paying attention to Bible ads when I was 2. ;)
@@markwardonwords I am 110% confident saying it since they said in the "Statement of Purpose" informational brochure published in 1979 that the goals for the Bible were the following:
"1. To preserve the original intended purity of the King James Version in its communication of God's word to man. 2. To clarify the King James Version by the use of current words, grammar, and sentence structure so that the New Kings James would speak to the individual reader in the twentieth century in as clear, simple, and accurate a manner as the original translators of the King James Version in 1611 endeavored to speak to their readers. 3. To neither add to, take away from, nor alter the communication that was the intent of the King James translators but to transfer the Elizabethan word forms into twentieth-century English." "This edition shall not add to, nor take from, nor alter the communication that was the intent of the original translators of the King James Version. (…) This edition shall not corrupt nor diminish the original translation … so that a reader of this edition may follow without confusion a reading of the original edition from the pulpit." New King James Statement of Purpose, 1979. It also identifies the NKJV as "this edition of the King James Version." In his book, The New King James Version: in the Great Tradition, the Executive Editor of the NKJV, Arthur Farstad said on the guidelines for the translators: "The purpose of this project is to produce an updated English version that follows the sentence structure of the 1611 Authorized Version as closely as possible. (…) The intention is not to take from or alter the basic communication of the 1611 edition but to transfer the Elizabethan word forms into twentieth-century English." The New King James Version: in the Great Tradition, 1993 They still say basically the same thing today, From the Tomas Nelson page on the NKJV: "The NKJV Bible preserves the authority and accuracy, as well as the rhythm and beauty, of the original King James Version while making it understandable to current readers. The result is a Bible translation, *scrupulously faithful to the original* , yet truly *updated* to enhance its clarity and readability." And they still call it the "5th Revision of the King James Bible" If you read what they said they were doing and compare it to what they did end up doing, they lied. That was a terrible blow and the root of the problem you are dealing with now. If they had done what they said they were going to, I think at least 85% of those who are now KJVO would be happily using the NKJV. There probably wouldn't be a KJVO Wikipedia page and ploughboys everywhere would be better off. I am deeply sympathetic to your cause and I don't know if you recognize me but I have commented on a lot of your videos and we have had exchanges of comments and have changed my stance somewhat due to your work on the Bible Study Research Project you recently did. (along with my own observations of pastors butchering the text due to, what I hope is, ignorance)
Let's see. Copyright law dictates all new modern bible versions: 1. Must not violated the copyright of another bible. 2. Must show new authorship. 3. Thus over time translations must become poor or in error. 4. Modern bible readers never know if the change in their bible was made for scholarship, or for copyright purposes. Ya, my KJB is superior to what ever you are using. Condescending? Yep.
@@casey1167 let's see, the KJV is copyrighted in UK. nor did i say i don't use KJV, i use it frequently, sometimes every day. many words in KJV no longer mean what they did when translated 400+ years ago. it's one of my 2 faves. it just isn't the only word of God since it (the originals) was written centuries before english was even a language. you must be quite thin skinned since the comment was not written to you
All doctrinal error is ultimately irrational. But I observe that a lot of people who truly love the Lord, and a not insignificant number of clearly intelligent people, hold some variety of KJV-Onlyism. I decided a long time ago that complaining about how foolish they all are wouldn't help me win them. And I remember holding the view myself.
@@markwardonwords OK. I will just mention that in the early eighties, I was all for the new translations. I had grown up with the KJV. I was truly excited for the NKJV. It was advertised as merely updating the thee's and thou's along with shalt. It got rid of the eth at the end of so many words. These were the only changes said to be in the NKJV..I even bought one for my father to read. Then as I began reading through these updated versions, I started noticing contradictions, changes of meaning and problems with doctrine in them. At that time I knew nothing about the majority text, the critical text or the TR. It was what the new translations said that turned me away from them. Preachers I admired had been using new translations. I noticed their doctrine getting further and further away from sound doctrine. I have one friend who did walk away from God, because as he was studying for the ministry, he was looking at all the translations saying so many different things, he no longer knew what to believe. You mentioned a small sampling is not enough to show a true problem, so I will ask you, How wrong does something need to be before it is considered wrong? How pregnant does a woman need to be to be considered pregnant? How many sins does someone need to commit before needing a savior?
You are “Uber-eloquent” in all your videos and you go out of your way to “speak the truth in love” and with respect for the other brothers in Christ. Thank you for your insight as well as your example!
Thank you for your kind words! KJV-Onlyists did me some real and lasting good in high school. I can never forget that.
I've been basically binge watching your channel for about a week now.
Excellent work, points, and attitude towards a tough subject. Not only am I trying to learn as much about the defense of non-kjv translations, but I'm also trying to pick up on your kind approach and confidence to not be pulled into needless arguments.
God bless
Many thanks for this kind and thoughtful comment. Pray for me!
Some 55 years years ago, I attempted to read the Bible in the KJV. It was like reading a foreign language I didn’t understand. After giving up and setting it, and religion aside for quite a while, I tried again, with the NKJV. What a difference for me. I got it! Were it not for the NKJV, I might not be a Bible believing, saved child of God today. And now I can, for the most part understand the KJV when I pick it up, or listen to someone preach from it. I also own and read from the NASB, ESV, CSB, and occasionally the NET, NIV, and NLT. I’m not a Bible scholar, but I do not find anything in the NKJV so theologically wrong that it makes me want to discard it in favor of any of the others- including the KJV. Wouldn’t be where I am in my faith without the NKJV. What could possibly be wrong with that?
An eloquent and important testimony.
Your total and utter ignorance and utter contempt for the Pure and Preserved word of Almighty God. That's what's wrong with you.
In 1997 the King James Bible ( along with the 23 most popular modern heresies they call bibles ) were subjected to the Flesch - Kincaid grade level indicator process. The KJV came out on top in every category being graded for a 9 year old in Western education systems. If you can't understand the Pure and Preserved word of Almighty God you are lost. The Holy Ghost isn't guiding you into all truth. satan has led you to his lies, corruption and omissions in the vatican approved modern heretic books. Do your research and find out the source of the evil modern ' translations '.
FYI, there are over 60,000 words less in the niv than the AV ( KJV ). Ever wondered why ?
There are numerous alterations and omissions in the nkjv.
Get Gail Riplingers ' New Age Bible Versions '.
@@colvinator1611 Not a charitable Christian are you? You need to go back to reading your KJV bible and see what it says in 2 Timothy 2:24 & 25; Phil 2:1-4; Eph 4:1-6 for example. God bless.
@@steveellis7174 Truth tends to hurt those who reject it.
@colvinator1611 meaning?
I grew up in a KJV-mostly church from the 70's-1990. Memorized hundreds of verses in the King James. Eventually got gripped by English that I finally understood well (1984 NIV and original, not-yet gender politically-correct NCV).
It's my strong belief that people argue for the KJV not mostly based on sound reasoning, but because of an acquired taste for the sound and style of it. Like music genre preference, or the way people sit in the exact same pew/row/section of church each Sunday. The ritual and the known-ness conveys a sense of psychological comfort.
I love NCV!
That may be some people's reasoning, but there are certainly many people who prefer the KJV for scholarly reasons. I used to read the NIV, then moved to the NASB, and finally made the jump to the KJV, and it wasn't just because I liked the language.
Capitalising Deity is a plus as is the many textual footnotes
The footnotes in the NKJV have enabled me to come to the realization that the modern manuscript's are better than the TR
Really? Footnotes about the Critical Text made me glad I didn't waste money on anything based on it.
@timmyholland8510 The KJV 1611 also had text-critical footnotes.
Do not trust footnotes!
@@normmcinnis4102 Only fools despise wisdom and instruction. The footnotes in the NKJV are eye opening for those who have a teachable spirit.
@@normanrausch1223 or they lead astray
The Southern 2nd person pronoun "y'all" would fix the "you" problem. I think the NET uses "you all" with footnotes.
Right!
Do you reccomend the two Word Study Bibles you are holding up at the end of the video? Are they both helpful to have, or is one enough? (i.e. are they repetitive?).
I haven't read many of the words studies. I can't give a definitive opinion. I generally shy away from encouraging people who haven't studied Hebrew and Greek to use those languages. =| But I don't discourage them from study; I encourage them either to watch Aleph with Beth or Alpha with Angela-or to study language, or both! I think a deep dive into language and hermeneutics is more likely to be helpful to most believers than the kind of diving word study Bibles will do for you. Does that make sense?
@@markwardonwords Somewhat.
Whew... finally made it through both parts. I will echo my initial comment on the previous video that first and foremost I appreciate and greatly value the time, energy, and effort you put into your work. It is astonishing to even ponder the time you have spent on these two videos alone. I tip my metaphorical hat to you.
I find myself understanding both sides of this whole debate. I surely can follow your argument and understand how you come to your conclusions on the NKJV (I do use it myself after all). I do not think your logic is at fault, nor do I think your intentions are anything but fair and good. And as I have repeatedly said, I totally agree with your stance on the issue surrounding dead words and false friends.
I do however understand the concerns of the KJVO camp. Regardless of their stated reasoning in any particular argument, I think the true source of the problem is the framing of the underlying question itself. The question to them isn’t “should we start using the NKJV as a replacement for the KJV?” The actual question is “are we willing to give up having our one source of God’s word and trust that modern translations will hold faithful over time?”
I don’t personally think pushback of the NKJV comes primarily from a fear of the small textual and translational differences between the KJV and NKJV, though some do make that their main issue, and that is always the path the intellectual argument ends up on. I think the underlying concern stems from the idea that once you untie the boat from its steady and unmoving mooring post, you leave your boat to the whims of the sea. In this case the sea being the unending flow of modern translations of the Bible.
You are correct that if a church moved from the KJV to the NKJV, it would likely see little change to its doctrine overnight. But to many that one simple decision means that boat begins its slow but unstoppable drift towards unknown waters. Maybe at first that drift is of little concern, and maybe you could make a valid argument that the drift is in the correct direction (better understanding of original underlying texts), but once the boat is untied from its unmoving rock, it is truly impossible to know what direction it will go given a long enough time frame.
Today it is too easy to find churches whose doctrine is simply… bad. That preach from the pulpit demonstrably false doctrine, openly advocating for things explicitly condemned by any simple reading of the Bible. It is also INSANELY worrying to witness in real time how much censorship and intentional moderation is being done to books to make them ‘socially acceptable.’ Books that aren’t even 50 years old are already being rewritten, having sections sanitized because they are just not up to the current social standards. This is tied to the fact that there is also a fair bit of open hostility to Christianity today.
So there is a fear. There is a REAL fear, a fear that is not foolish or without merit. That fear is, once you agree to let go of the KJV, have it to stop being the steady mooring post of your church, is there a new steady, unchanging mooring post in which the church can tie its boat to for the next 400+ years? If your answer to that question is, “We don’t have one single new version of the Bible that we will all rely on, but look how many new modern translations we have, we are actually spoiled by how many we have.” Then many KJVO will simply say “Sorry, I do not want any of the tea you are drinking. I will gladly take my difficult to read Bible that is not constantly up for debate and change over the 75 easy to understand Bibles that will be deemed outdated next year and be updated again and again by every new generation of seminary PhDs.” So they resist any change at all.
That is at least my personal take on this whole issue. Maybe I am alone, but I doubt it. Sorry for the long comment.
We don't agree 100%, but great comment.
The problem with this kind of fear is that it leads to churches not making necessary changes over time. At a certain point, "That's the way it's always been" just doesn't cut it as a reason. For one, that's not how it's always been, as a cursory glance at history will tell us. ("We can't use a guitar! We've always used a piano," says someone who isn't aware of the earlier controversy over introducing pianos into church services.)
For another, the goal should be to emulate the first century church, not the 19th century church (or even the 17th century church). And since we recognize that emulating the first century church *doesn't* mean that we kiss each other as a greeting and throw out the A/C units (in favor of gaudy hand fans, of course!), we should also recognize that things such as Bible translations should be modernized at some point, too.
@@MAMoreno But you know full well the issue is not language, it is change of meaning in the text.
@@casey1167 Frequently, it isn't a change of meaning in the text at all, but rather a misunderstanding of the KJV's intended meaning in the first place.
@@MAMoreno No..... I have spent years on Bible versions.... it is flat out changes for the sake of changes. Regardless if you believe the publisher are following the law for the derivative copyright or not, the changes in meaning are all over the place.
I appreciate your grace in refuting misleading charges against modern translations. These cases of insufficient sampling and those in "The King James Only Controversy" by James White are frustratingly specious, failing to see the forest for the trees. When the greater context (paragraph, book, author, whole Bible) is taken into consideration, these concerns melt away.
I agree that reading multiple translations is helpful, especially for the reader who is not skilled in the ancient languages. Sometimes reading a familiar passage worded differently than one is accustomed to can make one sit up and say, "Hey, is that what it means?" and encourage one to study it in greater detail.
✔ It's been some time since I put together this material, and I have not heard back from Albert Hembd or the Trinitarian Bible Society (though I have spoken to a few individual TBS folks and had at least one good conversation). I'm sad this division has occurred, and that it has not been fixed.
I use Nrsv in church, Niv at jail ministry, and Hcsb in zoom bible study with friends. That’s what everyone used when I joined those groups. The gospel is secure in these versions. I don’t understand the focus on this issue when the church at large has so much work to do.
I tend to agree.
I would abandon ship on the NRSV.
@@sorenpx lol ok.
@@sorenpx for which one exactly 😂
@@sethplace The HCSB is the best choice from your own list.
Isaiah 44:8 in the KJV has "God" twice in the verse yet its two different Hebrew words.
The NKJV and all new translations corrected this verse
.... "Is there a God besides Me?
Indeed there is no other ROCK;
I know not one.
Rock fits the context of the chapter and blessed my reading it during a bible study many years ago.
This verse in the NKJV was the first step I took towards leaving kjv onlyism.
The NKJV was feeding my soul and a simple verse used in ignorance by an elder made me start using the kjv . I was young and followed those I was under....I lost many years of understanding God's word fully . I'm not angry about that cause I learned from it all for the better.
I love the nkjv .
I was a new believer when someone on Facebook convinced me to throw it out my NIV and buy a KJV.
My cousin showed my errors of ways and I dropped KJV onlyism but would only really read translations with Elizabethan English like Tyndale New Testament, KJV and brenton Septuagint.
I now see that thees and thous are not essential and that there are faithful modern translations out there.
@Syriac Christianity It took me years to break free from the chains and trust other versions. ...Kjvonly really messed up my head, I ruined many good friendships pushing the lie.
Never again .
That is too bad, God bless you in Jesus messiah’s name and blood.
I found places in the video where the audio was really low and hard to hear even though I have my volume all the way up. Your passionate moments were good. But the quiet moments were quite quiet.
Sorry about that! An ongoing learning process!
The more they condemn… the more I am tempted to read between the covers… of these wonderful modern translations… :)
Wonderful modern translations ?? You mean the vile Christ insulting vatican approved heresies spawned in the philosophical swamp of Alexandria ??
Consisting of 44 manuscripts which include the fake Siniaticus ( so called Aleph ) and the vaticanus ( codex B ) which rejects the first 9 chapters of Genesis and the complete book of Revelation and more. If you find modern ' bibles ' wonderful you are lost and are a Christ insulter.
You're not on your own though. Looking at these comments it's obvious the word of Almighty God is held in utter contempt.
Almighty God says He has preserved His pure word and it is
the King James Bible in English.
You need to get saved along with the rest of the modern 'bible' brigade. Revelation 22 : 18-19, Deuteronomy 4 : 2, Jeremiah 26 : 2-6, Psalm 12 : 6-7 et al ( KJV ).
First, great videos on this topic, as well as your others! Second, I find your argument against the use of capitalization fairly weak. I find translations that do not capitalize require the reader to ‘guess’, since most are not either scholars or have a commentary handy. Ideally, I believe in capitalizing pronouns relating to the Persons of the Godhead and a footnote when possibly not.
You make a good case. I think that burden should be on the reader, and that carrying that burden will help readers. But as I hope I show in this video, I'm not dogmatic here. I don't think the NKJV translators were morally wrong. I'm actually glad to have a major translation or two that uses conventions like this. Also consider this video: ua-cam.com/video/vJQ-_rr-UK4/v-deo.html
I find it to be an interesting coincidence that a greater number of manuscripts is seen as resulting in a greater confidence of the contents of the autographs, and utilizing multiple translations can give the reader a greater confidence of correct understanding.
Just out of curiosity, did you read Mr. Hamd's list and silently think _"Here are a few he _*_MISSED_*_ that would have made his point even more strongly"?_
Honestly, no. But that’s a great question!
Too many preachers cling to the KJV because they have made *PET DOCTRINES* out of its wording that simply has different meaning today. I come from a long tradition of attending churches that practice *expository preaching.* But I’ve heard too many sermons on TV and radio where a preacher preaches a sermon on a *SINGLE VERSE,* often from the KJV. Translate it correctly, and their pet doctrine evaporates!
Got an example?
Hi, how are you doing?
Normally I'm in the SDA channels trying to get through to them. 🙏
I'll give you one.
The Adventist cult use-
Galatians 2:16 KJVS
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
- to say the Old Covenant is still binding.
It doesn't doesn't hold true in NKJV -
Galatians 2:16 NKJV
knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
Get with me sometime.
I just found your channel and your very fluid in your summation. 🕊️
PS, They don't consider the Decalogue as part of the Law, but as eternal rules that are as everlasting as God.
✌️
@@RandomTChance And, of course, they prefer the Exodus 20 accounting of the _Ten Commandments_ to the somewhat expanded one in Deuteronomy 5: where verse 15 explains:
_”Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the Lord your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. _*_Therefore_*_ the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.”_
So, instead of the _”Memorial of creation”_ the SDAs claim it to be, it seems to be rather a _”memorial of the exodus”!_
@@ChaplainDaveSparks
Yes, among their many misunderstandings and intentional errors.
Happy Easter my friend.
Oh... I really like the capitalization of pronouns of deity. Do you explain your view on this anywhere? I'd be interested to hear why you think it has outlived its usefulness? Or confuses more readers than it helps? Also why it was ill conceived?
ua-cam.com/video/vJQ-_rr-UK4/v-deo.html
Idolators cling very strongly to what they worship and sometimes don't grasp that they have put something up on a pedestal. Considering all the sects over the past 400 years whose Bible was the King James should be reason enough to have alternate translations if for no other reason than to bring clarity to Scripture used to support doctrinal differences. I look on KJOnly as a modern version of the Pharisees. Keep educating the body of Christ with your honest and humble elucidations .
Pray for me!
@@markwardonwords Gladly
Good job! Personally, I would use at least *FOUR* translations for in-depth *STUDY:* KJV, NKJV, NIV, and NASB. For reading, I prefer the NIV for its readability. I did sort of like (past tense) the NLT until I came to a few passages where I detected a _slanted paraphrase,_ even though it's titled as a _"Translation"._ Then there's the *Amplified Bible,* provided you have time to read twice the number of words, then taking time to try to decide for yourself which of the various shades of meaning for a particular word to accept.
I like to make a positive comment. I've been with you since you first started doing your videos. I enjoy them and learn much from them. You are a true Wordsmith. I keep learning so much from you. I'm so grateful.
During the time of confusion about the King James translation and other translations of the Bible, I found you and a few others. But you have been the most helpful. I would like to suggest that perhaps one of the reasons that the new King James did not use a minimum approach or a minimalist approach to translating the Bible from the King James Version. It could be the copyright laws. In order for Thomas Nelson to copyright their translation, they called the new King James. They needed to have sufficient changes made to validate a copyright. I believe if they had used a minimalist approach, they would not have qualified for a copyright of the new King James translation. Now, of course, this is just a guess on my part. I was at the counter when the new King James first came out, and I was given the opportunity to sell this new translation of the Bible. I was working at a time for the international Bible society, which will be the sponsors with the NIV. But that didn't stop me from also promoting the new King James translation of the Bible. Because I found the new King James translation to be very helpful to those who insisted on using only the King James translation and not wanting NIV.
Thank you for your kind words!
King James Words You Don't Know You Don't Know Lexham Press 2023. Looking forward to it, brother! Thanks for serving the church this way.
Maybe 2024 now! Sigh!
The problem with many KJVO people is that any change is wrong to them.
Case in point; many KJVO say to look up hard words in Webster's 1828 dictionary. But ask them about reading Webster's 1833 Common Version and its 🤯.
Personally, I love both the KJV & NKJV. It's like #1a & #1b
Yes, this is a genuine inconsistency, I find.
@@markwardonwords Well, I am all for updates to archaic words, so not sure I would fall into this camp. Also use of the Webster's is not discouraged by anyone I know. But I find it very inconsistent for proponents of modern versions to point out "errors" of archaic words or phrases that "cause error" when there is no similar rigger done on changes in modern versions which impact meaning.
At some point maybe publishing the FormVA for the ESV2016, NLT2015 and CSB2020 would be good for transparency.
Mark love you brother.
Many thanks!
The volume seems really low.
An enemy hath done this!
Oh, nope. It was me. Made a mistake! I've gotten better at audio after getting a nice donation of sound equipment from a viewer!
Usually when I talk to people and they promote King James only I ask them to show me in the Bible where it says we are to put our faith and trust in one translation and why that translation should be the King James that usually ends the conversation pretty quickly
You have not spoken to very man KJVO people evidently. Or at least you have not actually got to a point of gaining an understanding as to the major issue KJVO people have with the varying modern translations which as a mater of law do not agree with each other.
@Casey P I always ask chapter and verse, they can't answer that one
@@casey1167 Different *in expression* not in meaning
Copyright ONLY protects expressions of ideas, not ideas themselves.
@@casey1167 there is nothing wrong with being King James only however if you are teaching others to be King James only you are teaching opinion and not something that is taught in the Bible and I could go as far as to say you are adding your own Doctrine to the Bible which goes against revelation 22:18-19
@@maxxiong You should really read the law.....
Looking forward to your new book coming out this year! Will be buying copies for sure.
My only question is what "bible" will Mark use? Last time it was the NASB1995 in "Bibliology For Beginners : What Does the Bible Say about the Bible?"
I used that Bible because I was asked to by the pastor who was putting together the series. I actually agree that using tons of different translations for no apparent reason is off-putting. Rick Warren did this in A Purpose-Driven Life, as I recall.
But, Tiny Bibles, that book is probably going to be a 2024 release now. =(
@@markwardonwords I think any inference that Rick Warren or Andy Stanley.... okay, not the time or place to discuss that. ;)
Frankly, I have sat through may sermons where multiple versions, plus the Greek and Hebrew, were used, and I zoned out.
I will respect if a person uses the NASB1995 or NKJV because they believe either of them to be the best, even if I disagree. But using multiple is running foul of 2 Peter 1:20 pretty fast.
@@casey1167 I don't think that's what that passage is saying, brother. I do not regard your application of that passage as valid.
@@markwardonwords Well, great example of version shopping to match my sermon, NASB2020: "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture becomes a matter of someone’s own interpretation"
Now I now this disagrees with the ESV and CSB, but since I want it to say "becomes a matter" (present tense) I will go with the NASB2020.
But I do think the KJV is correct as it is reflective of Gen 40:8.
I hope you are not saying my beloved NASB2020 is wrong... ;)
KJV only people reject everything. People reject the NKJV because it's too TR for critical text readers(1) and most KJV readers because they don't understand their KJV
Excellent! Thank you, Mark, once again. As I'm sure I've mentioned far too many times now, the copious footnotes is one of my favourite features of the NKJV 🙂
Excellent!
The Berean Standard Bible is a CT edition that has the same kind of textual variant footnotes that avoid opinions ("best", "most reliable", etc.). It also has a draft of a Majority Text version online.
Good video. I recently found your channel trying to figure out what a KJVO friend was on about. I appreciate the information you give out. FWIW I don't think reading the quotes of your doctrinal opponents with a mocking voice helps your case brother. Just an observation. Your information speaks for itself. No need to do all that.
He might just be trying to do a different voice from his own voice in order to show that he's quoting somebody. It might not be intended to be mocking.
No, actually, I think you're right, Jim. I think I usually avoid this but let my disdain slip through. My error.
@@curtthegamer934 you have not been listening for very long....
@@markwardonwords Frankly Mark, you do it a lot. I realize there are a lot of people in my camp that are not exactly gracious in their comments, but you do hold yourself out as the expert and teacher in the matter.
The KJVO camp is a bit more broad than people realize. You have the re-inspirationist on one side, and the "grew up with and prefer" on the other side. Than you have people like me who are pretty well studied and see the changes made to modern versions a perversion caused by the Derivative Copyright Law requirements. The same would be true with tradition Hebrew Text and TR people, there is a wide range of arguments in that area also. To lump all KJVO as "Ruckmanites" is a winning argument for a portion of the KJVO, but really does not impact the core.
Protestant beliefs are typically or traditionally sourced from the KJV in centuries past. The new translations can cause all sorts of questions. Trying to explain KJV theology in modern translations results in time wasted explaining the new vocabulary of the new translations.
Also, under no circumstances did Jesus change the dietary rules of the Jews. He would have been stoned for even suggesting pork was food, yet translators do all they can to find excuses to let Christians eat bacon. Jesus died to free us from sin, not for pork eating.
Changing the vocabulary can cause all sorts of problems trying to understand Revelation, Daniel, and Ezekiel and other prophesy passages.
Lastly, the Bible is still very popular, and every publisher wants their own copy to make a profit. Profits don't bode well for Bible integrity.
I am not against new translations. I read them. I have a very nice NASB1995. I just find the kjv more convenient.
Spot-on, brother. Thank you.
Very welcome!
The British usage edition of the NKJV does not use capitalisation for reference to the Divine which is a strength. It also uses the 1982 text.
Oh
I think we can all agree that old is best and we shouldn't just follow the majority of more recent versions...
Old isn't necessarily best; nor is new necessarily best.
Modern translations use “older” or earlier manuscripts, so that is a contradiction
@Syriac Christianity A manuscript can be earlier and yet be corrupt if it was poorly copied.
@@sorenpx Well said.
sorenpx
Translators can use church fathers to gauge whether certain verses belong there or not and verses such as 1 John 5:7 have nothing to back it up.
My husband and we're wondering if the NLT Bible is safe to read. We were told that it wasn't, and that we needed to read the NKJV. We are very confused and have no help at all in what we should do. We are having a hard time understanding the NKJV. Could you please help us. Love your videos. God Bless you and your family.
Go for it! It's good to know that the NLT is a bit more interpretive than the NKJV; the latter is more literal. But I'd encourage you to try the NLT, for sure. The Filament editions look nice.
If you're cautious about the NLT, you might consider trying something like the CSB first. The NLT sounds more like natural English and less like a translation, but in doing so, it has to make hard interpretive decisions in places where scholars disagree, which might explain why someone told you that it was untrustworthy.
Thanks Mark for your help. To tell you the truth it was our church that told us that the NLT was not good and that we had to watch the wording. I'm very confused I have only been a new believer for a couple of years and when someone in the church says that well it sure sends you on a confused whirlwind. God Bless you.
@@heavenbound563 Their motivation is good. Believe the best about their intentions, I urge you! And try the CSB as my friend M.A. said. That won’t trip their alarm bells.
Dear sister.The not is a truly great translation. I have found the nlt to be more accurate than nkj in several places (example Rom 11:13)..the apostle Paul is the apostle to the gentiles, not an apostle so enjoy and trust the nlt. You wont regret it.Toni's husband
Hey Mark, in the Greek, and inthe Hebrew here you go.....
“And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”
King James Version (KJV)
The Greek--that is, the Greek that has actually been copied down in the manuscript tradition, not the Greek that Erasmus translated from Latin to complete his edition of Revelation because the commentary he was using as a source for the text was missing the final pages--does not say "book of life" in Revelation 22.19. It says "tree of life." In Greek, that's ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς. See the World English Bible and the Majority Standard Bible, both of which follow the Byzantine Majority Text instead of the 16th century Vulgate-infused texts of Erasmus, Estienne, and Beza. Or just look at the footnote in the NKJV.
From which book? The New Testament hadn’t been compiled during the time that that verse was written down.
Remember that the first Christians only had the complete OT, with some letters and a plethora of different writings, with most being rejected as the NT was formed.
I like the new king James version, I believe it corrects a lot of the mistakes in the king James version. I usually have on my phone the Young’s literal translation and anything I need to write in the margin that I believe would help I put in there because they’re more accurate on present tense passages
Mistakes you say tommyboy in the King James Bible?
So you know better than 54 born again multi lingual ( All Greek / Hebrew generational ) academics who spent 7 years meticulously perfecting the Receied text and Masoretic Hebrew O/T into English ?
You prefer the nkjv who's old testament was ' translated ' for Hitler ( Biblia Hebraica [ Stuttgarten 1937 ] ) by Jew hating nazi party members ? ( The Kittel's [ father and son] check the forword in your evil book. The liars who publish it don't tell you the truth about their ' translators' ) ?
You need to get saved tommyboy, you're in a desperate place denouncing the truth of Almighty God. Proverbs 13 : 13 ( KJV )
A solution for the problem of second-person pronouns is to use "you" alone only when it's singular and variations such as "you all", "all of you" (e.g. LSB), and "you brothers" when it's plural.
There are actually a number of solutions that modern translations come up with.
The area where I lived until about 2 years ago, has a strong Pacific island language influence. It's common to hear you for singular, and yous (use?) for the dual and plural forms.
are you aware that in Michael Hollner's book the King James Only Debate.... he names you as a "False Friend.".. in his introduction ......in your regards to your quoting of 2 Timothy 2:14 and 2 Timothy 2:16 .. but your disregard for 2 Timothy 2:15.. that is "wedged
.. in the middle of those 2 verses... in order to get you point across...?..
Perhaps to KJ Bible believers the "thee's & Ye's" have meaning.
When Jesus said to Nicodemus
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. John.3.7 KJV
Jesus meant thee to the singular man, Nicodemus, to whom Jesus was speaking, but Jesus meant the whole Jewish nation when He used the plural "Ye."
Therefore it was a prophetic statement concerning the future when all Israel will be saved.
Maybe just another Wardism?
I actually know the answer to your supposition. The thee's and ye's do NOT have meaning for most KJV-Onlyists. Their pastors, at least, did poorly when tested. Check out kjbstudyproject.com.
@@markwardonwords can't tell from your answer for sure, but it seems you probably knew the value of the "thee's & Ye's." Rather than teach the value of the pronouns you propose getting rid of them?
Once I was in the Doctor's office who gave me a long explanation of my problem. I asked for the explanation in plain English. Perhaps I should have also insisted all the medical journals should have been re-written?
I still feel our differences are that you feel the KJV is/was a great translation for it's time, but now it needs an upgrade, whereas I feel the KJV is exactly worded as God wanted for the English speaking world.
There is indeed a definite wording for a medical journal to make a definite point.
I really think it would be beneficial to your position in our eternal future if you would concentrate your efforts of read-ability to the works of Shakespeare.
PS: did that KJV website delve into the doctrines found in the KJV concerning our salvation today?
For some strange reason I doubt it did.
There is one thing you have said to which I strongly agree,,,,,we need better teachers!
@@olegig5166 I'll give you the last word, friend. I still hope to get to your Hebrews question. Bizzy bizzy!
@@markwardonwords the only last words I might have is that from years and years of visiting with various folks through this medium, everyone has their own "ism's." One of mine is the only real judge of what is truly the word of God is the combined thoughts of each and every member of the Body of Christ.
Certainly we should measure each "ism" against scripture, but that's the rub, maintaining the scriptures just to have something with which to measure.
@@markwardonwords just another thought......Dan 7:10 indicates only 1% of all folks ever born will be eternally with the Lord, we simply must stick together and not let the 99% influence us with the ways of the world.
As you said translation and interpretation they go side by side especially in a huge work such as the bible. I do agree that the NKJV editors/translators should've had updated only the archaic words in the KJV while keeping everything else as it was, with no footnotes comparing the underlying text with the critical text. However, I have on question and I don't know if you would ever answer it, TR or the mss on which TR is based have been passed down by the church so basically we know that the people who passed it down to us believed in Jesus Christ, the trinity, and all the doctrines that we believe them today. so we know the source of the TR. What makes you to trust the alexandrian text on which the CT is based when you do not know the source of that text especially the text was originated in a geographic area where the heresies were circulating? isn't it that the CT is not but merely a work of academia?
BTW, English is my third language. I love the TR and trust it more than the CT however I'm not a native English and I find KJV to be very difficult to ready for me therefore I try to read in the NKJV or the ESV.
It's not that simple. Arius had been educated in Antioch. Several of the people at the Nicene Council who agreed with Arius (or at least partially agreed) were from Antioch. Meanwhile, some of his greatest opponents, such as Alexander and Athanasius, were key religious figures in Alexandria. So the Arian heresy is associated with both locations that appear in the "two streams" discussion, not just Alexandria.
Thanks Mark as always for the video.
I see in all your videos your charitable approach to dealing with differences among Bible translations. Your general response in most cases is that there are various legitimate textual or translation choices in a given passage. Hembd doesn't seem to share this approach, as he rejects differences from the KJV. I've thought about why some people are satisfied by your approach while some others go along with Hembd's view.
Your approach of explaining the various legitimate textual and translation choices helps to dispel the false allegation that modern translators are under some nefarious conspiracy to intentionally corrupt the text. Your approach is effective to that end. Not to be critical of your approach (I'm only hoping to "add to" your point rather than criticizing it), but I don't think your approach by itself can resolve the issue of why people stay or go toward KJV-Onlyism. I think the problem has to do with the rhetoric and doctrine of Bible preservation as articulated and understood in Evangelical circles.
If we accept the premise that there is no absolutely correct textual reading or translation of a word, then we are faced with two outcomes: 1. KJV Onlyists are wrong on the facts but their rhetoric regarding Bible preservation is consistent. 2. Non-Onlyists are correct on the facts but their rhetoric regarding Bible preservation is not consistent.
Scholars have always known about variant readings and translations even during the Reformation (e.g. the KJV's "Translators to the Readers"), but these differences did not seem to take up a large part of the laity's consciousness as they do now. The doctrines of Sola Scriptura took off during the Reformation, and in modern times the Fundamentalist movement and Evangelical calls for Bible inerrancy have cemented the rhetoric among the Evangelical laity that we do in fact have a perfect and inerrant Bible. Churches' Statements of Belief often qualify this notion by referring to the original autographs, but we still colloquially refer to having "the inerrant word of God with us".
Inerrant means inerrant. 100%. No error. The Evangelical world is still using the same rhetoric of a "every jot and tittle" view of scripture preservation that has been upheld since the Reformation and Fundamentalism. But the difference now is that these differences in jots and tittles (not counting the mere synonyms) are more accessible to the laity. A single congregation can have multiple Bible translations present, so the laity is exposed to the differences (sometimes involving an entire large chunk of text, such as the Ending of Mark).
So the laity is dealing with a disorienting experience that could result in several outcomes. One outcome is for people to be persuaded by the consistent rhetoric of KJV-Onlyism and therefore go with them. Another outcome is for people to accept the premise that there is no absolutely correct textual reading or translation of a word and continue to live under the cognitive dissonance of continuing to hear the same rhetoric (shared by both KJV-Onlyists and Evangelicals) that we do indeed have "the inerrant word of God with us" but not seeing that demonstrated by the prima facie evidence. There is a third way, which is to qualify what it means to have the "inerrant word of God with us" in a more academic way (as you do). But my point is that we are dealing with the laity for the most part. And when Evangelical pastors tell their congregation that "We have the inerrant word of God with us" when they don't actually believe it in the absolute way as understood by the laity (there is no "meeting of the minds"), this breeds confusion and openings for inerrancy extremism on one end and inerrancy denialism on the other.
Biblical Evangelicals are good at formulating and articulating internal doctrines of the Bible. But when it comes to meta-doctrines such as canonicity and inerrancy, we are failing many within the laity by presenting shallow catch-phrase theology. Biblical Evangelicals decry those careless preachers who peddle shallow unqualified absolutist misconstrueable phrases like "God will prosper you", but we might be doing the same by carelessly putting out shallow unqualified absolutist misconstrueable statements about inerrancy. We give them baby theology, and when they grow up and learn possible alternatives (KJV-Onlyism or inerrancy denialism), they go their way based on their predispositions and experiences.
I'm with you. Well put, as always.
I don't mean at all to dismiss your comment by replying only briefly, but I think I just want to express simple, straightforward agreement-and then explain what comforts me in this situation. It's that God is the one who made it like this; as I often say, he's the one who gave us this situation. He's the one who gave us language with its minor ambiguities and with the impossibility of absolutely perfect translation. He's the one who gave us textual variants. So if there is cognitive dissonance to be had, he gave it to us. And I trust him!
So, please explain your statement: "modern translators are under some nefarious conspiracy to intentionally corrupt the text" with the application FormVA used by Bible publisher stating their version is different enough from all other extant versions not to run afoul of their copyright and also make enough changes related to "new authorship" to obtain a derivative copyright of their own.
@@markwardonwords "So if there is cognitive dissonance to be had, he gave it to us. And I trust him!" -- Well, not exactly. You are telling the Church to trust the translation decisions they make which go against all extant translation decision based on (to a large extent) faith in the scholarship of the translators. When these scholars disagree, in the four major versions copyrighted in the last 20 years (ESV2016, CSB2020, LSB2021, NASB2020), we are to chalk this up to complexity which appears to be growing exponentially in every new version or revision of existing version.
@@casey1167 Have you used many commentaries based on a single book of the Bible? It's not uncommon for the commentator to provide their own translation of the text rather than using an existing version (unless the publisher/editor demands they do so). And they never have much trouble producing a translation that sparks no issues with copyright law. They can hit that minimum requirement without even trying.
Why? Because you don't have to give a scholar a "new authorship" mandate in order to get that scholar to come up with a text that's sufficiently different from the sort of text that gets produced by a committee. Every committee translation is a compromise. The KJV is naturally safer than Tyndale's version, for instance. In fact, the greatest single-translator idiosyncrasies of Tyndale's New Testament had already been ironed out long before the 50 or so scholars of 1611 got to it.
@@MAMoreno you have me at somewhat of a disadvantage because I have never really used a commentary produced in the last 100 years.
I would agree the KJV is naturally safer than the Tyndale's version. I really doubt the translators of the KJV found any issues to resolve, all the issues were well known and already in discussion.
One of the things that must be taken in mind is that you have to deal not just with Greek and Hebrew but English as well.
You also have to deal with not violating the copyright of other modern versions of the Bible while at the same time make enough changes to be able to apply for the copyright yourself.
@@casey1167 the KJV is copyrighted too
@@CCiPencil No, the KJV is not copyrighted too. The comparison to the Crown Copyright is not even an apples and oranges comparison.
Modern bible versions have a copyright under the following using FormVA:
17 U.S.C. 103: "The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material."
@@casey1167 would that be because it’s copyrighted under the English crown? And it’s been out for so long that it doesn’t qualify for copyrighting in US? I’m not very familiar with copyright law nuances, asking for clarification. Thanks for the response
@@CCiPencil You are asking a question that is not a short answer...
The KJV is the Authorized Version, and is still has the Crown Copyright in the UK. Permission to print must be sought in the UK to print, but the USA did not honor the Crown Copyright after the revolution so it is free to print in the USA without authorization although some publisher still get permission. The grounds for the Crown Copyright are not the same as the US Copyright.
In the USA after 1947 all "bibles" are under the 17 U.S.C. 103 Copyright Law (as I quoted before) which dictates they must be be distinguished enough from all other pre-existing or extant versions of the "bible" to be considered a new work of authorship. Per legal zoom:
"However, there have been numerous court cases interpreting the law, which complicate things and render this definition incomplete. There must be major or substantial new material for a work to be considered copyrightable as a derivative work. The new material must be sufficiently original and creative to be copyrightable by itself."
So, any "bible" post 1947 must:
1. Not violating someone else copyright
2. Meet the requirements for a derivative copyright.
So, if a "bible" has a US Copyright they are saying they followed the law under 17 U.S.C 103, and they are not violating another "bible" version's Copyright protection. On FormVA (the Copyright application) the publisher states this.
Thus, what you see when comparing modern "bible" version against each other (not even against the KJV) is every single chapter will have multiple verses where the meaning of the verse is different (showing new authorship) and the wording will always be different in other verses even if the meaning has not changed in order not to violate another's copyright.
The rebuttal to this is "Godly Scholars" made the decision for changes, but this simply does not hold up when the changes to every book of the Bible just happen to meet the requirements under US Copyright Law.
People need to read God's word in the language they use on a daily basis. I heard the KJV growing up because that's what people used. I remember in the early 80s my mother bought a NKJV Bible with a pink leather cover. All of her friends loved it and they went out and bought their own copy. I'm not going to bash others, but this KJV-only thing seems a little culty to me.
Well, here are the options, believe the KJV is the correct translation of the correct manuscripts or believe what the modern "bibles" teach which is no "bible" is correct in its entirety. Therefor you must look to an "expert" to really know what the Word of God is. Either way you are in the same position.
Is the KJV correct in its entirety? Can you see, Casey, how many of your comments assume textual absolutism?
@@markwardonwords "holding to one form of the Scriptural text as their only and final authority. This could be a Greek/Hebrew text, a manuscript, or a version." -- okay, wanted to make sure I was using your definition.
So, yes that would be a fair label to assign to me related to the Greek/Hebrew textual choices made by the KJB translators. As with any belief, reason will take you so far and then there is a faith based portion to get you to 100%. I find the TR/Masoretic textual absolutism of the KJB to contain a much smaller "faith" portion than what would be required to have in a Critical Text belief system. The theological problems with the Critical Text belief far outweigh problems of belief in correct majority text selections made by the KJB guys.
"textual absolutism" with the KJB would not be an accurate assignment though. To have that belief would be double inspiration. I am sure there are some short sections of the Bible Webster could have done better than the KJB translators, or to that matter the MEV2014 and the NKJV1984. (but has a whole the MEV and NKJV are not acceptable.)
From an objective standpoint how is your belief system in the Critical Text (both OT and NT) different than my belief in the TR/Masoretic text? We both believe that men (Christian and non-Christian) made choices on what should be included. The only difference is I have a static text where you can not know were your text will be in the coming years. There are books an all the decisions the KJB translators made related to text, you simply can't know all the decisions on text made by all the modern versions. You cannot make a statement if they are correct or not without stating others are incorrect.
I can promote the KJB with all the hair involved, but you are stuck promoting the NLT with no knowledge of what changes Dr. Nijay Gupta will be making to the next revision.
So, partly guilty as charged.
“And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”
King James Version (KJV)
My friend, the New King James Version and the Modern English Version both use the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts as the King James. And they translate those texts into fully intelligible contemporary English, which means they meet the principle of 1 Corinthians 14, edification requires intelligibility. I recommend the NKJV and MEV to you.
@@markwardonwords So, what do we do when the MEV does not agree with the KJV? For example: 1 Corinthians 1:18?
In your article: "When 2 Bible Translations Disagree, Which One Is Right?" you state: "... considered viable options by highly trained people, all of whom-readers should presume-had good reasons for what they did."
Why?
How is a translator different than a pastor??? Should I just take Andy Stanley's theology ??
@@casey1167 Naturally, I can't tell you to trust any human completely. What I can tell you is that God is the one who gave you this situation, the one in which you have to trust fallen, finite humans to translate God's word for you. You're going to have to trust *someone.* And if you do trust the KJV translators, trust their judgment when they said in their preface that "They that are wise had rather have their judgements at liberty in differences of readings than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other" (and I believe they meant both translation options and text-critical variants). And, in general, I say trust the major evangelical institutions that gave us the major evangelical English Bibles. Pastors are not trained to the level that Doug Moo is; and their work is not vetted by a team of equally trained people. What they produce is not inspired, not perfect. But it's the best humans can do at this time.
@@markwardonwords If you were making an argument for the NKJV or the NASB1977 I would agree with your statements though disagree with the KJB being the correct Bible.
Your evaluation based on individuals is problematic, whether be Moo, Waite, Metzger or Ruckman. I spent 5 years at Liberty because I thought Jerry Falwell was great, but I did not see him lacking human traits. Translation and Theology are to be judged on their own merits.
The issue you have (as you note in “When 2 Bible Translations Disagree, Which One Is Right?") is we are not dealing with small changes. As reflected in the Notes to the 1611 the variations are not significant. We also have the benefit of cumulative knowledge, just as the KJB translators looked to prior translations both in English and foreign languages.
Your argument of superior scholarship simply is not reflected. If your understanding of translation increases your variation in translation is going to decrease in a linear fashion. The exact opposite is happening.
Regardless of your opinion of the Copyright Law, a version cannot violate another publisher’s copyright. Thus, if you have a perfect translation it legally cannot be replicated. That is not my opinion, that is the law, is reflected in all modern versions, and you have clearly shown that in your aboved mentioned article.
You simply cannot get around the fact all modern bible publisher have filed a FormVA.
@@casey1167 Casey at the bat struck out. The fact is that all KJV translators had to follow the King of England, and even give in to some of his preferences, rather than stick to their manuscript and English principles 100%
Having read Art Farstead’s (sp?) The head of the NKJV project in his own words was to do a translation of the same manuscripts of the KJV in the tradition of the KJV, no where do I remember him saying anything about updating the English it was a new translation
I've got the book on my desk right now! It's been a while since I read it. I need to go back through it. I can't speak with certainty right now as to the question you raise.
@@markwardonwords not really a question but a statement
I guess we won’t be seeing an NKJV Westminster reference Bible anytime soon - really tragic.
ya, what is more tragic is they are currently not available....
I found it interesting that the British usage text of the NKJV (formerly called the Revised Authorised Version) removed the reverential caps when it was introduced from the States. (This is a correction to my hasty comment in the Live chat.)
Interesting! I did not know this.
The whole capitalization of pronouns for Deity and spirit in English translation frustrates me for the reasons you mentioned.
Right on!
The NKJV remove the Name of God " LORD in Hebrew it means YAHWEH in the old testament 6000 times .Wake church. The Name of the Holy Spirit, the Comforter removed.
The translators of the NKJV did not believe in the TR. For a TR person, I’m not going to read a translation that claimed to use it if the translators themselves didn’t believe in the TR. The MEV is a much better translation for a TR person who wants the KJV in todays English.
The translators of the KJV did not believe the TR was completely accurate either. This is clear if you read the preface. Also, there are some textual critical marginal notes in the KJV (not as many as other translations have, but it shows that they did not believe the translation or the text it was translated from was perfect).
@@curtthegamer934 The KJV translators had access to the critical text and rejected it. The critical text is only based upon 5% of existing manuscripts. The TR is much more reliable containing 95% of existing manuscripts. I’m for Christians being able to understand the Bible but if you don’t know Greek or Hebrew, the KJV is the most accurate translation we have available in English. While the KJV might have a couple of problems with archaic words, it isn’t as difficult to understand as others seem. Their are some tough readings with genealogies and the beginning of 1 Chronicles but the New Testament is very easy to read in the KJV.
You say the KJV is the most accurate. What about the book of Revelation? It’s clear they didn’t have an actual manuscript to work with at least with last bit of it. Is it the most accurate? Sure if you know and understand English from 500 years ago, I don’t. For me, it’s far less accurate than the English I know and the older manuscripts we have, especially with regard to the book of revelation. KJV still the greatest work of English ever but not the greatest Bible for me to know God.
@@CCiPencil I should have said from the beginning that I am not KJV Only. I am TR Only. I am a huge fan of the MEV. It succeeded in making the KJV easier to understand. The only verse that KJV Onlyists go after the MEV is 1 Corinthians 1:18 because it says “being saved” instead of “are saved.” But both say the same thing if you look into the Greek. Those that teach you can lose your your salvation ignore the plain verses from the gospel of John saying everlasting/eternal life. The MEV despite being from a charismatic publisher doesn’t have an charismatic leanings.
@@michaeltravers3095 I honestly haven’t looked at the MEV. I’ll check it out. Thank you for your response.
Question about the TR approach? I’m honestly just trying to learn. Been a Christian for less than 2 years. Is it because it’s based on the Byzantine manuscripts? Could be wrong about that. I’ve heard they are generally better, that could be because Islam destroyed so many others, not sure. Thoughts?
It was a good defense of the NKJV. Though I think it's fine, as a translation. Sometimes I wonder if the Title was a little ambitious. As it seems more after the tradition of KJV, than merely revision. But, it's close, so it's not a major problem.
Could be. I don't think they anticipated how much energy would be expended in trying to undermine their work.
I would like for KJV onlyists to explain the following discrepancy in the KJV text. KJV 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads “ Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord.” I know that there are some really bad eight year olds, but I don’t think that there are any that you would truly describe as evil. 2 Kings KJV 24:8-9 reads “Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem. And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, according to all that his father had done.” To its credit, the NKJV in its footnote on 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads “Heb. mss., LXX, Syr. eighteen and 2 Kin. 24:8”
CT Bibles use the LXX in 2 Chronicles 36:9 stating that Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king, and note in footnotes that the Masoretic text states that Jehoiachin was eight years old.
To get a sense of how this discrepancy was interpreted at the time, see this marginal note from the Geneva Bible:
*That is, he began his reign at eight years old, and reigned ten years when his father was alive, and after his father’s death, which was the eighteenth year of his age, he reigned alone three months and ten days.*
While the NKJV (cf. NRSV, LSB) sticks with "eight," the MEV goes for "eighteen" (in agreement with most other 21st century translations).
@@MAMoreno I've heard that explanation before, but I find it unlikely because it seems that the passage that said he was eight when he began to reign would have continued with "and he reigned ten years." The fact that it still continues with "and he reigned three months" is very suspect.
@@curtthegamer934 I find it an unlikely explanation, but it does inform us why the KJV translators might have left this discrepancy in the text.
i think there are less kjv only people than one imagines. most people have no problem with reading both versions. most people like the nkjv. the bigger issue is textual base. why did the alexandrian texts not get copied in any meaningful numbers? why were they sidelined? why were they not widespread? i have not yet heard a convincing reply to these questions. kjvonlyists frustrate me-i think the best thing to do is nothing. the nkjv will become more accepted in time just as the kjv itself and subsequent updates were.... i would get rid of the translation notes though.
Have you read books from the mainstream? Like Dirk Jongkind? www.amazon.com/dp/1433564092?tag=3755-20
We need the Texas Standard Version. That way, y’all will know when the second person pronoun is singular or plural.
Right!
In "WHICH TEXTUS RECEPTUS? A CRITIQUE OF CONFESSIONAL BIBLIOLOGY" by Mark Ward you make the argument very clearly there really is no difference in the deficiency of Bibliology between KJVO and TR-Only (and can be inferred to Majority Text) proponents.
How would I be incorrect to find your promotion of non-KJV Bible based on the TR or Majority text to be disingenuous?
A fair question. I believe I've been consistent and open, not disingenuous. TR-Onlyism, empirically, nearly everywhere I look, is KJV-Onylism. But logically, it need not be. That's all I'm saying. I would be genuinely, truly happy for all of mainstream KJV-Onlyism to switch to the NKJV or MEV. Yes, I'd love for them to come all the way to my position, or at least give me liberty to have mine without condemning me; but I absolutely believe they have Christian liberty to use a TR-based Bible.
@@markwardonwords I understand your statement... But... you state "KJV-onlyism is not a Christian liberty issue,..." If a person is TR than by default they will be KJV if it can be shown to them the KJV is the best translation of the TR, which I feel is the case especially when it come to the Masoretic Text in the OT. (The MEV from my review has changes in meaning in the OT, and I am but a lay person.)
Your purpose, or calling is to help people move from a Bible version you feel is "...makes void the Word of God by human tradition..." than the logical results of you mission would be to move people towards the Best Translation possible which you do not believe is TR based, thus you would not suggest trading one inferior translation for another inferior translation. So, I am confused.
I would never condemn a person for using a Modern Bible version, but I do know their Bible does conflict with mine in multiple places in every chapter of the Bible. And by calling people such as myself "extremist" who "make void the Word of God" sort of condemning me??? ;)
And KJVO goes well beyond a "correct translation of the correct manuscripts" which you do not touch on but is a very real issue.
@@casey1167 I believe that mandated, exclusive use of the KJV is wrong. Dividing the church over the doctrines of KJV-Onlyism, doctrines the Bible does not teach, is wrong. I condemn those things. Are you guilty of those things? And do you believe that the KJV itself is inspired and perfect? That is what I call extremism.
@@markwardonwords I go to four services a week between Seattle Baptist and Open Door Baptist. Except for Sunday Morning on average we are reading between twenty to forty-five verses of which a few will be congregational reading from our personal Bibles, or someone will read from their Bible. It's not a mandate you have to show up with a KJV, and some don't but they wind up grabbing the pew Bible so they can follow.
And what is the Doctrines of KJV-Onlyism? you would have to agree it is not just the KJV. And that really is the issue in most Churches today.
And perfect and inspired... come on Mark, I have been commenting enough that you know I agree that would be heresy. And I don't know anyone who believes that. But I would never leave the KJV based on the offerings today.
Whether you believe as I do change are made for Copyright purposes, or I guess your belief of complete coincidences in Godly Scholarship result is the absolute identical results through out every chapter of the bibles, no modern Bible can agree in meaning with the KJV. (really, I have less faith in the KJV than you do in the Copyright Law not being followed)
KJV is Correct translation of correct manuscripts, and I understand issue with 1John5:7&8, Rev16:5, etc.
But one thing you promote which has caused a lot of people to become more KJVO is the idea all modern versions are equal. I know from experience, fighting the NASB1977 was hard, but once I was told the NASB1977, NASB1995 and NLT1996 were all equally correct I had no choice but to go KJV.
You have to know the next revisions of the NIV & NLT at least are going to be bad, will you at that point warn against them?
@@markwardonwords And Mark, Denomination (SBC, Methodist, etc.) and Churches are fracturing right now across the country and world (German Bishops) related to Female Pastors and welcoming and affirming of LGBTQ+. You might not like the KJV, but in the big picture a group of Christian that believe the KJV is the correct translation of the correct manuscripts regardless of archaic words and "false friends" is the absolute tiniest problem the Church faces today.
And let's be honest, a conservative Church in general is a KJV Church, or a Church that was KJV in the last generation.
Great job Smitty.
Is there not a modern Bible based on the same texts (use the TBS Greek edition and the Christian Corrected Hebrew) as the KJV and purposely makes the same translation choices and interpretations? We have so many translations surely there is one? I feel if the NKJV had actually did this we wouldn't be where we are because It just looks dishonest to say you are just revising the old language and then you make different interpretive choices even if they are fair. The people who hold to the KJV don't want new interpretations they want the same ones that were made in ~1611 (or that Tyndale made in 80% of the cases) and that the whole English speaking church used for hundreds of years. Everyone I know would rather try to muddle through the old English to try to find that meaning, than read modern English with a different message. They don't trust the modern Bibles *because* they are making different choices, fair though they be. The Orthodox would also agree with this point, the traditional Christian readings need to stay. See the first edition of the RSV in Isaiah 7:14, that ruined many peoples trust and the NKJV did something like that to many peoples eyes in the TR/KJV world.
I, too, wish the NKJV translators had done what you describe. But the rub comes in your phrase, "fair though they be." Why should the NKJV translators have stuck with all the minute choices made by the KJV translators? The answer can only be pragmatic, not principled. It can only be, "Make the same choices as the KJV translators because they're already accepted and trusted by lots of people." It can't be, "Make the same choices as the KJV translators, because they were all correct."
I'm not so sure the NKJV would have been accepted by the current KJV-Only crowd, even if it had made all the same choices as the KJV. They would have found places where it appeared to them that the NKJV made a different choice (because they didn't understand what was going on), and they would have felt totally free to reject the entire thing based on one alleged mistake. I think Matthew 7:13-14 provides a good example. (Do I discuss that passage in this video?) English has changed in such a way that it's a little difficult to stick with the KJV translators' choices. They had two words for "narrow" ("narrow" and "strait") and we don't really.
@@markwardonwords I disagree it can't be on the principle of honesty. That is what they said they were going to do, and to many people it looks like they broke that promise.
As far as if they were correct or not you said yourself the KJV translators weren't wrong they just made different decisions, so it is more like a confession of faith. "We believe in this interpretation." The same as a creed or other confession of faith.
I'm sure if you were to hold to the Westminster confession of faith and at some point it needs to be updated and rather than keep the Calvinistic language that it was intended to have, the updaters took the chance to make it Arminian you would reject it even if the choices they made were reasonable because the point of a confession/creed is that it doesn't change meaning over time.
When you have "No creed but the Bible" the translation interpretation choices matter more to you. KJVOists believe the KJV made 100% correct choices the same way a Presbyterian believes the Westminster 100% accurately reflects the Bible's teachings. Is that wrong? Wouldn't that make all creeds wrong?
The problem is that since they feel like they have been lied too, they would rather hold to something they struggle to understand than risk someone trying to trick them into a different "confession of faith" For instance, Imagine I updated the language of your church's confession of faith to allow infant baptism and then told you it was more accurate or changed a Presbyterians confession by "updating" baptism to the English word immersed. That would be more "accurate" and understandable but it would fundamentally alter the confession, unmooring it from it's history and make me seem dishonest in the process.
"Young woman" is a fair translation in Isaiah 7:14 but as a Christian I would reject it even through I acknowledge it is a "fair" choice from a Jewish perspective because it contradicts my faith in the new testament. "Fair" just isn't good enough.
I hope this made some sense as it is late and I'm tired. I hope you have a Merry Christmas!
@@markwardonwords When you get a chance I would like your thoughts on what I replied/commented. It is something I have ran into talking to the pastors and parishioners in my area.
@@DrGero15 That really does make excellent sense. Very insightful, especially this: "When you have ‘No creed but the Bible’ the translation interpretation choices matter more to you. KJVOists believe the KJV made 100% correct choices the same way a Presbyterian believes the Westminster 100% accurately reflects the Bible's teachings."
Do you feel confident in saying that the NKJV represented itself originally as a mere English update? I'm not denying this, but I wasn't paying attention to Bible ads when I was 2. ;)
@@markwardonwords I am 110% confident saying it since they said in the "Statement of Purpose" informational brochure published in 1979 that the goals for the Bible were the following:
"1. To preserve the original intended purity of the King James Version in its communication of God's word to man.
2. To clarify the King James Version by the use of current words, grammar, and sentence structure so that the New Kings James would speak to the individual reader in the twentieth century in as clear, simple, and accurate a manner as the original translators of the King James Version in 1611 endeavored to speak to their readers.
3. To neither add to, take away from, nor alter the communication that was the intent of the King James translators but to transfer the Elizabethan word forms into twentieth-century English."
"This edition shall not add to, nor take from, nor alter the communication that was the intent of the original translators of the King James Version. (…) This edition shall not corrupt nor diminish the original translation … so that a reader of this edition may follow without confusion a reading of the original edition from the pulpit." New King James Statement of Purpose, 1979. It also identifies the NKJV as "this edition of the King James Version."
In his book, The New King James Version: in the Great Tradition, the Executive Editor of the NKJV, Arthur Farstad said on the guidelines for the translators:
"The purpose of this project is to produce an updated English version that follows the sentence structure of the 1611 Authorized Version as closely as possible. (…) The intention is not to take from or alter the basic communication of the 1611 edition but to transfer the Elizabethan word forms into twentieth-century English."
The New King James Version: in the Great Tradition, 1993
They still say basically the same thing today, From the Tomas Nelson page on the NKJV: "The NKJV Bible preserves the authority and accuracy, as well as the rhythm and beauty, of the original King James Version while making it understandable to current readers. The result is a Bible translation, *scrupulously faithful to the original* , yet truly *updated* to enhance its clarity and readability." And they still call it the "5th Revision of the King James Bible"
If you read what they said they were doing and compare it to what they did end up doing, they lied. That was a terrible blow and the root of the problem you are dealing with now. If they had done what they said they were going to, I think at least 85% of those who are now KJVO would be happily using the NKJV. There probably wouldn't be a KJVO Wikipedia page and ploughboys everywhere would be better off.
I am deeply sympathetic to your cause and I don't know if you recognize me but I have commented on a lot of your videos and we have had exchanges of comments and have changed my stance somewhat due to your work on the Bible Study Research Project you recently did. (along with my own observations of pastors butchering the text due to, what I hope is, ignorance)
Where can I see the list of the 15 or so places where the differences in singular vs plural pronouns are meaningful?
I do not currently have access to that list. That was hearsay, I acknowledge (and I tried to present it as such).
Interesting, thanks
You bet!
the condescending attitude of many KJVO does not lower any barriers
Let's see.
Copyright law dictates all new modern bible versions:
1. Must not violated the copyright of another bible.
2. Must show new authorship.
3. Thus over time translations must become poor or in error.
4. Modern bible readers never know if the change in their bible was made for scholarship, or for copyright purposes.
Ya, my KJB is superior to what ever you are using. Condescending? Yep.
@@casey1167 let's see, the KJV is copyrighted in UK. nor did i say i don't use KJV, i use it frequently, sometimes every day. many words in KJV no longer mean what they did when translated 400+ years ago. it's one of my 2 faves. it just isn't the only word of God since it (the originals) was written centuries before english was even a language. you must be quite thin skinned since the comment was not written to you
For the algorithm
Regarding your phone survey, I sent you a message in your contact form on your website, hoping to be of some help.
Got it! Replied.
King James onlyism is ridiculous!
All doctrinal error is ultimately irrational. But I observe that a lot of people who truly love the Lord, and a not insignificant number of clearly intelligent people, hold some variety of KJV-Onlyism. I decided a long time ago that complaining about how foolish they all are wouldn't help me win them. And I remember holding the view myself.
THE HOLY SPIRIT INCORRECTLY CALLED "IT" IN ROMANS 8:26 IN KJV
@@elijahbaxter7163 😳🙀
Iam an living bible onlyest. Lol
To answer the question in the title of the video, Yes, rejecting the NKJV is reasonable,
Please interact with the arguments made in the video.
@@markwardonwords OK. I will just mention that in the early eighties, I was all for the new translations. I had grown up with the KJV. I was truly excited for the NKJV. It was advertised as merely updating the thee's and thou's along with shalt. It got rid of the eth at the end of so many words. These were the only changes said to be in the NKJV..I even bought one for my father to read. Then as I began reading through these updated versions, I started noticing contradictions, changes of meaning and problems with doctrine in them. At that time I knew nothing about the majority text, the critical text or the TR. It was what the new translations said that turned me away from them. Preachers I admired had been using new translations. I noticed their doctrine getting further and further away from sound doctrine. I have one friend who did walk away from God, because as he was studying for the ministry, he was looking at all the translations saying so many different things, he no longer knew what to believe.
You mentioned a small sampling is not enough to show a true problem, so I will ask you, How wrong does something need to be before it is considered wrong? How pregnant does a woman need to be to be considered pregnant? How many sins does someone need to commit before needing a savior?
all nkjv junk