In their day, they rejected the Codex Vaticanus as a viable source of ancient Scripture. Only in the mid-1800s, Westcott and Hort began their crusade against the KJV with their adaptation of the Greek New Testament, published in 1881, over 260 years AFTER the publishing of the KJV. Your answer is moot. They could never have known the multitude of translations we have today.
The translators stated that their goal was to create “one principal good one” the goal of the Bible itself was to unify English bible translations into one authoritative one.
@@abc123fhdiCorrect. But the King James Bible wasn’t “updated”, it was corrected from 1611 - 1769 because the printers made mistakes, not the translators.
Ecclesiastes 8:4 “Where the *word of a king* is, there is *power:* and who may say unto him, What doest thou?” This verse is one of those definitive verses on the Authorized Version (with Ps 12:6-7; Ps 138:2) If you want a Bible with *”power”* , then you need one translated under *”a king”* Better yet; get one translated under a king with a Jewish name (James - Jacob in Hebrew). And if all that is not enough, you will want to get a Bible connected with absolute time (Greenwich England), absolute measurement (British Thermal Unit), and absolute location (latitude and longitude) The NIV, RSV, NASV, NKJV, etc don’t even qualify . So naturally they all change the verse so you will not connect it with your King James Bible.
When the King James Bible was being done, the world was very different! The British Isles were governed by a King and human government was far more personal and their world views were quite different! We do not live in that same world/life paradigm anymore. The translators knew that God is. They knew that God is a personal God. They knew that there’s a heaven, hell, Satan who hates God, and that human beings are sinners who need to make peace with God and live in peace with fellow human beings. By the time that the last and seventh stage of church history arrives, the church time period called Laodicea, the emotional and spiritual landscape had changed. The British isles were no longer under the jurisdiction of a God fearing King but by a Parliament of new generations of men and women who had very different world views! 19th century rationalism frowned upon the notion of a heaven and hell, a personal God and Satan who still seeks to lure as many souls to hell as he possibly can. The approach to ecclesiastical issues are no longer a personal issue but much more an academic and intellectual goal. To the translators of the King James Bible, the search for truth and a real personal relationship with God and the spiritual health of the people were of highest priority! To the translators of the scriptures from the days of Wescott & Hort to the present, the stakes are not so personal. They are academic and intellectual. The need to make true peace with God, and to live righteously with your fellow human being so that the spiritual health of the people are strong, are no longer of highest priority. The approach to truth is academic and intellectual, not spiritual and personal towards the Lord Jesus Christ! That’s the difference between the church time period of Philadelphia and the church time period of Laodicea! We are indifferent about the spiritual issues important to God! The church of Laodicea doesn’t hate (cold) the Holy Bible but it also is not in love (hot) for the Bible as during the time period of King James I! The present church age of Laodicea is indifferent (lukewarm) towards the Bible and spiritual issues. We are all living in this last and seventh stage of church history! From a materialistic standpoint, we are the luckiest generations of Christians! We enjoy the highest standards of living. Our quality of life is higher than King James I had! We have cars and refrigerators and ovens and stoves and stores to shop and medical advances that King James I could not even imagine! Yet, as Revelation 3 warns us, from a spiritual standpoint, we are miserable and poor and blind and naked! That’s why I know that the King James Holy Bible is far better than any translation done during the church time period of Laodicea! I’m guessing that the church time period of Philadelphia began around the time of Martin Luther’s stand against the Papacy, the Reformation, to the death of a Queen who was born again and knew that her country was blessed because of the strong Christian faith of the majority of her peoples! Queen Victoria died in 1901! The pure Cambridge edition of the King James Holy Bible came out around 1900! If my opinion is accurate, what a fitting tribute to the end of the Church time period of Philadelphia! This is my personal opinion: instead of subscribing to a more modern version of the Bible, I think a far better idea is to use a Holy Bible that teaches you all the places where the words in the King James Holy Bible has changed slightly in meaning! There’s two that I recommend right now: “The Defined King James Bible” and the “Sword King James Version Bible”! The later is still in print and you can easily purchase them at your local Bible store or online at the “KJV Store” or “Christian Book Distributors” or EBay or Amazon. Sadly I think the Defined King James Bible is currently not in publication.
Thanks for the shout out Tim! I love the TR tradition and there's a lot of rich history in the received text, but I think by insisting on the TR as a perfect text, we run into a number of issues.
@Dwayne Green what are those issues? God said that he will preserve his words, where are day? It is the TR?, or the CT?, or the MT? It must be one of them.
@Thomas Glass the TR is an artificial text, so are the MT and the CT, they dont exist in the manuscripts but are the product of comparigin multiple manuscripts together following certain ideological methods of prioritizing variances
@@thomasglass9491 it must be! After all, God is as small as us, and does everything exactly as we think it should be! How could his word be preserved in more than one place??? You're all going to hell because your Bible says "whoever" instead of "whosoever."
Classic works need new translations not only because of language change but scholarship and a better understanding of the original work can lead to new insights that can only be brought out in a new translation. We all benefit because we appreciate more of what we read. Nothing can ever be unchanged because human life itself is change.
As always, you have presented a very balanced view of the issue regarding the criticism of the LSB. I would add that another reason I like the LSB is its translation philosophy of having a translation that makes the reader accommodate to the language of Scripture instead of accommodating the language of Scripture to the reader. It does thereby make the reader do more research that way. However, the rewards are well worth it effort. For example, whenever the OT Hebrew speaks about people making a covenant, it expresses it as "cutting" a covenant. By translating it as cutting a covenant, the reader is reminded of the serious nature of a covenant with God--because it takes us back to Genesis 15, where Abram walks among animals that have been cut into 2 parts, conveying the idea that may that happen to the party who breaks that covenant. Thus, the idea of cutting a covenant reminds us of how serious it is to enter into the covenant with God.
Thank you for acknowledging “his team” since JM rarely does. I like JM but his faculty deserves better. Also, some words in the KJV actually cannot be looked up in current dictionaries because those words simply no longer exist as English words.
Very well spoken. I used to be a KJV onlyist until I study myself and my eyes were open. Now KJV onlyist drive me insane. They don’t seem to understand that the KJV was an update itself. I like the KJV don’t get me wrong. I like it’s history and it’s style but why should we have to only read language that is no longer in use today?
We still use English today? If you mean the complexity of the words, just keep in mind it’s still third grade English and mostly single syllable words Instead of thinking how the words of God can better serve you and your education level, rather think which translation is the actual words of God instead of a man made translation not inspired by the Holy Ghost And if you wonder why we read a book from a king then go ahead and read Ecclesiastes 8:4 (KJV) which was completely slaughtered in the LSB , I wonder why :-)
I remember as a young Christian, I was a KJVist. I scoffed at people who said there were versions that were easier to understand, because I was proud of my ability to read what they struggled with. Then I grew up. I still read the KJV sometimes, and most of the verses I like to recall come off my tongue in KJV.
The KJV is still great to read, but I agree. When I just want to "read" the Bible I'll use KJV because it's so familiar to me, like a very old friend. But to study (something I've just really begun) a modern reading is so much better!
@@jamesgossweiler1349 I do have a copy of CSB also, as well as NIV. Easy to read and understand. I've not used the CSB that much yet. It is ironic how much it resembles NASB & NIV, combined. If you do a side by side comparison, it's uncanny.
The Byzantine scrolls are younger than the Alexandrian scrolls and its within those scrolls where many of the "removed" texts are missing. Erasmus bungled his TR. The Volgate is slightly dubious. That's what I go by .
Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: Rev 22:19 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. Legacy = An example of legacy is family property that has been handed down for generations. This bible is NOT a legacy, A new bible cannot be a legacy. Standard = The KJV is the standard, by which others are compared. Including MacArthur's "bible"
God has plans for every translation and translators who seek to honor Him through their efforts. We have been so blessed to have many if not hundreds of translations out there in English and not just English but most of every spoken language has as well. We are truly blessed. Western Civilization has seen God's word spread like wild fire and that's a good thing.. I am praying that God will continue to bless us with His words.
I highly respect your knowledge on different translations. Thank you for these videos that break it down to someone like me that will never go into the deep study that you have done.
Yes, MacArthur would promote his own Bible. And, say it's the best translation? I've heard very good reviews on his study bibles though. Having purchased many different Bible translations this year. I have found that I prefer the NKJV over the KJV. And, the NKJV is a very good translation, IMO. There's something about the NKJV that draws me to it. Over the other modern translations. It's a 1982 release that has not been upgraded. It's difficult to abandon it.
@@duranbailiff5337 You can't go wrong with the NKJV. My friends mostly like the NIV, and one staying firm on the KJV. I have a NIV, but still prefer the NKJV. I'm glad you enjoy your MacArthur study Bible in NKJV..
The NKJV is my preferred translation and pretty much all I use. I lean more towards the TR than critical text, I’m more in the majority, over older group. However, reading the NKJV doesn’t mean you’re only getting the TR side of scripture, NKJV literally lets you know basically every place the other variants differ and what they say. So, essentially…. an NKJV bible is all you REALLY need. In my honest opinion, that’s just how I see it. But if you use the NKJV, it’s a translation that doesn’t hide anything from you, it’s open, honest and a truthful translation.
I grew up with the KJV and comprehend every word, but once I realized the NKJV existed, and saw how it flows better but remains essentially the same style and language, I have started reading it. I also like the Lexham English Bible because it's not afraid to use the Name of Yahweh, who COMMANDED us to use it and praise it among the nations. I have heard the LSB uses His Name too, so I'm looking forward to reading it. I also like the CSB and think it's best for sharing the Gospel with the average (non-theologian!) audience, especially in homeless and prison ministry. Digression: regarding KJV only, I remmember when I was ministering in prison once, and was using some translation that wasn't KJV. One prisoner was KJV only and started telling me how the translation I was using was satanic and he didn't believe it. One of his problems was that the footnotes were wrong. I told him so what, we weren't reading footnotes, and attempted to show him how similar the language, and identical the meaning, by reading John 3:16 in my Bible so he could compare with his KJV. I read "For God so loved..." and before I could get further he jumped up, clenched his fists, and said, "If you read one more word to me out of that f-ing book I'll f-ing kill you." THAT, is actually the default, baseline personality of KJVO people. Imagine thinking you're a good Christian with God's Own Perfect Word™ and you're threatening to murder people (while already in prison.) What a joke!
Fair video. KJV translators looked very hard at earlier English translations. I would not be totally surprised if Tyndale in this age would endorse the CSB or Berean bible.
Thank you for your opinion on all of this. One thing to note is that there have been over 400 changes made in the KJV, many of which occurred in the 1790s. I still love and read the KJV and consult from it when studying. My change to more modern versions came when I was preaching in a youth camp one year. I was in my late 20s and had been preaching for about 10 years. I preached Numbers 22 which mentioned Balaam’s donkey (for a lack of a better word). The kids kept snickering and laughing every time the passage was read. With that I vowed to find the best and most faithful modern translation and start studying and preaching from it. I’ve never looked back.
SS,......So, you vowed to find a modern translation to appease some ungodly kids? If you think that the entire church is not 100% apostate and is selling a totally false manmade christianity, then you are as blind, lost, and deceived as those you preach your false christianity to. John M is a wolf in sheep's clothing and has nothing to do with the God of the Bible. You understand this correct?
@@tonybasoni8443 Calling someone apostate because they use a different Bible translation is heresy. You should be ashamed of yourself. The kids laughed because "Balaam's ass" sounds ridiculous to modern readers because the language has changed. That is exactly the reason why no church in the English speaking world should ever use the KJV as a primary translation.
@@OrsvikEnnin ,......I did not call someone apostate, I called the entire church apostate and it is. And I never mentioned that it was because of their Bible translation. What in the world are you talking about? No church should use anything but the King James version. Again, the entire church is 100% apostate and has nothing whatsoever to do with the God, Jesus, or Christianity of the Bible. The church as led by 100% phonys like John M, sells a totally different christianity to that of the Bibles. You are all steeped in deception and an antichrist christianity. Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!
I remember going to the Museum of the Bible and there was a section on the Bible’s influence in popular music. The KJV is always quoted. It’s a good example of a translation with wit and style. I agree with Dan Wallace every Christian should own a copy of it.
Yes, brother Edwin, for literary and historical reasons, the KJ stands alone among English Bibles. But to keep promoting it as somehow more faithful to the "original" texts and to hold to its late Shakespearian English today is problematic, if not absurd. Yet, this controversy goes on and on and on, in an endless Calvinistic bit of belly gazing.
@@carlosreira413 😄 yes it is. As if 2000 years ago they all spoke elizabethan english. We live in very polarized times, there is no nuance anymore. Which is the best and most faithful bible translation? the one that speaks and connects the most with you. At least as far as the NLT. God is great in that he connects with his children in many ways not just one.
@@edwinalvarez1619 Amen, brother, we are so fortunate to have such free access to the Bible. This is unprecedented on planet Earth. Possibly our problem is no longer "a famine for hearing the word," but a lack of "doing the word." Still, of course, there are many places yet untouched by the Gospel. Blessings of revelation and joy to you and yours this Christmas season and into the new year!
Disagree, you know the old adage- if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. The Bible KJV doesn’t need to be re-written, it needs to be re-read. If it worked for the reformation it will work today.
Brother, you say it’s important to have a translation that people can understand today… Is this understanding your speaking of rooted in man’s wisdom, or understanding derived from the Spirit of God teaching you as it says in 1Cor 2:13. If it’s by the Spirit of God then why is it critical to have a translation that uses modern vernacular? Secondly (and I can make many points like this) what did God say is Col 2:18? The KJV reads very differently to all modern translations, they can’t both be right. One is correct and the other in error.
Yes, the KJV is in error. Hence the number of revisions it has received over the last 140 years, none of which make much use of "modern vernacular" (as opposed to translations outside of the Tyndale-KJV tradition, which gladly indulge in modern vernacular and thus feel outdated in a shorter time). It is still a lovely translation, but it's one with plenty of minor faults (none of which should be blamed for the greater faults found in KJV-Only churches). And no, the verses you referenced do not promise to give us a miraculous understanding of Jacobean English in 2021.
@@MAMoreno the verse 1cor2:13 tells us that we are to understand Gods word by comparing scripture with scripture, this is what Isa 28:10. This isn’t a miracle. There has been no substantive changes made the the KJV since 1711. And you want to tell me which translation has Col 2:18 correct and how you come to that conclusion?
@@ChathuraImbulagoda The KJV isn't what Paul meant by "spiritual things" in 1 Corinthians 2.13, which should be obvious since Paul was writing nearly 1600 years before the KJV was made. No Bible verse refers to the KJV in particular, so even if Paul meant that we are to understand one Bible verse by looking at another, he does not mean that we are to understand Jacobean English by comparing it to more Jacobean English. And "not" should not be in Colossians 2.18. It's an example of a place where the Western text agrees with the Alexandrian text instead of the Byzantine text, and the Western text is typically the one that adds things rather than subtracting them.
@@MAMoreno I didn’t say the Paul was referring to the KJV. I’m just saying that to understand scripture your meant to compare scripture with scripture, with modern translation which are always changing the connections you can make are being lost. And col2:18 is correct in the KJV which is why you don’t see angels in this dispensation. Btw can I ask what form of theology you hold to? I would guess that you: Don’t believe in multiple gospels, don’t believe on once saved always saved, and don’t believe in the pre tribulation all rapture. Would I be right?
@@ChathuraImbulagoda The idea of multiple gospels is a heresy (Galatians 1.6-9). The difference in the presentation of the gospel for different audiences (Galatians 2.7-8) is not the same thing as two different gospels. The phrase "once saved, always saved" is a rather unfortunate expression of the "preservation of the saints" doctrine held by Calvinists and some Arminians. The New Testament doesn't have much nice to say about apostates, but the OSAS expression suggests that apostasy is a-ok. And no, the idea of a pre-tribulation rapture is not present in the New Testament, and both Paul and John would be left scratching their heads if you tried to tell them that they said such a thing.
I used to laugh at KJV onlyists because on the face it seems ridiculous. However, in an attempt to disprove them, I sort of became convinced myself. I’m going to give just 3 main reasons why. 1st: the KJV was written at a time when the English language had reached its peak of beauty. It was written about 6 years before the death of William Shakespeare for example. So the language is absolutely majestic and rich which is why it survived the centuries even as “old English” faded from our daily lexicon. It is the most printed book of all time for a reason. 2nd- the KJV is truly the bedrock of western civilization. This is the book that forged the west. Think of the countless wars to advance Christianity in England. They fought for centuries to unite one England under one God. That spread throughout the western world, including the United States. So this language and message built the west. We ought to be careful to just walk away from it. 3rd - the newer translations are changing the scriptures based on new manuscript finds. I was all for this originally. However, it’s now been discovered that many of these are forgeries. All the Dead Sea scroll fragments for example in the museum in Washington DC have been found to be totally fake. So the idea of updating the Bible with new discoveries is not necessarily a good thing. And the manuscript tradition found in the KJV built and sustained our civilization for many centuries.
@@David-wq3dq no it’s not. NASB which was my favorite for a long time along with many others updated based on Dead Sea scrolls and other finds. There are over 2000 differences between KJV manuscript Vs majority translation texts and 6,500 differences from critical text. I’ve seen some as high as 8,000 differences. It’s not like it’s a difference of translating words it’s thousands of differences. That being said, I’m not KJVO but I do think it is a preferred text for the stated reasons.
@Orange Man Bad you claimed ALL the NEWER manuscripts have been proven forgeries, thats not true nor even remotely true, further the dead sea scrolls dont contain any of the new testament, but portions of the old testament
I am primarily a KJV guy and when I am just reading, I’m KJV ALL THE WAY.. When I am doing deep study, I have my KJV, a digital Oxford dictionary, The complete word study dictionary for Greek, an ESV, a NKJV & and formal equivalent version..my Beautiful Wife’s old NLT(Which I truly dislike), on my desk, reading the verses I’m studying in each translation to get a fuller understanding of the text. I have an LSB, read it and am not a huge fan (I believe it’s Jehovah not Yahweh), but think steadfast, 316 publishing makes a wonderful premium Bible and has my absolute favorite layout.. Single column, verse by verse, wide margin on 40gsm paper. For this reason, I may order a NASB95’ premium with that lay out, especially because it has kept most of the TR verses in the Bible, but has them in brackets. I will always be a KJV guy, but am definitely willing to read alternative translations. And although I originally was very critical of Mark Ward, his “False Friends” has made me aware of a few other words that I missed in my extensive study of scripture, ultimately proving to be a blessing to me. Great video Brother
Thanks for your insights. I have used KJV as primary for 40 years. I have not read legacy yet but look forward to checking it out. One of the main things I like about KJV is being able to use the Strongs Concordance with it to know the Hebrew and Greek words and definitions the words in the KJV were translated from to be sure what God is conveying to us in whatever passages or topics I am studying. When I share scripture from KJV with others I am able to easily change the thees and thous to our modern day usage.
I grew up with the KJV, and still use it every week. As far as English Bibles based on the TR, I prefer the KJV over the NKJV or the MEV. As for Bibles based on the Critical Text, I have and use many, but I think I prefer overall the NASB 77 more so than the NASB 95 or the ESV.
@Jerrod Wertman I suppose that I prefer the 77 over the 95 because It seems to be a more literal translation in my opinion. But I'm no scholar either. It still uses thou, thee, and thine when addressing Deity, so, it's similar to the KJV in that sense. Both the 77 and the 95 are good translations.
James, I saw your comment and just wanted to mention to you about the SKJV, the Simplified King James Version. It just came out from Barbour Publishing. Like you, I grew up on the KJV and like you prefer it more than the NKJV & MEV. My opinion on the this new version that is the SKJV is this: it is what the NKJV should have been. I bought one when it first came out a month or so ago and I definitely like it more than the NKJV. Blessings in Christ.
I'm a fan of the KJV and I use other translations to gain depth and help in understanding some of the tough verses I run into. I am not going to pound someone over their choice of translation, ever. Instead I celebrate the fact that they love The Lord and desire to know Him through the reading of His Word. I can already sense some troll who desires to challenge my comment and say "what about the Satanic Bible?". My reply? Please, get saved! :)
I would agree with you that the AV is historically one of the best Modern English translations, along with the (1599) Geneva Bible and the Tyndale Bible. The NKJV does a good job, I think, of updating the AV but is a bit more Latinate than it needs to be. I certainly value its footnotes on the Majority Text, which I favour. But I still think that the AV is a great translation, for teaching from, despite the 'false friends" that you refer quite rightly to. I would put the NASB at about no 3, after the AV and NKJV; but a lot of translations can give you slants of meaning that you might not get from just wielding one. I wonder if someone would care to update the AV ever so slightly, getting rid of the 'false friends" but keeping the second person singular? O, they have done so already: the Third Millenium Bible and the 21st Century Kings James Version. The difference between the two is that the former has the Apocrypha in it and keeps 'Ghost" for 'Holy Ghost" whereas the latter does not. How about a Majority Text slightly updated AV? That would be heaven - at least for me!
We can read the LSB for free on the website. I checked John 1 against my NKJV and it reads well. I'd get one out of curiosity to study and add to my library, since I love the KJV and NKJV. The lowest price hardcover is out of stock right now. Thanks Tim for this video.
Modern English translations of the Bible, including the New American Standard Bible (NASB), don't include verses that are sometimes considered missing" from the King James Versior KJV) because they were added to the Greek manuscripts used by the KJV long after the biblical writers wrote: • Matthew 17:21 • Matthew 18:11 • Matthew 23:14 • Mark 7:16 • Mark 9:44 and 9:46 • Mark 11:26 • Mark 15:28 • Luke 17:36 • John 5:3-4 • Acts 8:37 • Acts 15:34 • Acts 24:6-8 • Acts 28:29 • Romans 16:24 • 1 John 5:7-8
I appreciated this video. As a person whose favorite translation is 77 NASB, and is unfamiliar with the LSB, would I likely feel comfortable reading the LSB?
I compared NIV,NKJV,Living bible to KJV and I would tell you there is alot wrong with them they took out God,Jesus,repent,Lord,blood,hell,etc.or demotes God,Lord,Jesus for he,his,him,lower case son, Heb.4:8 and Acts 7:45 uses Joshua not Jesus.2Thes.3:5 patience of Christ not patient waiting for Christ (we are to be patient waiting for Christ,very missleading)most came from NKJV.look and see for your self God tells us tobe prudent and diserning.
I mentioned this on one of Mark's videos and I think it applies to this one as well. There are 7000 spoken and signed languages in the world. The bible is still being translated for 2000 of those and there's 1800 that haven't even been started to be translated. I believe there's at least 150 English translations in print when it comes to scripture. We should praise God we have at least one translation we can read as English speakers, let alone 150. If I'm incorrect about these numbers please feel free to correct me or it might even make an interesting video. Personally I use the ESV for study and enjoy the CSB for reading. And the KJV is excellent for quotes and public readings when researched out on its full meanings (false friends in mind). Thanks Tim for excellent points.
@@duranbailiff5337 I've been looking for a reason to buy a second bookcase. You've piqued my interest. I have multiple premium bibles but only in my favored translations. I guess the search begins ...
7000 languages but most of them are derivatives of each other. You can find regions on the earth where there are hundreds of dialects in that small region. However when it comes to the vast majority of the world, there are not nearly that many languages.
therueuhy,........The word of God has already gone to the entire world hundreds and hundreds of years ago. There is no need for any more translations. The whole idea of all these translations is all based on the 100% apostate churches 100% false, manmade freewill gospel.
Another great video which is very much appreciated.Like I said in my past comment on your channel I am a former KJV onlyist but after much thought I realized I'm allowing others to decide for me as far as reading modern translations.That the LSB is the best translation is John MacArthur opinion for obvious reasons.In many of his sermons in the Grace to You broadcast he uses the KJV then sometime in the 1980's I notice he switch to NASB 1977.Personally after watching many of your videos about translations the one you had on TR and so called Critical text and the number of English translations available I think I'll stick to the NKJV,NASB 1977,NASB 1995,NIV 1984,ESV,NLT and ERV that I have in my small library as a layman comparing what the different translation say.
Simply the Deceiver asked, "Hath God said?" I honestly don't know how anyone can believe that there is One True God, then go on and believe that that One True God did not keep His promise found in Psalms 12, verses 6 - 7, et. al. We're not trying to ''see what the writers were saying'', we're wanting the pure word of God. If it isn't the KJV, then where is it? "A Frisch Perspective" is not a follower of God, he trusts man more than God. So, when I read 1st Thes. 4:15 and see the word 'prevent', are you saying that I can't EVER come to the realization that it means what it means? Are you saying that someone who sits down to read the KJV, after asking the Comforter, the Holy Spirit to reveal to them what the word of God is saying, that they'll NEVER understand the word "prevent"? that's because you don't trust God and His promises. Also, are you saying that there is a modern translation that when every single person that reads it, that they will then understand perfectly the meaning of every word they read? That's utterly, and ungodly ridiculous.
Let's suppose you're right, and Psalm 12:6-7 is about God preserving the scriptures (it isn't, as is evident if you read the whole psalm rather than just cherry-picking those two verses, but let's suppose it is). Why is the KJV the way God preserved it? The Bible certainly doesn't tell you that. Why not, say Wycliffe or the Bishop's Bible? Or a more modern translation? How did God preserve his word before the 16th Century? Has he preserved it in any other language than English? Even if Psalm 12 means what you think it means, it says nothing about the KJV unless it says the same thing about every other translation.
@@danbrown586 ... it's not about me "being right", it's about God keeping his promise of preserving his pure word for ever. I know that he did because of the KJV! -//- Psalms 12 : 6 - 7 reads as follows..."The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." --//-- Those verses are not taken out of context because verse #7 follows immediately after verse #6, and the psalmist is comparing the words of the wicked (vain words; flattering words; proud words) with the pure words of Almighty God! -//- Additionally, the writer of Psalm 12, King David, had a godly influence on his son Solomon, who wrote Proverb 30! Proverb 30: 5 - 6 reads as follows : "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." -//- It's baffling that you say you believe in the One True, Almighty, All-Knowing, Omnipresent God, but you then scoff at the fact that He could possibly preserve His pure words for ever! -//- Psalms 138:2 reads : "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified THY WORD above all thy name." -//- And in Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32 God warns about the dangers of changing any of his pure words. The bible must be a precise document because Jesus is the Word made flesh. He is pure because he is God. Everything God does or says must be pure. He provided and preserved his Holy Scriptures for ever, and by his grace they're found only in one place, the KJV. -//- The Apostle Paul admonishes us four times, "Be of one mind"; "of one accord"; and Peter once says, "Be of one mind"! They wrote those passages under the inspiration of God, and they only make sense if there's only one bible! The incorruptible word of God (1 Peter 1:16-25; 2 Corinthians 2:17) -//- 2 Corinthians 2:17 “For we are not AS MANY, WHICH CORRUPT THE WORD OF God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.” -//- So in the end you either trust God and take him at his word, or you take your place on the opposite team, whose "head coach" is Satan.
I read kjv but im making my way through the niv right now. Next nkjv. Ive spot read some nkjv and im really leaning to that one. Only time will tell. I love Mark Ward and you too buddy. Thanks your Frisch perspective 😂
I personally think the ( Scriptures ) Bible is one of the best translations. An example would be the word (baptism). In all other translations it just says baptism. But what does the word mean in Greek? It means to immerse. So use that word immerse. Because if we just use the word baptism then people can still justify baptism by sprinkling or pouring water over people. But if you use immerse than you get the true interpretation of the word and there would be no arguments in the true practice of the word. Also the word (Law) in Greek. The word Law in Greek most of the time means Torah. So just using a generic word like law could mean different things. We have to ask our selves which law is the Bible talking about? If you use Torah or the other exact word for law then it helps to translate exactly what the Bible is trying to say. There would be less arguments about the true meanings and doctrines of the bible. I think by keeping these general English Bibles like in the kjv and others is just perpetuates the problem.
The modern Bible versions like the LSB say the opposite of the KJV in certain verses. For example, the KJV calls those who worshipped idols “superstitious,” whereas the LSB calls idol worshippers “religious.” “Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.” (Acts 17:22 KJV) “So Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects.” (Acts 17:22 LSB) The Zionist disciples of Satan were able to change their Bibles to make Israel a "spreading vine" in the NIV and even a "luxuriant vine" in the NASB, ESV, and the LSB in Hosea 10:1. God, however, states that "Israel is an empty vine" in his KJV Holy Bible at Hosea 10:1. “Israel is an empty vine, he bringeth forth fruit unto himself: according to the multitude of his fruit he hath increased the altars; according to the goodness of his land they have made goodly images.” (Hosea 10:1 KJV) “Israel is a luxuriant vine; He produces fruit for himself. The more abundant his fruit, The more altars he abounded; The better his land, The better he made the sacred pillars.” Hosea 10:1 LSB) So we know from that issue that the KJV is God’s word or the modern Bible versions are God’s word. They cannot say the opposite of one another and both be God’s word. This is a foundational issue. This is a major issue. There is no middle ground here. "Choose ye this day whom ye will serve." Joshua 24:15. Edward Hendrie Author of "HOAX of Biblical Proportions"
I think that is a reasonable position. The KJV is undeniably the most beautiful, most influential translation the English language has ever seen. It's one of the most important works of literature, period. And while it does still hold a place in today's world, I do think that other translations have eclipsed it in daily reading and devotion.
Exactly to your point re the KJV, Shakespeare as well is one of our most important works of literature, but can we honestly comprehend all that is being said without comparisons of some words then and now? Beauty and tradition have their honored place, but language is not static and the most important thing is that the reader or hearer understand the intended message. Nehemiah 8:8 - "They read from the book, from the law of God, translating to give the sense so that they understood the reading." That's the NASB and the KJV agrees: "So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense and caused them to understand the reading." Which says to me that the KJV only people do not have a leg to stand on according to the Word of God. Plus, is it possibly a very ethnocentric point of view, since the entire world is not English speaking, as you have pointed out? Would the KJV only people consider all non-English translations less than the KJV? And even if any or all of those were translated from the KJV directly, the translated language would still be somewhat different in effect because the translators have to find a way to convey the meaning to their contemporary audience rather than using archaic words and expressions. Plus, there is the potential of KJV only to be a divisive issue, and I have a strong suspicion I have encountered that personally. Believers need to stick together, especially in these times, and to let the issue of Bible translations get in the way is tragic.
@@kathleens.laroche754 The last time I had any sort of discussion with a KJV only person, it devolved into some weird tangent where they were saying that the KJV was divinely inspired because of the time in which it appeared. Shakespeare being the greatest exponent of English expression meant that it was the perfect time to bring out the perfect Bible translation, etc etc. As usual, it made no sense. I will say that I have had trouble finding my own personal favorite translation. I've mostly settled on the RSV.... Which is typical for me. Typical that I choose a translation that is largely out of print today, so I have to scour used book listings. But it's also useful to have many translations at hand. And it's fun to compare verses from the KJV to other translations as well. The latest example I can think of is Isaiah 14:29, where are the KJV says cockatrice. Every other translation I can find says a variation on a snake. Only the KJV says cockatrice. I actually had to look up what a cockatrice was, because I had never heard of it. And Wikipedia said that it was a uniquely Elizabethan English preoccupation. And it makes sense, the populace at the time would be familiar with it and be frightened of it. But it's another reason why KJV onlyism makes no sense. The KJV translators were engaging in a little bit of a flight of fancy talking about a dragon rooster which they would be familiar with. But everyone else in the world? Just say snake. Viper. Adder. 😂 Heck, even the douay rheims translation, which is contemporary to the KJV translates it as basilisk. Again, a snake. Only the KJV seems to be preoccupied with dragon roosters.
@caomham84 So the KJV was published, or maybe it is more accurate to say printed, in 1611. Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet was written in 1594 to 96. Shakespeare uses the word cockatrice in that play in Act 3, Scene 2, Lines 43-51. Definitely a word of its time and used among good company. I don't mean to be offensive in saying this, but perhaps part of the inspiration for the beauty of language in the KJV was William Shakespeare.
Thanks again Tim. You are correct the KJV is the most influential Bible ever. I am so thankful for the KJV bringing God's word to the common person. My favorite as a relatively new Bible reader is the NASB 1995. I'm eager to read the LSV. I own multiple translations, because it's always good to compare and get the truest meaning. Keep up the great work Tim. God bless and Merry Christmas.
@@mesisson Thanks Mark. I have tried a couple of versions because I feel it's important to compare versions with each other. But since I've only been reading the Bible for about 4 years I really have come to love and trust the NASB 95. I hope you and your family have a Merry Christmas brother.
The LSB has a footnote saying that the "eis" in Acts 2:38 can be translated as "because of." This is a Baptist translation with Baptist theology inserted.
Presbyterian theologian Robert Reymond interprets it that way in his A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. So that isnt a baptist translation, it's just another possible translation.
@David he is an outlier and it's not a legitimate translation since it completely changes the meaning of Peter's sermon and the entire doctrine of justification.
@Chemnitz Fan it would only be illegitimate if you determined what peters sermon meant independent of the word, and then determined because of contradicts the already sstablished meaning of the sermon, which it doesnt
@David So we are saved by being convicted of our sin and then repent and get baptized because our sins are already forgiven? Or do we repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins? You act like changing the word "for" to "because of" is just another way to look at it which doesn't effect the meaning. Except it does effect the meaning. In fact, it changes it radically.
Thank you, Tim. I grew up on the King James translation and value its place in biblical history. I must agree that KJV has word meanings "we don't know, what we don't know." I can understand John MacArthur's self-promotion, but I have yet to see a copy of it. I do have an e-Sword copy of the NASB 2020 and value work from the Lockman Foundation. In addition, I have utmost appreciation for the NASB 95. I'm interested in learning more about the Legacy Standard Bible.
My sister recently became a believer she is completely confused by the KJV. We gave her the NASB, she understands the text fine? I grew up with KJV and it's archaic style, I trust it but use the Amplified Bible for everyday use. Thank you for your unbiased view! Mike in the UK
The KJV is from the textus receptus just like the Luther Bible. That is very important! Secondly, it has no copyright. How can it be right for the Word of God to have a copyright? God Bless you all!
The only thing that can be copyrighted in a Bible ( KJV) is extra notes. The verses alone cannot be copyrighted. The verses alone in other Bibles can be copyrighted and that shows that they were put out for money.
I must be dumb because I just can't understand the LSB. Most of it. I've tried reading through some parts of scripture but way too often do I need to consult the NIV or even the NLT to understand it. But usually after consulting the NIV or the NLT on a specific verse or phrase or sentence, it makes perfect sense and I like the LSB. Heck, I was trying to read Job the other day in the NIV and couldn't do it. Of course I could read the words but I needed to consult the NLT time and time again to understand it. I gave up and just read it in the NLT. Am I dumb?
Some parts of the Bible are hard to understand. Job, for example, is largely poetry, so the language can be obscure, and the NLT tries to clarify it. Other parts of the Bible, such as one of the gospels, would probably be pretty understandable in any translation.
Modern versions of the Bible also have many archaic and hard to understand words as well. So to single out the older versions like the KJV for that is an overused hypocritical fallacious argument. Modern versions also use longer latinized three or more syllabled words further complicating their understanding. Whereas the KJV primarily uses less syllable words by comparison. I don't hear many people complaining about that fact though.
syllable length doesnt determine how readable something is,... can you really tell me that choler (2 syllables) is easier for a modern english speaker to understand than geneology (5 syllables)
LSB is the “Greatest English translation in this or any age.” The KJV is beautiful but it’s not the best, nor the most accurate. And now it’s out of date so much that most people have issues understanding what it’s actually saying.
If a man were merely just read the bible and not look into what is being said by way of commentary or a strongs (in case of the KJV) or reread and reread and look into cross references and search how a word in question is being used then any man can be lead astray in any translation he reads. It’s not just restricted to the KJV. Anything a man does in this life that is worth doing he must learn; actually learning what a word means if you aren’t sure about it’s meaning must be looked up and understood. Man has become so lazy all the work must be done for him. You seem to be repeating only what every is often said about the KJV . I have a few questions for you: Can you give an example of “most people” who have issues what the text is actually saying? Do you know most people who read the KJV? How do you know most people who read it have issues? Can the same “issues” be applied to others who read other translations? What makes a translation accurate and how do you know it to be truth?
@@jimmyray5524 There are actually lots of examples of confusing language in the KJV for the modern reader. When you cherry pick verses, you can demonstrate your point… sure. But specific words in the KJV have drastically changed. Philippians 3:20 in the KJV uses the word “conversation” for what is now more accurately to be understood as “citizenship.” This verse isn’t referring to a “conversation” as the modern reader would understand. Without context, something like this is misleading to the reader. We run into the same problem in Psalm 37:14 with the word “conversation.” Again in Ephesians 4:22. Be honest about it. I love the KJV but I also keep a dictionary nearby specifically for the terms which are no longer used in English. When you cherry pick, you can hide it, but reading through the KJV for normal people can lead to some confusion. There are tons of examples and they’re easy to find if you’re objective. A lot of KJV only folk are interpreting the doctrine of preservation in a very specific way. Can’t it be the case that God has preserved his word in the original languages to be translated in multiple ways to convey his message to the multitudes?
@@jasonbryan3135 I was raised a KJVO so I know all about the issues trying to understand the Elizabethan English. And I know coming out of KJVO that it is a cult mindset and is not what Yahweh would want. He wants His word to be understood in the language of every person and every generation. Not just one frozen translation. If that was the case He would want us all to learn and know Greek and Hebrew and nothing else would satisfy.
@@jimmyray5524 I’ll refer you to Mark Ward who has done extensive work on that very thing. As he states there are over 400 dead words in the KJV and many more false friends.
My in laws came from Germany in 1957 and my father in law a very godly man said the only German version that was good was Luther's bible. My late wife had a graduate level of German familiarity and she HAD TROUBLE READING THE LUTHER BIBLE.
The problem is the newer translations are using a fraudulent NT and OT text. GOD delivered the Textus Receptus to the Saints in the Reformation and the Septuagint and Masoretic texts should be the basis for our texts, not Biblia Hebraica or the NA28 which are often inserting and removing proven words/verses that exist in the texts. What your father-in-law surely meant was the text was accurate, not necessarily easy to read by modern standards. Luther’s Bible in some ways is better than the KJV too. The KJV still has what’s called “The Ecclesiastical Conspiracy” in the text because King James and Bishop Bancroft demanded the implication of Church hierarchies be included in the translation. The Luther Bible, Tyndale Bible, and Geneva Bible all made it clear in their translations that no hierarchy actually exists in the NT Church. Church as a word is only used once in the Tyndale/Geneva/Luther Bibles, it’s in Acts 19:37 to refer to heathen temples, otherwise you find the correct translation of “congregation”. Unfortunately we have wolves behind all modern translations and the KJV is the best we have for English today in what I’d call a readable Bible. It’s still in need of clarifying with the origin texts. As for Frisch and his Textus Receptus rebuttal, it was famously imperfect for the first several releases. Everyone knows that who has studied this subject in depth. There’s definitely what TR purists refer to as a definitive TR. The first near perfect edition was refined by Robert Estienne in 1550 before the Geneva Bible was printed, but the edition a TR purist would call truly perfect was the 1598 by Theodore Beza used for the KJV. There’s a later edition that many people unknowingly buy from 1881 today too, and the truth is although it’s mostly the same I prefer the earlier edition and most TR readers would concur that the 19th century was when modern Bible text tampering really took off too. Better to search for a reprinted 1598 edition like the KJV used IMHO. I want the edition I feel confident was delivered to the saints if you know what I mean 😉 GOD Bless! ❤️
KJV yesterday, KJV today, the KJV forever!!! BTW, the KJV translators personal opinions are not the word of GOD, their translation of the text of the KJV is the word of GOD. The modern translations that use the Textus Receptus to a great deal ALSO use the ungodly Critical text to some degree (including notes). The ONLY trustworthy and faithful English translation available today is the King James version.
The KJV is the translators' personal opinions. At any place where they departed from the Bishops' Bible (their base text for revision), they exercised their personal opinions as flawed human scholars. The KJV isn't magic. It's just a translation, albeit a particularly beloved one.
@@MAMoreno Well then, you do not have the absolute Word of God. Because by your own reasoning likewise, all your modern per-versions (as you know) are merely the opinions of the translators.
Hispanic evangelicals use the RVR1960, which is an update on the original Spanish translation from 1569 to keep up with spelling reforms from the royal academy. I believe that's a good model to follow especially given that the NKJV already exists. So the 1611 KJV can be the "permanent" version, while the NKJV can be periodically updated as a "moving" version.
The pastor at the church I currently attend went to Master's Seminary and interned at Grace Community Church, so he has a high respect for John MacArthur, but he has admitted to not agreeing with him about everything, although I believe he would agree with a lot of the translational choices in the LSB like the use of "Yahweh" instead of "the LORD" and translating "monogenēs" as "only begotten."
A Frisch Perspective - I don't see anything wrong with what MacArthur said, it is HIS opinion. I wish the comparison would have used the NKJV vs. the KJV. I disagree with your view on the KJV, but here again, that is YOUR opinion, and I respect it just like I respect everyone's opinion. I prefer the NKJV and the NASB 95. BTW I like MacArthur but I will not be getting an LSB. The NASB does not need a 2020 and 2021 updates in MY opinion.
If you claim to be a literal bible, then be consistent and put the literal reading in the text. Not in the side notes. The NASB is too inconsistent the CSB is better.
The Bible is not a ordinary book but a spiritual one, it’s not made to convenience you in your reading. Only in the guidance of God is it understandable. People can and do retranslate the Bible to make it interpret what they feel it says. God says not to add or take from His word. Satan has many counterfeits to confuse the readers. It is God who speaks through His word. That’s why the wise reads and understands and the wicked read and not understand but take things out of context. God has brought the KJV through the fire for a reason.
So if it's a spiritual book, not supposed to be convenient to read, only understandable through God's illumination, why translate it all? Why not just read it in the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic? The answer, of course, is that most of us don't read those languages, so we need to have it translated into our language. And if that's the case, it should be translated into contemporary language, as the KJV was 400 years ago. It was a good--not perfect, but good--translation into the English of 400 years ago. The NASB, ESV, NKJV, LSB, etc., are good--again, not perfect, but good--translations into the English of (roughly) today.
@@danbrown586 nothing wrong with translating it, just keep it in its original text. If you read some of the other translations, they write in in a way to adapt to their understanding. The Bible interprets itself, by changing some of the words it no longer reveals the meaning. Satan understands that, that’s why he influences for the change, that’s why Christianity today are so confused on doctrines.
I used to love the CSB up until I started doing intense origin text studies…. That version is very bad IMHO. It’s better to just stick with that KJV and have a thought provoking Bible based on an accurate text tradition. GOD bless! ❤️
MacArthur is just wrong with his comments. First of all, this translation just came out. Its arrogant to make such a claim. Its his opinion. I agree that the best English translation the world has ever seen is the King James Version. While it is not my favorite translation, it has stood the test of time. It has been in existence for 410 years. Even though it is a 17th and 18th century British English translation with updates, it is still the number 2 best selling translation in the United States as of 2021. It was also number 2 in 2011. That speaks for itself. Thats astounding!!
In my opinion, a perfect translation is one that stays accurate but also is in the language of the common man...the "plowboy" that the KJV translators wrote of. MacArthur is a wonderful Bible teacher. But for excellent scholarship I look to Dan Wallace, Bill Mounce, Gary Hill. Other than a few paraphrases out there, we are truly blessed to have so many readable and accurate translations. Mark Ward and James White have done a great job of showing the errors of "onlyism." Yesterday, I threw my NKJV in my backpack. And today, I left home with my NIV. And tonight before I fall asleep I will be reading my Berean Study Bible (BSB) which has become my favorite. Excellent video, Tim!!!
A translation I would love to see is a optimal equivalence (sorta like the CSB. A good mix of word for word and thought for thought) but based on the textus receptus! We have the KJV, NKJV AND MEV from it but all are word for word. I love all 3 but would love to see a new translation from the TR with a good mix in mind.
Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: Rev 22:19 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. Legacy = An example of legacy is family property that has been handed down for generations. This bible is NOT a legacy, A new bible cannot be a legacy. Standard = The KJV is the standard, by which others are compared. Including MacArthur's "bible"
KJV sounds lofty and "proper" and very "high church," but it also needs translating on the fly. Those who love it and use it exclusively translate it themselves, perhaps unconsciously, when they encounter the KJV terms that have changed meanings, or aren't English words anymore. No one called kidneys "reins" today, no one says "conversation" when they mean "conduct" or "behavior." But somehow, to some people, to read such terms and know what they really mean gives them a kind of high. That's silly. If you mean "precede," say "precede"--not "prevent." That's an entirely different term. Good grief.
I didn't grow up on the KJV so it has no sentimental importance to me, and frankly I feel it's quite outdated and irrelevant for scholarly Biblical studies. I really love the LSB and think it's certainly the very best translation I have ever studied. Thank you John MacArther!
@@OrsvikEnnin for that LSB: - 1 Tim 3:16 - There is no God in that “Bible” either - 2 Samuel 21:19 - I guess David didn’t kill Goliath - 2 Tim 2:15 - I wonder who doesn’t want you to study????? Or rightly divide….. - John 6:47 - believe on what? The Cookie Monster?? - Acts 1:3 - I guess the way Jesus showed himself could of been fallible since they took “infallible” out - 2 Cor 2:17 - NICE! I wonder what “peddle” means. I guess it’s a better word than “corrupt” since corrupt is just not plain enough. Unless they hiding what they are doing like the gnostics. - 1 Thess 5:22 - cool, I guess I can appear evil but not do evil. - Isaiah 14:12 - don’t really have to explain myself on this one. But incase you don’t know, Jesus is the morning star, not Lucifer (Rev 22:16 KJV) - Luke 23:42 - nice, the thief got to heaven without calling upon the name of the Lord (Romans 10:13 KJV) - 1 Peter 4:1 - I guess Christ didn’t suffer “for us” KJV - 1 John 5:7 - they omitted the Trinity. Nice! I guess this is really the “best” English translation. Also, they bracket Mark 16:9-20 in this LSB (which appears in 618/620 manuscripts) but hey I guess the 618 are wrong and the 2 which they can keep on using: Vitacanus and Sinaiticus is “better” and “earlier” than the 618 even tho they were revealed much later after Westcott and Hort distorted it… man people love their Catholic manuscripts. Also they bracket Acts 8:37. Incase you don’t know, brackets means that the translators are giving you permission to not believed that verse or passage since it’s not in the “best” and “earliest” manuscripts (they are referring to the two manuscripts above). So I guess all you have to do is be water baptize is you don’t read acts 8:37…. I’ll stick to the AV1611 KJV infallible, uncorrupted, perfect, pure, preserved and given by inspiration words of God! Which by the way LSB does not believe the Lord will preserve the His words (Ps 12:7). Enjoy reading your book that is heretical (it’s not a Bible).
@@JesusSaves1611 I'm fully aware of all the textual issues and bracketed verses you have brought up. These issues have been thoroughly explained multiple times by Biblical scholars and apologists for decades so I see no need to address these myself and I am satisfied with the solutions provided by the experts. Goodbye.
@@OrsvikEnnin just like the scribes and Pharisees were the experts. Welp, by your own comment, it seems as if the scholars and experts are the “authority” even though the words of God does say it will be preserved and even Jesus said that. Yet according the the same scholars you refer to, they don’t believe in preservation. They say “only the originals” yet no one has the originals, they are non existent. Clearly throughout the entire Bible you see case after case that copies are inspired and preserved yet these scholars you exalt are against that. I guess in God’s mind, when the Authors were writing the first, original. God said to himself “ah I’m going to leave it to the scholars to teach the people and make them the authority that way the average Joe can follow them since I can’t really preserve my words however I could save someone and give them eternal life” lol. The ridiculousness in these “scholars”. The first thing Satan said was Genesis 3:1 and that’s exactly what the scholars say. Hey enjoy your book. I hope you come to realize that scholars are bunch of fools and that you can get the perfect, pure, infallible, inerrant words of God which is the KJV. It doesn’t take a college education to realize the differences between bibles and to do your own research and see what manuscripts these “scholars” are using and where they come from (Egypt). However, it does take some “education” to “convince” a common person to be anti KJV only and that scholars are “smart”. But hey “the heart is deceitful above all” Jer. 17:9. Keep putting your trust in men rather than God! God bless I hope you find truth one day and stop reading a book that is full of Alexandrian heretical cult doctrines that comes from gnostics since they were responsible for corrupting modern bibles and used west cot and Hort “manuscripts” (that is intermingled with apocrypha) as the “best” and “earliest” even though that was found way after the KJV was settled.
The question to ask is- is such a " new " translation NECESSARY aside from the money making motivation ? Until you ask that pertinent question you are missing the point
I think the primary reason I am not a kjv onlyist is because there are some much easier to make modern English sense of, however when doing deep studies I use the kjv because most of strongs number and correlations into the Hebrew and Aramaic, and Greek are there, and so I don’t need a lying scholar and yes most are not being honest. To explain to me the meaning, place, or tenses of a word and I can double check my studies to ensure that my conclusions are accurate. If people only just did real studies they would see that most of the pastors, bishops, etc, and scholars fulfill Jeremiah 8:8. It’s Sad, but true.
So, what is the best way to understand and appreciate the KJV? Is there a book that explains how to understand what’s being conveyed? Just use another translation side-by-side?
Grab a strongs concordance, that has been the biggest help for me. Otherwise I will read a super confusing verse from the NLT then go back and read KJV again to see if it clicks.
The real point though is that Bible translations should be produced under the authority of the Church and not private individuals or their ministries. There is far too much of that and it undermines the witness of the Church. The number of translations in English is ridiculous and the last thing we needed was another one.
Excellent video. My same thoughts almost verbatim on the KJV. And that's coming from a guy who likes the NIV the best. I know the NIV is not very literal, but after you compare the NIV along side with AT Robertson and other greek study material, it's accurate. So NIV haters do have a legit point, but.....on a practical level, the NIV is solid.
I have studied the ESV, NASB95, LSB, NLT, and NIV. After all, this is my main bible for study and reading is back to the KJV and NKJV. The number of verses and words left out is a lot. Bibles that were in other languages dating back as far as 100 to 150 AD contain these verses and words. The Textus Receptus was based on the same transcripts these ancient bibles were translated on. I am far from a KJVO, I still enjoy studying with my NASB95 and looking at the NLT. The KJV does take a little more study. Furthermore, before reading any translation, always pray the Holy Spirit will speak to you in what you read and let him help you decide.
@@MarkBowenLikesToThink If you feel that way, I am glad the LSB works for you. I don't argue about which bible translation is best. I only offer what works for myself. God bless.
I think your statement "The KJV is the best translation the English language has ever seen" is a bit confusing given your statement that follows: "I don't think the KJV is the best translation for common use today." Would it perhaps be clearer to say you think it's historically the most influential English translation, but not the most accurate for the English reader today? Regardless, I'm excited for some more in-depth looks at the LSB, especially for the study editions coming in Spring.
And here I thought the LSB stood for the Lone Star Bible with translation taken from the TEXtus Receptus. Thanks for clearing that up Tim. 😇
🤠 WUT IN TRANSLATION 🤠
Ill take one of them there Lone Star Bibles😂😂😂
Even the translators of the KJV encouraged the readers of their day to read from several translations, not just theirs.
...a message lost on the KJVO crowd.
In their day, they rejected the Codex Vaticanus as a viable source of ancient Scripture. Only in the mid-1800s, Westcott and Hort began their crusade against the KJV with their adaptation of the Greek New Testament, published in 1881, over 260 years AFTER the publishing of the KJV.
Your answer is moot. They could never have known the multitude of translations we have today.
The KJV was updated, the latest version is from 1769. Most KJV bibles today use that version.
The translators stated that their goal was to create “one principal good one” the goal of the Bible itself was to unify English bible translations into one authoritative one.
@@abc123fhdiCorrect. But the King James Bible wasn’t “updated”, it was corrected from 1611 - 1769 because the printers made mistakes, not the translators.
I recently discovered the LSB. It has become my absolute favorite.
Research Zechariah 14:9 Isaiah 41 4 and revelation 1:8&17-18 see the cross references
Ecclesiastes 8:4 “Where the *word of a king* is, there is *power:* and who may say unto him, What doest thou?”
This verse is one of those definitive verses on the Authorized Version (with Ps 12:6-7; Ps 138:2)
If you want a Bible with *”power”* , then you need one translated under *”a king”*
Better yet; get one translated under a king with a Jewish name (James - Jacob in Hebrew).
And if all that is not enough, you will want to get a Bible connected with absolute time (Greenwich England), absolute measurement (British Thermal Unit), and absolute location (latitude and longitude)
The NIV, RSV, NASV, NKJV, etc don’t even qualify .
So naturally they all change the verse so you will not connect it with your King James Bible.
@@Kevin-nr9hp why is Latin used in the OT then?
@@Watchmanonthewall626 Latin was one of 7 seven languages that the Bible was translated in. Psalms 12:6-7 KJV
When the King James Bible was being done, the world was very different! The British Isles were governed by a King and human government was far more personal and their world views were quite different! We do not live in that same world/life paradigm anymore. The translators knew that God is. They knew that God is a personal God. They knew that there’s a heaven, hell, Satan who hates God, and that human beings are sinners who need to make peace with God and live in peace with fellow human beings. By the time that the last and seventh stage of church history arrives, the church time period called Laodicea, the emotional and spiritual landscape had changed. The British isles were no longer under the jurisdiction of a God fearing King but by a Parliament of new generations of men and women who had very different world views! 19th century rationalism frowned upon the notion of a heaven and hell, a personal God and Satan who still seeks to lure as many souls to hell as he possibly can. The approach to ecclesiastical issues are no longer a personal issue but much more an academic and intellectual goal. To the translators of the King James Bible, the search for truth and a real personal relationship with God and the spiritual health of the people were of highest priority! To the translators of the scriptures from the days of Wescott & Hort to the present, the stakes are not so personal. They are academic and intellectual. The need to make true peace with God, and to live righteously with your fellow human being so that the spiritual health of the people are strong, are no longer of highest priority. The approach to truth is academic and intellectual, not spiritual and personal towards the Lord Jesus Christ! That’s the difference between the church time period of Philadelphia and the church time period of Laodicea! We are indifferent about the spiritual issues important to God! The church of Laodicea doesn’t hate (cold) the Holy Bible but it also is not in love (hot) for the Bible as during the time period of King James I! The present church age of Laodicea is indifferent (lukewarm) towards the Bible and spiritual issues. We are all living in this last and seventh stage of church history! From a materialistic standpoint, we are the luckiest generations of Christians! We enjoy the highest standards of living. Our quality of life is higher than King James I had! We have cars and refrigerators and ovens and stoves and stores to shop and medical advances that King James I could not even imagine! Yet, as Revelation 3 warns us, from a spiritual standpoint, we are miserable and poor and blind and naked! That’s why I know that the King James Holy Bible is far better than any translation done during the church time period of Laodicea! I’m guessing that the church time period of Philadelphia began around the time of Martin Luther’s stand against the Papacy, the Reformation, to the death of a Queen who was born again and knew that her country was blessed because of the strong Christian faith of the majority of her peoples! Queen Victoria died in 1901! The pure Cambridge edition of the King James Holy Bible came out around 1900! If my opinion is accurate, what a fitting tribute to the end of the Church time period of Philadelphia!
This is my personal opinion: instead of subscribing to a more modern version of the Bible, I think a far better idea is to use a Holy Bible that teaches you all the places where the words in the King James Holy Bible has changed slightly in meaning!
There’s two that I recommend right now:
“The Defined King James Bible” and the “Sword King James Version Bible”! The later is still in print and you can easily purchase them at your local Bible store or online at the “KJV Store” or “Christian Book Distributors” or EBay or Amazon. Sadly I think the Defined King James Bible is currently not in publication.
I think the issue is the purpose and the kind of people behind the Nestle Aland, the Vaticanus manuscript and Codex Alexandrinus.
Thanks for the shout out Tim! I love the TR tradition and there's a lot of rich history in the received text, but I think by insisting on the TR as a perfect text, we run into a number of issues.
@Dwayne Green what are those issues? God said that he will preserve his words, where are day?
It is the TR?, or the CT?, or the MT? It must be one of them.
@Thomas Glass the TR is an artificial text, so are the MT and the CT, they dont exist in the manuscripts but are the product of comparigin multiple manuscripts together following certain ideological methods of prioritizing variances
@@thomasglass9491 it must be! After all, God is as small as us, and does everything exactly as we think it should be! How could his word be preserved in more than one place??? You're all going to hell because your Bible says "whoever" instead of "whosoever."
The translators of the KJV did a service beyond measure for the English speaking world but since so many missionaries went out using the KJV bible.
A person can not disagree that the KJV has been blessed by God for centuries
The countless Millions of souls that have been led to God by the KJV, only Heaven knows.
I like how the NASB and LSB have some of the TR included in brackets
When are Bible translation charts going to include the LSB? I would like to see that visually.
I think the KJV has served mankind well for the last 410 years...
Yep, and it still is.
No not really . Apostate christianity been taking people away from truth for centuries
@@AstariahJW what is truth?
And?
So? Doesn't mean the language hasn't changed since then.
what do you think of the Whitaker House KJVER?
The reason the comparison continues to always be against the KJB is that it is the Word of God for the English-speaking world.
Classic works need new translations not only because of language change but scholarship and a better understanding of the original work can lead to new insights that can only be brought out in a new translation. We all benefit because we appreciate more of what we read. Nothing can ever be unchanged because human life itself is change.
As always, you have presented a very balanced view of the issue regarding the criticism of the LSB. I would add that another reason I like the LSB is its translation philosophy of having a translation that makes the reader accommodate to the language of Scripture instead of accommodating the language of Scripture to the reader. It does thereby make the reader do more research that way. However, the rewards are well worth it effort. For example, whenever the OT Hebrew speaks about people making a covenant, it expresses it as "cutting" a covenant. By translating it as cutting a covenant, the reader is reminded of the serious nature of a covenant with God--because it takes us back to Genesis 15, where Abram walks among animals that have been cut into 2 parts, conveying the idea that may that happen to the party who breaks that covenant. Thus, the idea of cutting a covenant reminds us of how serious it is to enter into the covenant with God.
Thank you for acknowledging “his team” since JM rarely does. I like JM but his faculty deserves better. Also, some words in the KJV actually cannot be looked up in current dictionaries because those words simply no longer exist as English words.
Very well spoken. I used to be a KJV onlyist until I study myself and my eyes were open. Now KJV onlyist drive me insane. They don’t seem to understand that the KJV was an update itself. I like the KJV don’t get me wrong. I like it’s history and it’s style but why should we have to only read language that is no longer in use today?
We still use English today? If you mean the complexity of the words, just keep in mind it’s still third grade English and mostly single syllable words
Instead of thinking how the words of God can better serve you and your education level, rather think which translation is the actual words of God instead of a man made translation not inspired by the Holy Ghost
And if you wonder why we read a book from a king then go ahead and read Ecclesiastes 8:4 (KJV) which was completely slaughtered in the LSB , I wonder why :-)
I love the Geneva Bible
I just now ordered my LSB Bible in Copper Brown I am excited to get it
Is there a video with verse comparing between the LSB and other translations?
I remember as a young Christian, I was a KJVist. I scoffed at people who said there were versions that were easier to understand, because I was proud of my ability to read what they struggled with. Then I grew up. I still read the KJV sometimes, and most of the verses I like to recall come off my tongue in KJV.
The KJV is still great to read, but I agree. When I just want to "read" the Bible I'll use KJV because it's so familiar to me, like a very old friend. But to study (something I've just really begun) a modern reading is so much better!
New American Standard is SOLID, ESV is Great and so is New King James Version. Those are my top 3 choices.
Totally agree-three great choices
I'd add the CSB to the list.
@@jamesgossweiler1349 I do have a copy of CSB also, as well as NIV. Easy to read and understand. I've not used the CSB that much yet. It is ironic how much it resembles NASB & NIV, combined. If you do a side by side comparison, it's uncanny.
The Byzantine scrolls are younger than the Alexandrian scrolls and its within those scrolls where many of the "removed" texts are missing. Erasmus bungled his TR. The Volgate is slightly dubious. That's what I go by .
The best and only version to use is THE KING JAMES BIBLE
I looked at the LSB and I love it. I want one, thumb indexed because I study with David Hocking. lol Good report.
Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19 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.
Legacy = An example of legacy is family property that has been handed down for generations. This bible is NOT a legacy, A new bible cannot be a legacy.
Standard = The KJV is the standard, by which others are compared. Including MacArthur's "bible"
God has plans for every translation and translators who seek to honor Him through their efforts. We have been so blessed to have many if not hundreds of translations out there in English and not just English but most of every spoken language has as well. We are truly blessed. Western Civilization has seen God's word spread like wild fire and that's a good thing.. I am praying that God will continue to bless us with His words.
Did Erasmus use the Latin Vulgate to translate some verses in the TR?
I highly respect your knowledge on different translations. Thank you for these videos that break it down to someone like me that will never go into the deep study that you have done.
It depends on which manuscripts you trust
Yes, MacArthur would promote his own Bible. And, say it's the best translation? I've heard very good reviews on his study bibles though. Having purchased many different Bible translations this year. I have found that I prefer the NKJV over the KJV. And, the NKJV is a very good translation, IMO. There's something about the NKJV that draws me to it. Over the other modern translations. It's a 1982 release that has not been upgraded. It's difficult to abandon it.
@@duranbailiff5337 You can't go wrong with the NKJV. My friends mostly like the NIV, and one staying firm on the KJV. I have a NIV, but still prefer the NKJV. I'm glad you enjoy your MacArthur study Bible in NKJV..
The NKJV is my preferred translation and pretty much all I use. I lean more towards the TR than critical text, I’m more in the majority, over older group. However, reading the NKJV doesn’t mean you’re only getting the TR side of scripture, NKJV literally lets you know basically every place the other variants differ and what they say. So, essentially…. an NKJV bible is all you REALLY need. In my honest opinion, that’s just how I see it. But if you use the NKJV, it’s a translation that doesn’t hide anything from you, it’s open, honest and a truthful translation.
I grew up with the KJV and comprehend every word, but once I realized the NKJV existed, and saw how it flows better but remains essentially the same style and language, I have started reading it. I also like the Lexham English Bible because it's not afraid to use the Name of Yahweh, who COMMANDED us to use it and praise it among the nations. I have heard the LSB uses His Name too, so I'm looking forward to reading it. I also like the CSB and think it's best for sharing the Gospel with the average (non-theologian!) audience, especially in homeless and prison ministry.
Digression: regarding KJV only, I remmember when I was ministering in prison once, and was using some translation that wasn't KJV. One prisoner was KJV only and started telling me how the translation I was using was satanic and he didn't believe it. One of his problems was that the footnotes were wrong. I told him so what, we weren't reading footnotes, and attempted to show him how similar the language, and identical the meaning, by reading John 3:16 in my Bible so he could compare with his KJV. I read "For God so loved..." and before I could get further he jumped up, clenched his fists, and said, "If you read one more word to me out of that f-ing book I'll f-ing kill you." THAT, is actually the default, baseline personality of KJVO people. Imagine thinking you're a good Christian with God's Own Perfect Word™ and you're threatening to murder people (while already in prison.) What a joke!
Fair video. KJV translators looked very hard at earlier English translations. I would not be totally surprised if Tyndale in this age would endorse the CSB or Berean bible.
Great Video!
Can you do a review on the MEV translation?
Thanks!!!
Thank you for your opinion on all of this. One thing to note is that there have been over 400 changes made in the KJV, many of which occurred in the 1790s. I still love and read the KJV and consult from it when studying. My change to more modern versions came when I was preaching in a youth camp one year. I was in my late 20s and had been preaching for about 10 years. I preached Numbers 22 which mentioned Balaam’s donkey (for a lack of a better word). The kids kept snickering and laughing every time the passage was read. With that I vowed to find the best and most faithful modern translation and start studying and preaching from it. I’ve never looked back.
God bless you!
SS,......So, you vowed to find a modern translation to appease some ungodly kids? If you think that the entire church is not 100% apostate and is selling a totally false manmade christianity, then you are as blind, lost, and deceived as those you preach your false christianity to.
John M is a wolf in sheep's clothing and has nothing to do with the God of the Bible. You understand this correct?
@@tonybasoni8443 Calling someone apostate because they use a different Bible translation is heresy. You should be ashamed of yourself. The kids laughed because "Balaam's ass" sounds ridiculous to modern readers because the language has changed. That is exactly the reason why no church in the English speaking world should ever use the KJV as a primary translation.
@@OrsvikEnnin ,......I did not call someone apostate, I called the entire church apostate and it is. And I never mentioned that it was because of their Bible translation. What in the world are you talking about?
No church should use anything but the King James version. Again, the entire church is 100% apostate and has nothing whatsoever to do with the God, Jesus, or Christianity of the Bible. The church as led by 100% phonys like John M, sells a totally different christianity to that of the Bibles. You are all steeped in deception and an antichrist christianity.
Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!
I remember going to the Museum of the Bible and there was a section on the Bible’s influence in popular music. The KJV is always quoted. It’s a good example of a translation with wit and style. I agree with Dan Wallace every Christian should own a copy of it.
Yes, brother Edwin, for literary and historical reasons, the KJ stands alone among English Bibles. But to keep promoting it as somehow more faithful to the "original" texts and to hold to its late Shakespearian English today is problematic, if not absurd. Yet, this controversy goes on and on and on, in an endless Calvinistic bit of belly gazing.
@@carlosreira413 😄 yes it is. As if 2000 years ago they all spoke elizabethan english. We live in very polarized times, there is no nuance anymore. Which is the best and most faithful bible translation? the one that speaks and connects the most with you. At least as far as the NLT. God is great in that he connects with his children in many ways not just one.
@@edwinalvarez1619 Amen, brother, we are so fortunate to have such free access to the Bible. This is unprecedented on planet Earth. Possibly our problem is no longer "a famine for hearing the word," but a lack of "doing the word."
Still, of course, there are many places yet untouched by the Gospel.
Blessings of revelation and joy to you and yours this Christmas season and into the new year!
Disagree, you know the old adage- if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. The Bible KJV doesn’t need to be re-written, it needs to be re-read. If it worked for the reformation it will work today.
Brother, you say it’s important to have a translation that people can understand today…
Is this understanding your speaking of rooted in man’s wisdom, or understanding derived from the Spirit of God teaching you as it says in
1Cor 2:13. If it’s by the Spirit of God then why is it critical to have a translation that uses modern vernacular?
Secondly (and I can make many points like this) what did God say is Col 2:18?
The KJV reads very differently to all modern translations, they can’t both be right. One is correct and the other in error.
Yes, the KJV is in error. Hence the number of revisions it has received over the last 140 years, none of which make much use of "modern vernacular" (as opposed to translations outside of the Tyndale-KJV tradition, which gladly indulge in modern vernacular and thus feel outdated in a shorter time). It is still a lovely translation, but it's one with plenty of minor faults (none of which should be blamed for the greater faults found in KJV-Only churches).
And no, the verses you referenced do not promise to give us a miraculous understanding of Jacobean English in 2021.
@@MAMoreno the verse 1cor2:13 tells us that we are to understand Gods word by comparing scripture with scripture, this is what Isa 28:10.
This isn’t a miracle.
There has been no substantive changes made the the KJV since 1711.
And you want to tell me which translation has Col 2:18 correct and how you come to that conclusion?
@@ChathuraImbulagoda The KJV isn't what Paul meant by "spiritual things" in 1 Corinthians 2.13, which should be obvious since Paul was writing nearly 1600 years before the KJV was made. No Bible verse refers to the KJV in particular, so even if Paul meant that we are to understand one Bible verse by looking at another, he does not mean that we are to understand Jacobean English by comparing it to more Jacobean English.
And "not" should not be in Colossians 2.18. It's an example of a place where the Western text agrees with the Alexandrian text instead of the Byzantine text, and the Western text is typically the one that adds things rather than subtracting them.
@@MAMoreno I didn’t say the Paul was referring to the KJV. I’m just saying that to understand scripture your meant to compare scripture with scripture, with modern translation which are always changing the connections you can make are being lost.
And col2:18 is correct in the KJV which is why you don’t see angels in this dispensation.
Btw can I ask what form of theology you hold to?
I would guess that you:
Don’t believe in multiple gospels, don’t believe on once saved always saved, and don’t believe in the pre tribulation all rapture. Would I be right?
@@ChathuraImbulagoda The idea of multiple gospels is a heresy (Galatians 1.6-9). The difference in the presentation of the gospel for different audiences (Galatians 2.7-8) is not the same thing as two different gospels.
The phrase "once saved, always saved" is a rather unfortunate expression of the "preservation of the saints" doctrine held by Calvinists and some Arminians. The New Testament doesn't have much nice to say about apostates, but the OSAS expression suggests that apostasy is a-ok.
And no, the idea of a pre-tribulation rapture is not present in the New Testament, and both Paul and John would be left scratching their heads if you tried to tell them that they said such a thing.
I used to laugh at KJV onlyists because on the face it seems ridiculous. However, in an attempt to disprove them, I sort of became convinced myself. I’m going to give just 3 main reasons why. 1st: the KJV was written at a time when the English language had reached its peak of beauty. It was written about 6 years before the death of William Shakespeare for example. So the language is absolutely majestic and rich which is why it survived the centuries even as “old English” faded from our daily lexicon. It is the most printed book of all time for a reason. 2nd- the KJV is truly the bedrock of western civilization. This is the book that forged the west. Think of the countless wars to advance Christianity in England. They fought for centuries to unite one England under one God. That spread throughout the western world, including the United States. So this language and message built the west. We ought to be careful to just walk away from it. 3rd - the newer translations are changing the scriptures based on new manuscript finds. I was all for this originally. However, it’s now been discovered that many of these are forgeries. All the Dead Sea scroll fragments for example in the museum in Washington DC have been found to be totally fake. So the idea of updating the Bible with new discoveries is not necessarily a good thing. And the manuscript tradition found in the KJV built and sustained our civilization for many centuries.
arguments 1 and 2 are fine, but your 3rd point is absolutely false
@@David-wq3dq no it’s not. NASB which was my favorite for a long time along with many others updated based on Dead Sea scrolls and other finds. There are over 2000 differences between KJV manuscript Vs majority translation texts and 6,500 differences from critical text. I’ve seen some as high as 8,000 differences. It’s not like it’s a difference of translating words it’s thousands of differences. That being said, I’m not KJVO but I do think it is a preferred text for the stated reasons.
@Orange Man Bad you claimed ALL the NEWER manuscripts have been proven forgeries, thats not true nor even remotely true, further the dead sea scrolls dont contain any of the new testament, but portions of the old testament
Young, textless and reformed.... great UA-cam channel and home page. They deal with these questions.
I am primarily a KJV guy and when I am just reading, I’m KJV ALL THE WAY.. When I am doing deep study, I have my KJV, a digital Oxford dictionary, The complete word study dictionary for Greek, an ESV, a NKJV & and formal equivalent version..my Beautiful Wife’s old NLT(Which I truly dislike), on my desk, reading the verses I’m studying in each translation to get a fuller understanding of the text. I have an LSB, read it and am not a huge fan (I believe it’s Jehovah not Yahweh), but think steadfast, 316 publishing makes a wonderful premium Bible and has my absolute favorite layout.. Single column, verse by verse, wide margin on 40gsm paper. For this reason, I may order a NASB95’ premium with that lay out, especially because it has kept most of the TR verses in the Bible, but has them in brackets. I will always be a KJV guy, but am definitely willing to read alternative translations. And although I originally was very critical of Mark Ward, his “False Friends” has made me aware of a few other words that I missed in my extensive study of scripture, ultimately proving to be a blessing to me. Great video Brother
Thanks for your insights. I have used KJV as primary for 40 years. I have not read legacy yet but look forward to checking it out. One of the main things I like about KJV is being able to use the Strongs Concordance with it to know the Hebrew and Greek words and definitions the words in the KJV were translated from to be sure what God is conveying to us in whatever passages or topics I am studying. When I share scripture from KJV with others I am able to easily change the thees and thous to our modern day usage.
I grew up with the KJV, and still use it every week. As far as English Bibles based on the TR, I prefer the KJV over the NKJV or the MEV. As for Bibles based on the Critical Text, I have and use many, but I think I prefer overall the NASB 77 more so than the NASB 95 or the ESV.
@Jerrod Wertman I suppose that I prefer the 77 over the 95 because It seems to be a more literal translation in my opinion. But I'm no scholar either. It still uses thou, thee, and thine when addressing Deity, so, it's similar to the KJV in that sense. Both the 77 and the 95 are good translations.
James, I saw your comment and just wanted to mention to you about the SKJV, the Simplified King James Version. It just came out from Barbour Publishing. Like you, I grew up on the KJV and like you prefer it more than the NKJV & MEV. My opinion on the this new version that is the SKJV is this: it is what the NKJV should have been. I bought one when it first came out a month or so ago and I definitely like it more than the NKJV.
Blessings in Christ.
I love the KJV but Why would you make and release to the population a translation that you DIDN"T think was the "best"?!?
I'm a fan of the KJV and I use other translations to gain depth and help in understanding some of the tough verses I run into. I am not going to pound someone over their choice of translation, ever. Instead I celebrate the fact that they love The Lord and desire to know Him through the reading of His Word. I can already sense some troll who desires to challenge my comment and say "what about the Satanic Bible?". My reply? Please, get saved! :)
I would agree with you that the AV is historically one of the best Modern English translations, along with the (1599) Geneva Bible and the Tyndale Bible. The NKJV does a good job, I think, of updating the AV but is a bit more Latinate than it needs to be. I certainly value its footnotes on the Majority Text, which I favour. But I still think that the AV is a great translation, for teaching from, despite the 'false friends" that you refer quite rightly to. I would put the NASB at about no 3, after the AV and NKJV; but a lot of translations can give you slants of meaning that you might not get from just wielding one. I wonder if someone would care to update the AV ever so slightly, getting rid of the 'false friends" but keeping the second person singular? O, they have done so already: the Third Millenium Bible and the 21st Century Kings James Version. The difference between the two is that the former has the Apocrypha in it and keeps 'Ghost" for 'Holy Ghost" whereas the latter does not. How about a Majority Text slightly updated AV? That would be heaven - at least for me!
We can read the LSB for free on the website. I checked John 1 against my NKJV and it reads well. I'd get one out of curiosity to study and add to my library, since I love the KJV and NKJV. The lowest price hardcover is out of stock right now. Thanks Tim for this video.
ua-cam.com/video/avG0piVeYiQ/v-deo.html
mark 9:29. They removed the word fasting. Is that not a significant part of the scripture?
Modern English translations of the
Bible, including the New American
Standard Bible (NASB), don't include
verses that are sometimes considered
missing" from the King James Versior
KJV) because they were added to the
Greek manuscripts used by the KJV
long after the biblical writers wrote:
• Matthew 17:21
• Matthew 18:11
• Matthew 23:14
• Mark 7:16
• Mark 9:44 and 9:46
• Mark 11:26
• Mark 15:28
• Luke 17:36
• John 5:3-4
• Acts 8:37
• Acts 15:34
• Acts 24:6-8
• Acts 28:29
• Romans 16:24
• 1 John 5:7-8
I appreciated this video. As a person whose favorite translation is 77 NASB, and is unfamiliar with the LSB, would I likely feel comfortable reading the LSB?
I would say if you like the NAS95, then you should take the LSB for a spin, since it’s based on the 95.
I compared NIV,NKJV,Living bible to KJV and I would tell you there is alot wrong with them they took out God,Jesus,repent,Lord,blood,hell,etc.or demotes God,Lord,Jesus for he,his,him,lower case son, Heb.4:8 and Acts 7:45 uses Joshua not Jesus.2Thes.3:5 patience of Christ not patient waiting for Christ (we are to be patient waiting for Christ,very missleading)most came from NKJV.look and see for your self God tells us tobe prudent and diserning.
I mentioned this on one of Mark's videos and I think it applies to this one as well. There are 7000 spoken and signed languages in the world. The bible is still being translated for 2000 of those and there's 1800 that haven't even been started to be translated. I believe there's at least 150 English translations in print when it comes to scripture. We should praise God we have at least one translation we can read as English speakers, let alone 150. If I'm incorrect about these numbers please feel free to correct me or it might even make an interesting video. Personally I use the ESV for study and enjoy the CSB for reading. And the KJV is excellent for quotes and public readings when researched out on its full meanings (false friends in mind). Thanks Tim for excellent points.
@@duranbailiff5337 I've been looking for a reason to buy a second bookcase. You've piqued my interest. I have multiple premium bibles but only in my favored translations. I guess the search begins ...
7000 languages but most of them are derivatives of each other. You can find regions on the earth where there are hundreds of dialects in that small region.
However when it comes to the vast majority of the world, there are not nearly that many languages.
therueuhy,........The word of God has already gone to the entire world hundreds and hundreds of years ago. There is no need for any more translations. The whole idea of all these translations is all based on the 100% apostate churches 100% false, manmade freewill gospel.
@@tonybasoni8443 ok
@@Rueuhy ,......Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!
I don't always side with John M, but I love and respect him. Very good report and explanation of the need for a KJV and other versions. Excellent.
There is no perfect translation, if you read the translation philosophy in the preface of most English bible versions, they freely admit that.
Another great video which is very much appreciated.Like I said in my past comment on your channel I am a former KJV onlyist but after much thought I realized I'm allowing others to decide for me as far as reading modern translations.That the LSB is the best translation is John MacArthur opinion for obvious reasons.In many of his sermons in the Grace to You broadcast he uses the KJV then sometime in the 1980's I notice he switch to NASB 1977.Personally after watching many of your videos about translations the one you had on TR and so called Critical text and the number of English translations available I think I'll stick to the NKJV,NASB 1977,NASB 1995,NIV 1984,ESV,NLT and ERV that I have in my small library as a layman comparing what the different translation say.
ua-cam.com/video/avG0piVeYiQ/v-deo.html
Simply the Deceiver asked, "Hath God said?" I honestly don't know how anyone can believe that there is One True God, then go on and believe that that One True God did not keep His promise found in Psalms 12, verses 6 - 7, et. al. We're not trying to ''see what the writers were saying'', we're wanting the pure word of God. If it isn't the KJV, then where is it? "A Frisch Perspective" is not a follower of God, he trusts man more than God. So, when I read 1st Thes. 4:15 and see the word 'prevent', are you saying that I can't EVER come to the realization that it means what it means? Are you saying that someone who sits down to read the KJV, after asking the Comforter, the Holy Spirit to reveal to them what the word of God is saying, that they'll NEVER understand the word "prevent"? that's because you don't trust God and His promises. Also, are you saying that there is a modern translation that when every single person that reads it, that they will then understand perfectly the meaning of every word they read? That's utterly, and ungodly ridiculous.
Let's suppose you're right, and Psalm 12:6-7 is about God preserving the scriptures (it isn't, as is evident if you read the whole psalm rather than just cherry-picking those two verses, but let's suppose it is). Why is the KJV the way God preserved it? The Bible certainly doesn't tell you that. Why not, say Wycliffe or the Bishop's Bible? Or a more modern translation? How did God preserve his word before the 16th Century? Has he preserved it in any other language than English?
Even if Psalm 12 means what you think it means, it says nothing about the KJV unless it says the same thing about every other translation.
@@danbrown586 ... it's not about me "being right", it's about God keeping his promise of preserving his pure word for ever. I know that he did because of the KJV! -//- Psalms 12 : 6 - 7 reads as follows..."The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."
--//-- Those verses are not taken out of context because verse #7 follows immediately after verse #6, and the psalmist is comparing the words of the wicked (vain words; flattering words; proud words) with the pure words of Almighty God! -//- Additionally, the writer of Psalm 12, King David, had a godly influence on his son Solomon, who wrote Proverb 30! Proverb 30: 5 - 6 reads as follows : "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." -//- It's baffling that you say you believe in the One True, Almighty, All-Knowing, Omnipresent God, but you then scoff at the fact that He could possibly preserve His pure words for ever! -//- Psalms 138:2 reads : "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified THY WORD above all thy name." -//- And in Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32 God warns about the dangers of changing any of his pure words. The bible must be a precise document because Jesus is the Word made flesh. He is pure because he is God. Everything God does or says must be pure. He provided and preserved his Holy Scriptures for ever, and by his grace they're found only in one place, the KJV. -//- The Apostle Paul admonishes us four times, "Be of one mind"; "of one accord"; and Peter once says, "Be of one mind"! They wrote those passages under the inspiration of God, and they only make sense if there's only one bible! The incorruptible word of God (1 Peter 1:16-25; 2 Corinthians 2:17) -//- 2 Corinthians 2:17
“For we are not AS MANY, WHICH CORRUPT THE WORD OF God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.” -//- So in the end you either trust God and take him at his word, or you take your place on the opposite team, whose "head coach" is Satan.
I would like to see all of the translations keep the TR versus in brackets instead of at the bottom of the page.
I read kjv but im making my way through the niv right now. Next nkjv. Ive spot read some nkjv and im really leaning to that one. Only time will tell.
I love Mark Ward and you too buddy. Thanks your Frisch perspective 😂
I’m a firm believer that outside of the HOLY SPIRIT no one can understand it, the truth is without the originals no one will ever know.
I personally think the ( Scriptures ) Bible is one of the best translations. An example would be the word (baptism). In all other translations it just says baptism. But what does the word mean in Greek? It means to immerse. So use that word immerse. Because if we just use the word baptism then people can still justify baptism by sprinkling or pouring water over people. But if you use immerse than you get the true interpretation of the word and there would be no arguments in the true practice of the word. Also the word (Law) in Greek. The word Law in Greek most of the time means Torah. So just using a generic word like law could mean different things. We have to ask our selves which law is the Bible talking about? If you use Torah or the other exact word for law then it helps to translate exactly what the Bible is trying to say. There would be less arguments about the true meanings and doctrines of the bible. I think by keeping these general English Bibles like in the kjv and others is just perpetuates the problem.
As someone who studies Hebrew, I find these talks fascinating.
Which translation do you prefer?
You're a brave man to speak directly to the KJVO crowd! They are a tough bunch. Great video and great job tackling this, as always.
The modern Bible versions like the LSB say the opposite of the KJV in certain verses. For example, the KJV calls those who worshipped idols “superstitious,” whereas the LSB calls idol worshippers “religious.”
“Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.” (Acts 17:22 KJV)
“So Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects.” (Acts 17:22 LSB)
The Zionist disciples of Satan were able to change their Bibles to make Israel a "spreading vine" in the NIV and even a "luxuriant vine" in the NASB, ESV, and the LSB in Hosea 10:1. God, however, states that "Israel is an empty vine" in his KJV Holy Bible at Hosea 10:1.
“Israel is an empty vine, he bringeth forth fruit unto himself: according to the multitude of his fruit he hath increased the altars; according to the goodness of his land they have made goodly images.” (Hosea 10:1 KJV)
“Israel is a luxuriant vine; He produces fruit for himself. The more abundant his fruit,
The more altars he abounded; The better his land, The better he made the sacred pillars.” Hosea 10:1 LSB)
So we know from that issue that the KJV is God’s word or the modern Bible versions are God’s word. They cannot say the opposite of one another and both be God’s word. This is a foundational issue. This is a major issue. There is no middle ground here. "Choose ye this day whom ye will serve." Joshua 24:15.
Edward Hendrie
Author of "HOAX of Biblical Proportions"
do you have some ax to grind against John Mac?
I think that is a reasonable position. The KJV is undeniably the most beautiful, most influential translation the English language has ever seen. It's one of the most important works of literature, period. And while it does still hold a place in today's world, I do think that other translations have eclipsed it in daily reading and devotion.
Exactly to your point re the KJV, Shakespeare as well is one of our most important works of literature, but can we honestly comprehend all that is being said without comparisons of some words then and now? Beauty and tradition have their honored place, but language is not static and the most important thing is that the reader or hearer understand the intended message. Nehemiah 8:8 - "They read from the book, from the law of God, translating to give the sense so that they understood the reading." That's the NASB and the KJV agrees: "So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense and caused them to understand the reading." Which says to me that the KJV only people do not have a leg to stand on according to the Word of God. Plus, is it possibly a very ethnocentric point of view, since the entire world is not English speaking, as you have pointed out? Would the KJV only people consider all non-English translations less than the KJV? And even if any or all of those were translated from the KJV directly, the translated language would still be somewhat different in effect because the translators have to find a way to convey the meaning to their contemporary audience rather than using archaic words and expressions. Plus, there is the potential of KJV only to be a divisive issue, and I have a strong suspicion I have encountered that personally. Believers need to stick together, especially in these times, and to let the issue of Bible translations get in the way is tragic.
@@kathleens.laroche754 The last time I had any sort of discussion with a KJV only person, it devolved into some weird tangent where they were saying that the KJV was divinely inspired because of the time in which it appeared. Shakespeare being the greatest exponent of English expression meant that it was the perfect time to bring out the perfect Bible translation, etc etc. As usual, it made no sense. I will say that I have had trouble finding my own personal favorite translation. I've mostly settled on the RSV.... Which is typical for me. Typical that I choose a translation that is largely out of print today, so I have to scour used book listings. But it's also useful to have many translations at hand. And it's fun to compare verses from the KJV to other translations as well.
The latest example I can think of is Isaiah 14:29, where are the KJV says cockatrice. Every other translation I can find says a variation on a snake. Only the KJV says cockatrice. I actually had to look up what a cockatrice was, because I had never heard of it. And Wikipedia said that it was a uniquely Elizabethan English preoccupation. And it makes sense, the populace at the time would be familiar with it and be frightened of it. But it's another reason why KJV onlyism makes no sense. The KJV translators were engaging in a little bit of a flight of fancy talking about a dragon rooster which they would be familiar with. But everyone else in the world? Just say snake. Viper. Adder. 😂 Heck, even the douay rheims translation, which is contemporary to the KJV translates it as basilisk. Again, a snake. Only the KJV seems to be preoccupied with dragon roosters.
@caomham84 So the KJV was published, or maybe it is more accurate to say printed, in 1611. Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet was written in 1594 to 96. Shakespeare uses the word cockatrice in that play in Act 3, Scene 2, Lines 43-51. Definitely a word of its time and used among good company. I don't mean to be offensive in saying this, but perhaps part of the inspiration for the beauty of language in the KJV was William Shakespeare.
@@jimmyray5524 With all due respect, what fifth grader knows the meaning of the word cockatrice? I have a bachelors degree and I had to look it up.
@@jimmyray5524 God bless you as well.
Thanks again Tim. You are correct the KJV is the most influential Bible ever. I am so thankful for the KJV bringing God's word to the common person. My favorite as a relatively new Bible reader is the NASB 1995. I'm eager to read the LSV. I own multiple translations, because it's always good to compare and get the truest meaning. Keep up the great work Tim. God bless and Merry Christmas.
Same here, Billy. My own study and research has kept me glued to the NASB '95, even from what I've seen of the LSV.
LSV - Literal Standard Version. LSB - Legacy Standard Bible. These are two different versions.
I meant the LSB (since that is what Tim was talking about not the LSV which I also compare with). Thanks Jojo for pointing that error out.
@@mesisson Thanks Mark. I have tried a couple of versions because I feel it's important to compare versions with each other. But since I've only been reading the Bible for about 4 years I really have come to love and trust the NASB 95. I hope you and your family have a Merry Christmas brother.
@@jojo.gabriel - Thanks. My bad. I meant to say LSB.
The LSB has a footnote saying that the "eis" in Acts 2:38 can be translated as "because of." This is a Baptist translation with Baptist theology inserted.
Presbyterian theologian Robert Reymond interprets it that way in his A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. So that isnt a baptist translation, it's just another possible translation.
@David he is an outlier and it's not a legitimate translation since it completely changes the meaning of Peter's sermon and the entire doctrine of justification.
@Chemnitz Fan it would only be illegitimate if you determined what peters sermon meant independent of the word, and then determined because of contradicts the already sstablished meaning of the sermon, which it doesnt
@David So we are saved by being convicted of our sin and then repent and get baptized because our sins are already forgiven?
Or do we repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins?
You act like changing the word "for" to "because of" is just another way to look at it which doesn't effect the meaning. Except it does effect the meaning. In fact, it changes it radically.
@@chemnitzfan654 repentance brings the forgiveness of sins, not baptism, or did the thief on the cross go to hell?
Thank you, Tim. I grew up on the King James translation and value its place in biblical history. I must agree that KJV has word meanings "we don't know, what we don't know."
I can understand John MacArthur's self-promotion, but I have yet to see a copy of it. I do have an e-Sword copy of the NASB 2020 and value work from the Lockman Foundation. In addition, I have utmost appreciation for the NASB 95.
I'm interested in learning more about the Legacy Standard Bible.
My sister recently became a believer she is completely confused by the KJV. We gave her the NASB, she understands the text fine? I grew up with KJV and it's archaic style, I trust it but use the Amplified Bible for everyday use. Thank you for your unbiased view! Mike in the UK
Thank you. I’m curious as to where to find him him in scripture
The KJV is from the textus receptus just like the Luther Bible. That is very important! Secondly, it has no copyright. How can it be right for the Word of God to have a copyright? God Bless you all!
Why is that important?
Also King James Version is copyrighted in United Kingdom and commonwealth countries.
Please do some research in the future.
Actually it used to be copyrighted in 1976
The only thing that can be copyrighted in a Bible ( KJV) is extra notes. The verses alone cannot be copyrighted. The verses alone in other Bibles can be copyrighted and that shows that they were put out for money.
@@oshea2300 but the KJV was copyrighted though its not anymore because of its age.
@@datchet11 I've done a lot of studying on the subject and I've never heard that but I will check it out.
I must be dumb because I just can't understand the LSB. Most of it. I've tried reading through some parts of scripture but way too often do I need to consult the NIV or even the NLT to understand it. But usually after consulting the NIV or the NLT on a specific verse or phrase or sentence, it makes perfect sense and I like the LSB. Heck, I was trying to read Job the other day in the NIV and couldn't do it. Of course I could read the words but I needed to consult the NLT time and time again to understand it. I gave up and just read it in the NLT. Am I dumb?
Some parts of the Bible are hard to understand. Job, for example, is largely poetry, so the language can be obscure, and the NLT tries to clarify it. Other parts of the Bible, such as one of the gospels, would probably be pretty understandable in any translation.
I appreciate your insight, Tim. Thank you!
Modern versions of the Bible also have many archaic and hard to understand words as well. So to single out the older versions like the KJV for that is an overused hypocritical fallacious argument. Modern versions also use longer latinized three or more syllabled words further complicating their understanding. Whereas the KJV primarily uses less syllable words by comparison. I don't hear many people complaining about that fact though.
syllable length doesnt determine how readable something is,... can you really tell me that choler (2 syllables) is easier for a modern english speaker to understand than geneology (5 syllables)
2:14 That's a big claim. I would never say such a thing. And I work in sales.
MacArthur is worse than a second hand car salesman.
LSB is the “Greatest English translation in this or any age.” The KJV is beautiful but it’s not the best, nor the most accurate. And now it’s out of date so much that most people have issues understanding what it’s actually saying.
@@jimmyray5524 Beautiful, up to date and perfect.
If a man were merely just read the bible and not look into what is being said by way of commentary or a strongs (in case of the KJV) or reread and reread and look into cross references and search how a word in question is being used then any man can be lead astray in any translation he reads. It’s not just restricted to the KJV.
Anything a man does in this life that is worth doing he must learn; actually learning what a word means if you aren’t sure about it’s meaning must be looked up and understood. Man has become so lazy all the work must be done for him. You seem to be repeating only what every is often said about the KJV . I have a few questions for you:
Can you give an example of “most people” who have issues what the text is actually saying? Do you know most people who read the KJV? How do you know most people who read it have issues? Can the same “issues” be applied to others who read other translations?
What makes a translation accurate and how do you know it to be truth?
@@jimmyray5524 There are actually lots of examples of confusing language in the KJV for the modern reader. When you cherry pick verses, you can demonstrate your point… sure. But specific words in the KJV have drastically changed.
Philippians 3:20 in the KJV uses the word “conversation” for what is now more accurately to be understood as “citizenship.” This verse isn’t referring to a “conversation” as the modern reader would understand. Without context, something like this is misleading to the reader.
We run into the same problem in Psalm 37:14 with the word “conversation.” Again in Ephesians 4:22.
Be honest about it. I love the KJV but I also keep a dictionary nearby specifically for the terms which are no longer used in English. When you cherry pick, you can hide it, but reading through the KJV for normal people can lead to some confusion. There are tons of examples and they’re easy to find if you’re objective.
A lot of KJV only folk are interpreting the doctrine of preservation in a very specific way. Can’t it be the case that God has preserved his word in the original languages to be translated in multiple ways to convey his message to the multitudes?
@@jasonbryan3135 I was raised a KJVO so I know all about the issues trying to understand the Elizabethan English. And I know coming out of KJVO that it is a cult mindset and is not what Yahweh would want. He wants His word to be understood in the language of every person and every generation. Not just one frozen translation. If that was the case He would want us all to learn and know Greek and Hebrew and nothing else would satisfy.
@@jimmyray5524 I’ll refer you to Mark Ward who has done extensive work on that very thing. As he states there are over 400 dead words in the KJV and many more false friends.
My in laws came from Germany in 1957 and my father in law a very godly man said the only German version that was good was Luther's bible. My late wife had a graduate level of German familiarity and she HAD TROUBLE READING THE LUTHER BIBLE.
The problem is the newer translations are using a fraudulent NT and OT text. GOD delivered the Textus Receptus to the Saints in the Reformation and the Septuagint and Masoretic texts should be the basis for our texts, not Biblia Hebraica or the NA28 which are often inserting and removing proven words/verses that exist in the texts. What your father-in-law surely meant was the text was accurate, not necessarily easy to read by modern standards. Luther’s Bible in some ways is better than the KJV too. The KJV still has what’s called “The Ecclesiastical Conspiracy” in the text because King James and Bishop Bancroft demanded the implication of Church hierarchies be included in the translation. The Luther Bible, Tyndale Bible, and Geneva Bible all made it clear in their translations that no hierarchy actually exists in the NT Church. Church as a word is only used once in the Tyndale/Geneva/Luther Bibles, it’s in Acts 19:37 to refer to heathen temples, otherwise you find the correct translation of “congregation”. Unfortunately we have wolves behind all modern translations and the KJV is the best we have for English today in what I’d call a readable Bible. It’s still in need of clarifying with the origin texts.
As for Frisch and his Textus Receptus rebuttal, it was famously imperfect for the first several releases. Everyone knows that who has studied this subject in depth. There’s definitely what TR purists refer to as a definitive TR. The first near perfect edition was refined by Robert Estienne in 1550 before the Geneva Bible was printed, but the edition a TR purist would call truly perfect was the 1598 by Theodore Beza used for the KJV. There’s a later edition that many people unknowingly buy from 1881 today too, and the truth is although it’s mostly the same I prefer the earlier edition and most TR readers would concur that the 19th century was when modern Bible text tampering really took off too. Better to search for a reprinted 1598 edition like the KJV used IMHO. I want the edition I feel confident was delivered to the saints if you know what I mean 😉
GOD Bless! ❤️
KJV yesterday, KJV today, the KJV forever!!! BTW, the KJV translators personal opinions are not the word of GOD, their translation of the text of the KJV is the word of GOD. The modern translations that use the Textus Receptus to a great deal ALSO use the ungodly Critical text to some degree (including notes). The ONLY trustworthy and faithful English translation available today is the King James version.
The KJV is the translators' personal opinions. At any place where they departed from the Bishops' Bible (their base text for revision), they exercised their personal opinions as flawed human scholars. The KJV isn't magic. It's just a translation, albeit a particularly beloved one.
@@MAMoreno Well then, you do not have the absolute Word of God. Because by your own reasoning likewise, all your modern per-versions (as you know) are merely the opinions of the translators.
@@igregmart I do have the absolute Word of God: Jesus Christ.
King James Bible is the only Bible version you need.
Hispanic evangelicals use the RVR1960, which is an update on the original Spanish translation from 1569 to keep up with spelling reforms from the royal academy. I believe that's a good model to follow especially given that the NKJV already exists. So the 1611 KJV can be the "permanent" version, while the NKJV can be periodically updated as a "moving" version.
A revision of the nasb ? Johnny mac likes it ? Boy howdy I'll bet that thing is calvined up to the T..lol
The pastor at the church I currently attend went to Master's Seminary and interned at Grace Community Church, so he has a high respect for John MacArthur, but he has admitted to not agreeing with him about everything, although I believe he would agree with a lot of the translational choices in the LSB like the use of "Yahweh" instead of "the LORD" and translating "monogenēs" as "only begotten."
A Frisch Perspective - I don't see anything wrong with what MacArthur said, it is HIS opinion. I wish the comparison would have used the NKJV vs. the KJV. I disagree with your view on the KJV, but here again, that is YOUR opinion, and I respect it just like I respect everyone's opinion. I prefer the NKJV and the NASB 95. BTW I like MacArthur but I will not be getting an LSB. The NASB does not need a 2020 and 2021 updates in MY opinion.
If you claim to be a literal bible, then be consistent and put the literal reading in the text. Not in the side notes. The NASB is too inconsistent the CSB is better.
The Bible is not a ordinary book but a spiritual one, it’s not made to convenience you in your reading. Only in the guidance of God is it understandable. People can and do retranslate the Bible to make it interpret what they feel it says. God says not to add or take from His word. Satan has many counterfeits to confuse the readers. It is God who speaks through His word. That’s why the wise reads and understands and the wicked read and not understand but take things out of context. God has brought the KJV through the fire for a reason.
So if it's a spiritual book, not supposed to be convenient to read, only understandable through God's illumination, why translate it all? Why not just read it in the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic? The answer, of course, is that most of us don't read those languages, so we need to have it translated into our language.
And if that's the case, it should be translated into contemporary language, as the KJV was 400 years ago. It was a good--not perfect, but good--translation into the English of 400 years ago. The NASB, ESV, NKJV, LSB, etc., are good--again, not perfect, but good--translations into the English of (roughly) today.
@@danbrown586 nothing wrong with translating it, just keep it in its original text. If you read some of the other translations, they write in in a way to adapt to their understanding. The Bible interprets itself, by changing some of the words it no longer reveals the meaning. Satan understands that, that’s why he influences for the change, that’s why Christianity today are so confused on doctrines.
Actually, just thinking about it, has there ever been a revival with folks using a modern Bible and not a textus receptus Bible?
How can a translation that is far from the most accurate be the best?
Very insightful. Thank you! I'm very new to all this Bible exploration.
Making a note on my calendar to check back in 400 years, to see how MacArthur's take has aged.
I don't think it will make it.
@@frankdaniels1763 me neither. Meaning I also won't make it.
Great video! Thank you. I love KJV. 😊…. I also read and study other versions. QUESTION: What are your thoughts on the HCSB ( not CSB).
I used to love the CSB up until I started doing intense origin text studies…. That version is very bad IMHO. It’s better to just stick with that KJV and have a thought provoking Bible based on an accurate text tradition. GOD bless! ❤️
@@narrowistheway77 Thank you so much. 🙏🏽
MacArthur is just wrong with his comments. First of all, this translation just came out. Its arrogant to make such a claim. Its his opinion. I agree that the best English translation the world has ever seen is the King James Version. While it is not my favorite translation, it has stood the test of time. It has been in existence for 410 years. Even though it is a 17th and 18th century British English translation with updates, it is still the number 2 best selling translation in the United States as of 2021. It was also number 2 in 2011. That speaks for itself. Thats astounding!!
Great video. Was just the clarity I’ve needed!
Follow the money folks that's all you have to do.
In my opinion, a perfect translation is one that stays accurate but also is in the language of the common man...the "plowboy" that the KJV translators wrote of.
MacArthur is a wonderful Bible teacher. But for excellent scholarship I look to Dan Wallace, Bill Mounce, Gary Hill.
Other than a few paraphrases out there, we are truly blessed to have so many readable and accurate translations. Mark Ward and James White have done a great job of showing the errors of "onlyism."
Yesterday, I threw my NKJV in my backpack. And today, I left home with my NIV. And tonight before I fall asleep I will be reading my Berean Study Bible (BSB) which has become my favorite.
Excellent video, Tim!!!
I like the Berean also. Very smooth reading.
A translation I would love to see is a optimal equivalence (sorta like the CSB. A good mix of word for word and thought for thought) but based on the textus receptus! We have the KJV, NKJV AND MEV from it but all are word for word. I love all 3 but would love to see a new translation from the TR with a good mix in mind.
Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19 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.
Legacy = An example of legacy is family property that has been handed down for generations. This bible is NOT a legacy, A new bible cannot be a legacy.
Standard = The KJV is the standard, by which others are compared. Including MacArthur's "bible"
@@denisemaxwell51 Revelation was written in Greek about 1600 years before there was a KJV. The original manuscripts are the inspired legacy.
KJV sounds lofty and "proper" and very "high church," but it also needs translating on the fly. Those who love it and use it exclusively translate it themselves, perhaps unconsciously, when they encounter the KJV terms that have changed meanings, or aren't English words anymore. No one called kidneys "reins" today, no one says "conversation" when they mean "conduct" or "behavior." But somehow, to some people, to read such terms and know what they really mean gives them a kind of high. That's silly. If you mean "precede," say "precede"--not "prevent." That's an entirely different term. Good grief.
I didn't grow up on the KJV so it has no sentimental importance to me, and frankly I feel it's quite outdated and irrelevant for scholarly Biblical studies. I really love the LSB and think it's certainly the very best translation I have ever studied. Thank you John MacArther!
ua-cam.com/video/avG0piVeYiQ/v-deo.html
@@JesusSaves1611 Sorry I don't buy KJV-only heresy
@@OrsvikEnnin for that LSB:
- 1 Tim 3:16 - There is no God in that “Bible” either
- 2 Samuel 21:19 - I guess David didn’t kill Goliath
- 2 Tim 2:15 - I wonder who doesn’t want you to study????? Or rightly divide…..
- John 6:47 - believe on what? The Cookie Monster??
- Acts 1:3 - I guess the way Jesus showed himself could of been fallible since they took “infallible” out
- 2 Cor 2:17 - NICE! I wonder what “peddle” means. I guess it’s a better word than “corrupt” since corrupt is just not plain enough. Unless they hiding what they are doing like the gnostics.
- 1 Thess 5:22 - cool, I guess I can appear evil but not do evil.
- Isaiah 14:12 - don’t really have to explain myself on this one. But incase you don’t know, Jesus is the morning star, not Lucifer (Rev 22:16 KJV)
- Luke 23:42 - nice, the thief got to heaven without calling upon the name of the Lord (Romans 10:13 KJV)
- 1 Peter 4:1 - I guess Christ didn’t suffer “for us” KJV
- 1 John 5:7 - they omitted the Trinity. Nice!
I guess this is really the “best” English translation.
Also, they bracket Mark 16:9-20 in this LSB (which appears in 618/620 manuscripts) but hey I guess the 618 are wrong and the 2 which they can keep on using: Vitacanus and Sinaiticus is “better” and “earlier” than the 618 even tho they were revealed much later after Westcott and Hort distorted it… man people love their Catholic manuscripts.
Also they bracket Acts 8:37. Incase you don’t know, brackets means that the translators are giving you permission to not believed that verse or passage since it’s not in the “best” and “earliest” manuscripts (they are referring to the two manuscripts above). So I guess all you have to do is be water baptize is you don’t read acts 8:37….
I’ll stick to the AV1611 KJV infallible, uncorrupted, perfect, pure, preserved and given by inspiration words of God! Which by the way LSB does not believe the Lord will preserve the His words (Ps 12:7). Enjoy reading your book that is heretical (it’s not a Bible).
@@JesusSaves1611 I'm fully aware of all the textual issues and bracketed verses you have brought up. These issues have been thoroughly explained multiple times by Biblical scholars and apologists for decades so I see no need to address these myself and I am satisfied with the solutions provided by the experts. Goodbye.
@@OrsvikEnnin just like the scribes and Pharisees were the experts. Welp, by your own comment, it seems as if the scholars and experts are the “authority” even though the words of God does say it will be preserved and even Jesus said that. Yet according the the same scholars you refer to, they don’t believe in preservation. They say “only the originals” yet no one has the originals, they are non existent. Clearly throughout the entire Bible you see case after case that copies are inspired and preserved yet these scholars you exalt are against that. I guess in God’s mind, when the Authors were writing the first, original. God said to himself “ah I’m going to leave it to the scholars to teach the people and make them the authority that way the average Joe can follow them since I can’t really preserve my words however I could save someone and give them eternal life” lol. The ridiculousness in these “scholars”. The first thing Satan said was Genesis 3:1 and that’s exactly what the scholars say.
Hey enjoy your book. I hope you come to realize that scholars are bunch of fools and that you can get the perfect, pure, infallible, inerrant words of God which is the KJV. It doesn’t take a college education to realize the differences between bibles and to do your own research and see what manuscripts these “scholars” are using and where they come from (Egypt). However, it does take some “education” to “convince” a common person to be anti KJV only and that scholars are “smart”. But hey “the heart is deceitful above all” Jer. 17:9. Keep putting your trust in men rather than God! God bless I hope you find truth one day and stop reading a book that is full of Alexandrian heretical cult doctrines that comes from gnostics since they were responsible for corrupting modern bibles and used west cot and Hort “manuscripts” (that is intermingled with apocrypha) as the “best” and “earliest” even though that was found way after the KJV was settled.
The question to ask is- is such a " new " translation NECESSARY aside from the money making
motivation ? Until you ask that pertinent question you are missing the point
I think you got your wires crossed as you missed the 1995 NASB from this debate...
Wait…this isn’t the BibleThumpingWingnut?
I think the primary reason I am not a kjv onlyist is because there are some much easier to make modern English sense of, however when doing deep studies I use the kjv because most of strongs number and correlations into the Hebrew and Aramaic, and Greek are there, and so I don’t need a lying scholar and yes most are not being honest. To explain to me the meaning, place, or tenses of a word and I can double check my studies to ensure that my conclusions are accurate. If people only just did real studies they would see that most of the pastors, bishops, etc, and scholars fulfill Jeremiah 8:8. It’s Sad, but true.
So, what is the best way to understand and appreciate the KJV? Is there a book that explains how to understand what’s being conveyed? Just use another translation side-by-side?
Grab a strongs concordance, that has been the biggest help for me. Otherwise I will read a super confusing verse from the NLT then go back and read KJV again to see if it clicks.
The real point though is that Bible translations should be produced under the authority of the Church and not private individuals or their ministries. There is far too much of that and it undermines the witness of the Church. The number of translations in English is ridiculous and the last thing we needed was another one.
Excellent video. My same thoughts almost verbatim on the KJV. And that's coming from a guy who likes the NIV the best. I know the NIV is not very literal, but after you compare the NIV along side with AT Robertson and other greek study material, it's accurate. So NIV haters do have a legit point, but.....on a practical level, the NIV is solid.
The NIV is one of the most accurate translations in my opinion.
I have studied the ESV, NASB95, LSB, NLT, and NIV. After all, this is my main bible for study and reading is back to the KJV and NKJV.
The number of verses and words left out is a lot. Bibles that were in other languages dating back as far as 100 to 150 AD contain these verses and words.
The Textus Receptus was based on the same transcripts these ancient bibles were translated on.
I am far from a KJVO, I still enjoy studying with my NASB95 and looking at the NLT. The KJV does take a little more study. Furthermore, before reading any translation, always pray the Holy Spirit will speak to you in what you read and let him help you decide.
The LSB is so perfect you can use it to correct the KJV
@@MarkBowenLikesToThink If you feel that way, I am glad the LSB works for you.
I don't argue about which bible translation is best. I only offer what works for myself. God bless.
I think your statement "The KJV is the best translation the English language has ever seen" is a bit confusing given your statement that follows: "I don't think the KJV is the best translation for common use today." Would it perhaps be clearer to say you think it's historically the most influential English translation, but not the most accurate for the English reader today? Regardless, I'm excited for some more in-depth looks at the LSB, especially for the study editions coming in Spring.
I shall switch to the LSB when the NASB 95 is no longer available. Regards from UK.