The NKJV is my comfort translation. I find so much solace and a warmth from reading it. It was the first translation I read after leaving KJV Onlyism, and I will always love and cherish it.
A man with two watches is never certain of the correct time. A man with 10 competing Bibles that don't agree with each other is never certain of the Word of God. Rev 22:18-19 Genesis 3:1 If the KJB is the inspired word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit... I'd point out that he's not known for his mistakes.
@@douglashuston5628 The KJV is a geat translation, but no translation is inspired or perfect. The KJV has some extremely small minority readings, and a slight few of its choices cannot be backed up by any known manuscript evidence. Not to mention, language change is shortening the KJV's lifespan. The KJV translators did textual criticism, and it is still done today. You lose no doctrines by reading a modern translation.
@DanielSteel1999 I have a feeling that.. if after hearing what one behind the creation of the NKJV... share some of his thoughts against the NKJV.. does Not persuade you as to how perverse this translation is... Nothing will.. I Look at it like this,,... From Romans chapter 1 "Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts," "Who changed the truth of God into a lie," Just because a person making a video.. tells you to keep on reading what you're reading all is fine.. does NOT make it so... remember it all comes down to followers for people like John here... if he bashed everyone's translation he would have a lot less subscribers... subscribers/followers means INCOME for them... some UA-camRS.. can live entirely off of their videos... Great for them... Not so good.. for ones who want the TRUTH..
I am a Jew who believes in Yeshua Moshiach. Whenever I read any Bible, including the original Hebrew Tanach and the Greek Bret Parashah, I always ask the Almighty to send the Holy Spirit (Ruach Hakodesh) to speak to my heart and give me the wisdom I need to understand what He is telling me through His Word. I like the NKJV, but in the end, how the Lord speaks to me through His Word is what matters. It takes faith and humility to truly understand.
Great video! Well said, John! The Berean Standard Bible has a similar note system that shows you the variations. I find the BSB to be one of the most well balanced translations.
Agreed, the BSB is very good! I like how it reads smooth sorta like an NIV, but more traditional and almost akin to the NKJV at times. It's just literal enough while also being very readable in long sessions. The fact that they chose to put it in the public domain is quite a blessing. I was sleeping on the Berean Standard Bible but it's quickly becoming one of my favorites.
Again, I like your moderate approach & tonecin your videos. You hit 2 of my biggest points re: Bible translations. First, I like the textual basis notes in the NKJV also. Second, I often consult the NET Full Notes edition. When I write papers & books, I use the NKJV, primarily because so many of my fellow conservative Protestant Christian readers like it & the KJV. But when I teach or preach, I use the NASB. Sorry, but I am one who prefers the Critical Text as the basis for the NT. However, I would be interested in a video discussing your reasons why you prefer the Majority Text. Would you think about doing that?
@@dougbaker2755 you got it! Thanks for the super in-depth comment. I really appreciate these. I have no problems at all with people that are critical text advocates. I've actually been thinking about doing that and I probably will make a more in-depth video talking about why I primarily am a majority text Guy
Hi Doug... Rev 22:18-19 Genesis 3:1 A man with two watches is never certain of the correct time. A man with 10 competing Bibles that disagree with each other is never certain of the word of God. If the Holy Spirit inspired King James and his team, I'm certain he provided them with what he wanted them to have. He's not known for his mistakes. The Bible is the "A#1" obvious target for Satan. Warm regards, Douglas Post Script: the UA-cam channel "Truth is Christ" has posted a number of fascinating video's on this subject, including a "side by side" comparison of the changes from the KJB to the Modern versions. Very much worth a peek.
I use a NKJV and BSB combo and am really enjoying an enriching time in the word. Would love to see a review of the BSB and am hopeful that their Majority version comes to print. Enjoyed the laypersons approach in your video!
I actually moved from the NIV to NKJV in my first saved years for the more formal equivalent reading due to serious systematic exegetical training in the text to which I fell in love with the footers as you mentioned. But alas NA27 and NASB 95 seem to be my “adult” academic study tools, although of course consulting all is enriching and needed for a full world view so to speak. Shoutout to the NET is needed, the information provided is beautiful! Blessings in Christ, thanks for the video!
That makes two of us, Dave. Although I prefer the NKJV, I started reading the CSB this summer and I am really impressed with its accuracy and readability. It appears to be an excellent translation and I now understand why it is growing in popularity.
NKJV was the first translation i read, and it was the first translation i read the entire bible in. Its the one i keep coming back to. I havent read much of it this year, but i always refer to it. I still have it in my top 3.
Yep, I enjoy the footnotes on the NKJV, lets me know when it deviates from the TR. For serious study, alway use a word for word translation like the NKJV or NASB. For devotional or casual reading a thought for thought translation like the New Living Translation (NLT) or the New English Translation (NET).
For me, NKJV is the easiest to memorize against my more modern versions (I have ESV and NIV otherwise). NKJV just uses more interesting (and memorable) words. I love reading the old testament in ESV though.
I prefer the TR so I really enjoy the NKJV, especially where it doesn’t put the debated verses not found in the “oldest manuscripts” down into the footnotes. I also like the security of the text. A lot of translations really like to update their text for some reason and it’s really annoying. I like the ESV but their committee talks about wanting to update it about every 7-9 years and there’s just no need, language does not change that dramatically that quickly. I like that the NKJV is not interested in Constantly making updates. It makes it easier to find what the disputed translation choices are and form an opinion on them and better know your Bible and why it’s translated the way it is. That’s a lot harder to do with a constantly shifting translation. The NKJV will always be my favorite and go to translation.
I enjoyed your thoughts here John. I'm a lay person who does not read Greek, so I do rely mainly on the English. There are so many popular Critical text translations these days, but I thinks its valuable to be reading a Majority text translation. Majority/Byzantine is maybe even looked down on by evangelicals in general? Seems like it's assumed that finding more older texts and having constant textual and translation updates is better, but I have my reservations on that for sure. The NKJV is a real winner for a nice blend of readability, accuracy, and beauty. My daily reader right now is actually the Berean Standard Bible and it pairs well with the NKJV for reference. The BSB being in the public domain is a pretty awesome move, though the print editions are limited. The bigger publishers like Thomas Nelson with their Maclaren thinline series set a new high bar for me, and they can be had for around $30! Lots to love about the translation itself, but when it comes to Psalms and Proverbs for example, the New King James is hard to beat! Apologies on the novel of a comment, aha. God bless you, brother.
@@JosephAlanMeador no need to apologize! I couldn't agree more with what you said. You are right that there are so many good critical text translations, what is so bad with having one that isn't that. I agree
There have been a few times that I tried switching to the nkjv and never succeeded. Always came back to my ESV. I did, however, successfully switch to the HCSB for about 8 months. But again, came back to my hometown ESV. Familiarity is powerful.
Glad I found your channel. I primarily use the NKJV. Similar to you, I prefer the Byzantine text. I wish some publisher would invest in a Byzantine translation. I’ve often heard that the Bible market is flooded with too many English translations. Actually, it’s simply flooded with minor variations on the Critical Text. I think a Byzantine translation could get a lot of buy in!
The NKJV is one of my preferred translations for the reasons you gave in this video. I am starting to use the LSB more frequently, but I really like the footnotes in the NKJV. However, given that new versions of the Nestle-Aland text have come out since the NKJV was released, and work is being done on the Editio Critica Maior (ECM), I think that the footnotes may need an update sooner or later, as will the text itself (language changes over time).
A man with two watches is never certain of the correct time. A man with 10 competing Bibles that disagree with each other is never certain of the Word of God. A "Version" is "Like the real thing, but NOT the real thing." Revelation 22:18-19 Genesis 3:1
@@douglashuston5628 your timekeeping metaphor is interesting; that being said, if I have two watches, I am likely to be either able to synchronize the two with each other or synchronize both with a third. While this metaphor does not extend precisely to translations, I would say that most translations are close enough for life and doctrine. I have a KJV/Greek Interlinear in which the Greek Textus Receptus text used is the 1550 Stephanus text. At Revelation 16:5 the Stephanus Text reads "the holy one" while the KJV reads "and shalt be". Given the history of the text, the fact that there are two different readings does not decrease my certainty; I am certain that the Stephanus reading is the correct reading as it has greater support in the manuscript tradition, and the reading "and shalt be" is widely recognized to be a conjectural emendation by Theodore Beza. However, I consider both readings to express truths about God: one says He is eternal and the other says He is holy, and I affirm both.
While I lately use a .NKJV as one of my main Study Bibles, specifically the NKJV Spirit - Filled Life Bible, and I do appreciate the foot notes, I also find that the NKJV and the NIV are very close. And as a reading Bible the NIV is easier (for me) to understand and it flows more smoothly. And the study notes in my NLT Life Application Bible are fantastic. So I use these three together.
@@procop4063 those are all good translations, I'm confused do you mean to ask me if I think the LSB is perfect? Or do you mean what are my thoughts on the lsp?
@@joeangular I would suspect he would be the most in line with the Tyndale house Greek NT. But that's being said he would probably not have a problem with either the UBS or Nestle Texts either. He's definitely a critical text guy, nothing wrong with that btw, I just think that he's wrong lol. Just my take
You share my exact position as well, including the love for the NASB! I would use it and the NKJV more often if they didnt capitalize pronouns for deity and didn't capitalize the "law" in passages such as 1 Corinthians 14. For more literal translation philosophies, it's a bit strange to make interprative choices that they didnt really have to make.
My church teaches from the ESV so it is my default. I do agree with Dan in that it is elegant. Listening to older RC Sproul teachings he uses the NKJV and it's powerful as well as elegant. But the Gideons version of the ESV keeps many of the deleted verses in the text vs a footnote. Very nice when reading the Lord's prayer in Matthew.
My favorite 5 : NKJV MEV, AMP, NASB and CSB, the NKJV to me is the most reliable , consistent and the one I trust the most. I am disappointed with Dan for backlashing it when he was one of the general editors of it AND one of the 1st to defend it.????????
Bsb would be a great video as most people dont know much about that one including me. Main concern is does it remove the verses that critical text does?
I have used the ESV for since it came out until three years ago. Then I returned to TR based translations. I always loved the NKJV, but decided to try the MEV. I studied and preached from it for two years. It is hands down my favorite. But since Covid it has been published regularly, so I have returned to the NKJV. The NKJV has a wider publication and study Bible options for my congregants (Most prefer to follow in the same translation). It also has more premium editions which is good for me because they built better and wear out cheep Bible too fast. But I have to say that I would go back to the MEV, even though there isn’t much difference, if it was being published regularly for my congregation. I love the NKJV almost as much as the MEV.
My Messianic Rabbi prefers the NKJV for accuracy, but I have several versions and enjoy all of them. The one that I could not tolerate and threw in the trash can was The Message. My most “way out” version is called the Cotton Patch Gospels. And the version I would most like to have (in my dreams) would be all the New Testament books in the original Hebrew. I’m not a scholar, so I cannot “study” my Bibles the way they do. I study mine to let God speak to my heart, mind and spirit to edify me and equip me to edify others. I guess I’m just a simple man who loves God.
@ Yes, Jews spoke Hebrew. There are Hebrew-isms throughout the Greek texts where the original Hebrew gets translated literally. Order Sons of Zion vs Sons of Greece vol. 1 by Dr. Miles Jones for much more on the subject.
@ I suppose there may be some exceptions, but the early church consisted of an overwhelming percentage of Jewish believers. Recall the day of Pentecost when Jews from every nation were present in Jerusalem for the commanded assembly. They all heard the 120 speaking in their own languages, which amazed them because the 120 did not know all those languages but were preaching in them supernaturally. However there is one language that all the Jews from all the nations did have in common - Hebrew, which was the language of the Torah and Prophets, the language spoken in Jewish homes and synagogues everywhere. The language every New Testament writer spoke was Hebrew. The Holy Scriptures that Gentile believers were being encouraged to study were already in Hebrew. It makes sense that the epistles, gospels and writings would at least be first published in Hebrew. And Dr. Miles Jones has collected quite a bit of evidence for just that over the last 30 plus years. You can get his Sons of Zion vs Sons of Greece vol. 1 from Amazon. I think his work is conclusive.
My three special requests for KJV Only heads: 1. Stop saying that English is a very Holy language and the other languages in the world come or are from Satan 1. Stop saying that God gave the KJV Bible to Moses as already written and the gospels pre-exists Jesus. 3. Understand that the KJV Bible is just one translation among thousands of other Bible translations in the world and is no more special than, say, a German translation or a Finnish translation and etc.
Well... this should be easily accomplished as I don't know of anyone who makes the claims you're concerned about. As far as the KJB being the Gold Standard of God's word... well God is not known for his mistakes. The KJB and the modern versions are not based on the same ancient manuscripts. The KJB is based on the Textus Receptus, 5123 manuscripts that are in near prefect agreement. The modern versions have changes that are based on the "Codex Sinaiticus, and the Codex B Vaticanus." The Sinaiticus is made up of 45 manuscripts, (40 of them are only fragments, are larger portions of the Bible. It disagrees with itself 40% of the time. The Vaticanus suddenly "Appeared ' In the Vatican's libraries in the 4th century... So they claim. Both are at best, Apocryphal. I think we should consider the Holy Spirit and his guidance. If the KJB is the inspired word of God, He is not known for his mistakes. The two mentioned Codex are filled with reasons to doubt their authenticity. A man with two watches is never certain of the time. A man with 10 Bibles that disagree with each other is never certain of the word of God. Read the last paragraph of the Bible. The serpent was the most subtle of the beasts of the field.
Check out the YT channel "Truth is Christ." He has several VERY compelling videos on the subject of Modern Bible Versions. Rev 22:18-19 Genesis 3:1 A man with two watches is never certain of the correct time. A man with 10 competing Bibles that disagree with each other is never certain of the Word of God. The KJB is inspired by the Holy Spirit, and he doesn't make mistakes or omissions.
Thank you for your candid thoughts! As to Dan Wallace’s remarks : “methinks the man doth protest too much” : an “updated” English TR revision was needed, and so was produced. Would I be blamed if, while not agreeing with everything that an ancient author had written, I were to produce a modern English translation which updated a seventeenth-century translation? Scholars are intelligent and knowledgeable people, but sometimes they’re just plain silly. ……. The NKJV continues to be popular both in the US and the UK, and the two are often used together by both general readers and also serious students. Personally, I was never taken with the editions of the NKJV, until Thomas Nelson produced in 2018 its updated and excellent Open Bible, an edition which I would say is a must-have for every serious Bible student. [As a Brit, I’ll forgive the Yank obsession with red letters!] ….. it may be of interest to know that, when the translation was produced in 1982, Bagster brought out an Anglicised edition, known as “The Revised Authorised Version” (an historically better title), which proved to be very popular in the UK and elsewhere : alas! it was discontinued when Bagster was sold off, but it is still used by some of the faithful! …… I do agree that the textual variances notes now need to be updated and enlarged; and there are (as there always are in any version) places where the translation needs to be improved : but, on the whole, the NKJV is a serious translation of the Bible.
@@alex-qe8qn that's fascinating! I've never heard of that UK revision! I agree it's a much better title. Yes, whether or not one thinks that the TR is the correct text, there are many that do, in a modern translation of that text was very necessary for them.
Another good video! 😊 1. I lean more critical text (CT), but I would have no problem using a Bible with a majority text (MT) or textus receptus (TR) basis like the KJV or the NKJV. I really like the NKJV a lot too! 2. Speaking of MT, is there an English Bible translation that uses the MT (not TR) as its primary basis? If there's not, I think it'd be nice if someone or some group could do it. 3. I agree the NKJV has great footnotes. I also think the CSB has great footnotes. And part of the reason for the CSB's great footnotes is (as I think I mentioned in the comments section of another video of yours) due to the influence of Arthur Farstad. Farstad was the general editor for both the NKJV as well as the HCSB, and Farstad wanted the HCSB to use the MT as its basis, sadly Farstad went to be with the Lord shortly after work on the HCSB began, and the HCSB translation committee went with the CT, but the HCSB translation committee paid deference to Farstad's memory by including footnotes with MT variants. I'm not sure if the NKJV has better footnotes or if the CSB has better footnotes or if it's equal. I should do a thorough comparison someday, but just speaking approximately my hunch is they're more or less equivalent to one another when it comes to footnotes (though I could be wrong since I haven't gone through every footnote). 4. Another interesting translation that most people don't know much about (including me, I only heard about it recently) is the Gideons International version of the ESV which apparently is kind of like a Majority Text version of the ESV.
@@philtheo I couldn't agree more! Yeah there really isn't any major publication of the majority text. There's a couple of versions that do use it however they're either not committee based translations or they're not mainstream. Yeah I think Arthur farstad definitely had a strong influence on the footnotes of the csb. I only recently discovered that Gideon version of the ESV with the new King James readings, honestly it fascinates me I really want to get a copy.
Hi Phil... I think the Holy Spirit provided King James and his posse everything they needed to produce his word and inspired their efforts. The Holy Spirit is not known for his mistakes. Revelation 22:18-19 Genesis 3:1 A man with two watches is never certain of the correct time. A man with 10 competing Bibles that disagree with each other is never certain of the correct Word of God. Interesting... the Modern version all have a publishing company that own the rights to their version. No one owns the publishing rights to the KJB.
@@douglashuston5628 Thanks, Douglas! I like the KJB, but I'd agree with the work of someone like Mark Ward. Also, at least in the UK, I believe the British crown holds the copyright to the KJB (which they have traditionally had printed via Cambridge Press).
Hi Phil... Thanks so much for your thoughts and responding to my post. I think a person can get very deep into the weeds and nitty gritty concerning which translation or version is best. It can be very confusing. God is not a God of confusion. I think the simplest answer is the best. The word of God is an obvious target for Satan's attacks. This fella convinced a third of the Angels (who knew God by name and face) to rebel against God. You and me... we're low hanging fruit for deception. I'd suggest a side-by-side comparison of the verbiage changes from the KJB. I found this to be eyebrow raising. There is only one True God, and only one True Word. I started listening to each side of the argument about KJB only... and the Holy Spirit lead mee to fall on the KJB Only side. God's word should not change from version to version. Hey Man... Pray about it. Ya know... you can buy an oil lamp is Israel from 100 BC. Because of the antiquity, they are veery expensive. Of Corse... the guy selling it to you made it in his workshop 6 months before... I'm highly confident Satan can pull up manuscripts or manufacture them to muddy the waters. But... God Bless! Warm regards, Douglas
@@philtheo Hi Phil... So... would you agree that Josheph is the Father of Jesus, rather than the Holy Spirit? Because that's what some of the modern versions tell me. This is one of the many changes made. Rev:22:18-19 Genesis 3:1 Doing a side-by-side comparison of the changes in the Modern versions is indeed eyebrow raising. Me...? I'm relying on the Holy Spirit to show me the truth rather my own understanding.
I love the NKJV, the TR is not perfect but it differs from the byzantine in about 1,800 places, where the critical text differs 6,500. It is not to far off and the footnotes and the translation itself is poetic. Although its not a byzantine translation, i prefer it to a critical text as my main.
I am a Byzantine priority guy myself, so of course I'm going to disagree with Wallace about the textual basis of the NKJV. I was a bit surprised to hear him say, however, that “not a single one” of the scholars who actually worked on the NKJV thought it was the best Greek NT text “available today.” For staters, Farstand, for example, whom he said he worked for, definitely preferred the Textus Receptus over the Critical Text. But I would also point out that I seriously doubt that any scholar working on any translation of the NT would agree with every textual choice in that translation. After all, such choices are never made only by one translator, but by a committee, and there is bound to be plenty of give and take in textual decisions. Thus, one could probably say about any NT translation that “not a single one” of the scholars working on it thought it was the best text “available today” at every point. At any rate, the way Wallace makes his assertions, and the context in which he makes them, could be a bit misleading for those with no deeper background.
I don’t know, but Daniel Wallace seems like someone who, should I accidentally find myself walking across his yard, would have a few choice words for me
Why would older, rarer manuscripts where some scribe forgot to include a line be more accurate to the word of God than later, more common manuscripts used by most of the church for most of history?
Good video, thanks. This is informative and helpful, and it got me to thinking. I like the NKJV and use it. I have two study bibles that use it. I do understand the arguments here; they do carry weight. That's why I also use multiple translations, KJV, NKJV, ESV, NIV (I'm not crazy about this one, but I consult it from time to time anyway). I think I have an NASB somewhere. The NASB has some appeal to me also, and I am beginning to understand why a lot of people have used that through the years. As far as I recall, it reads pretty well. However, I do not trust 100% ANY translation, knowing full well how subjective and arbitrary translations can sometimes be. ALL translations have issues of one kind or another, whether they be the manuscripts that they are working with, translation philosophy, literalness, liberties with the original languages, "gender bias," clunky or wooden phrasing, etc. Let's not forget the existence of so many synonyms both in the originals and the translations, which sometimes make it rather hard to decide which word to settle on. That's why we have concordances like Strong's and a number of Greek-English lexicons to help us. I am making more and more use of these when I feel like challenging a word or phrase that I encounter in English, or am just curious how the Koine Greek expressed it. Finally, there is the always delicate issue of language change. Some folks want to embrace recent changes in English and incorporate those into their translations. The NKJV is a classic example. For me, this all depends on which "changes" they want to incorporate and why. Not all these changes are even worth bothering with. Some involve mere fads, as words come and go in popularity, here today, gone tomorrow. I'd hate to see the translators inject their Bible versions with this sort of language. Translators need to remember that the English language consists of many dialects and varieties. It is quite impossible to accommodate or incorporate all of them. But translators do not NEED to worry about trendy or ephemeral items. What they need to focus on is a reasonably accurate translation which does not come out clunky or wooden, and has a poetic, majestic, and lofty air about it appropriate for the material being translated. That's how I see it.
@@tabletalk33 very well thought out in articulated! I really respect the amount of time that you put into this comment, it definitely shows both your character and your commitment to the truth. I agree with you that referencing multiple translations is good, is well as the fact that I prefer more stable texts. I don't necessarily think we need to update the English translations as much as we do, it's sort of a rubber ruler on what the standard of "readable" is. By and large I think we have more than enough English translations to satisfy every need of anyone alive.
Yes - it is the “best of all possible worlds”. To me it is the Swiss Army knife of bible translations. My desert island bible is the TCR NKJV, Thank you- I concur, Dr. Wallace is the linguistic expert- but at the drop of the hat will promote the NET bible because he pretty much drives that translation. Money might be a factor also.
If you like the textual notes of the NKJV but like the textual basis of translations like the NASB and ESV then check out the BSB Berean Standard Bible. It’s like the NKJV on steroids but not a TR translation.
I have great respect for Dr. Wallace. My opinion doesn’t matter (but my opinion and $6 will get me a cup of coffee in most coffee shops!🤔). Anyway, I like and agree with Dr Maurice Robinson on the text, so the NKJV is about as close a modern translation that, mostly at least, follows that tradition.
I'm going to go with the version that says "His only begotten Son" NKJV. I literally spoke with the Holy Spirit face to face, the Holy Spirit said in the beginning before creation, there was only the Father, and then I spoke the words, and then he begat the only begotten, the holy spirit smiled and said, and then I was summoned by the Father. Remember guys the Holy Spirit, will convict you onto righteousness. Knowledge must increase and sin must decrease. Seek Jesus with all your heart and mind.
I've tried the ESV, KJV, NKJV, NASB and NET. I always come back to the NKJV because I see bias in many of the other translations. The ESV is the most readable and I admittedly love their OT rendering, but I can't get past the flavoring of some of the verses in the NT of the ESV. I wanted to love the ESV, but it reflects poorly in places in regards to doctrine and can't be used in apologetics - especially at John 1:18. I tolerate the Comma Johaneum in the NKJV (it interrupts the flow of the passage) and if I could get my hands on a new 2001 ESV I would.
Honestly as someone who thinks all the texts do have there value (tho I do agree that the TR is probably the least accurate) the NKJV is unfortunately (at least in my area) often overlooked and I don’t think used enough it’s one of my favorite versions to look at. Yes I use the ESV regularly (critical text) I don’t think it wise to stay “this text is the best and everything else is bad… where I live there is a lot of KJV onlyist and even some TR onlyist… I think most people agree that is dangerous but ironically (and sadly); we tend to fall in a onlyism text and that can be dangerous and uncharitable.
The C.T. preferred guys used to say the C.T. Is not that different from the T.R. Now they say the T.R. is “so bad”. Which one is it, are they similar or not?
I love the NKJV. If it had the Apocrypha, it would be my daily driver. I wish that there was a good printing of the "American Standard Byzantine Text." It has the language of the KJV, has a Byzantine text, and it's even more literal than the NASB but not as literal as the YLT.
@@kainech that's true about the NASB not being as formal as YLT, the only downside to using Young's is that is put out by one person versus the NASB was by committee
I am curious brother... to my knowledge, the NASB is a critical text based translation. You said you do not like the Critical text but that the NASB is your main English translation for reading??
@@DonHuttonJr you are correct, I said that I prefer its translation philosophy. I created my own custom nasb in a way. What I did was I wrote in the margins whenever the critical text varied from the majority text. That way when I'm reading my nasb I essentially have a majority text version of it.
@@puritanpioneer1646 when you first started commenting I was convinced you were an 85 year old man, now I know surely of a truth thou must be younger. Also, it's a columbarium for cemeteries. I install headstones in cemeteries for a living. Lol
@puritanpioneer1646 yeah I put that together from the "No Cap" comment lol Btw, you should do a video series talking about the Westminster confession of faith, I totally watch it. 👍
I use the NKJV for my daily Bible study. I preach from the KJV because the church I pastor wants it that way. I grew up on KJV, but the NKJV will make passages in the Bible pop out at you, and you will see things more clearly. I also use 1599 Geneva Bible. It also gives in many places a better understanding of Bible passages. To some folks, the KJV is their version of the Roman Catholic virgin Mary. They put things on a plane that they should not be. I enjoyed your video. You did a good job on the topic.
@@murrydixon5221 I disagree as well. The best thing to do is find a church community and stay with it. Change it from within with the support of the Deacons/Elder board.
But like the KJB the NKJB is stuck in time therefore setting up the problem of readability for future readers. I prefer the ESV / NASB for this reason and now use the NASB 2020 as it has really nailed it on the readability front while maintaining its translational integrity.
Hi Dave... You should see my ESV... Highlighted everywhere, underlines... notes in the margins... My ministry is to members of the Jehovah's Witnesses. For years I've been telling them their Bible is corrupted. Then... The Holy Spirit put on my heart a Question: "Hey Pal... Have you checked your own Bible?" This is when I stumbled onto this debate about KJB only. (I say KJB instead of KJV, because a "Version" is LIKE the real thing... but NOT the real thing.) I was stunned at what I discovered. I am now a KJB only kind of guy. I think the Holy Spirit presented King James and his team with what he wanted them to have. If the KJB is Inspired by the Holy Spirit, he's not known for his mistakes. A man with two watches is never certain of the correct time. A man with 10 competing Bibles that disagree with each other, is never certain of the Word of God. The UA-cam channel "Truth is Christ" has post some exceedingly compelling videos on this subject. He's definitely been blessed by the Holy Spirit. I'd also recommend the YT video "Gematria Genesis." It's like an authentication code God placed on his word. Change one letter... and the code falls apart. Change on number in your checkbook, and the balance falls apart. Really... it's 12 minutes long. You should watch it.
He's right and it should be alarming that he is saying this. If they used the Septuagint (Hebrew to Greek translation in Alexandria) like the original KJV did as the source for the Old Testament you've done yourself a disservice. THAT is not the word of God. You want a beautiful sounding text but if it's wrong you better have a Bible handy that is an accurate translation of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Enjoy your NKJV but get The New Oxford ANNOTATED Bible with Apocrypha: New Revised Standard Version 5th Edition which is used in accredited Biblical colleges. You need to know what the original text said. If you are not a "critical text guy" then you are not getting the original word of God, folks, and that should be concerning.
@@JohnMiles117 Agreed. You want something that sounds good but I want accuracy to original text. I guess it depends on what the individual finds as important. 👍
P.s. . . . So Dan Wallace assisted in the production of a version of the bible which both he and his fellow translators believed was no good? Thanks Dan, great job. Dan Wallace has all the pastoral understanding of a donkey trying to lay eggs.
If the NKJV was to be truly in the line and tradition of the KJV, you would have to use the Textus Receptus. At least you would need to have a Byzantine Text which closely aligns with the TR. Otherwise, you would just have another NA/UBS translation.
@@rodneyjackson6181 exactly! They're already so many good translations of the critical text, but virtually none of the TR. I see nothing wrong with having at least one especially for those people that believe that the TR is the best text, or even people like myself who prefer the majority text. The nkjv is the closest thing to a majority text translation available today that was put out by a scholarly committee.
I’ve noticed that a huge textual variant Between the NKJV and Nasb is Matthew 18:15 …. Nkjv adds “against you” and The textual footnotes on the NKJV doesn’t mention the omission in the NU for that phrase “against you”…. a huge difference in dynamic when it comes down to church discipline…. Perhaps a great video to discuss in the future?
I used to read them *all. Interesting enough, I haven’t read anything but the NKJV for the last 2 years. And I don’t believe it’s inferior. He makes points and is a great scholar, but his points are still just intelligent speculations. This “older argument” just means there’s an older preserved copy in tact. TR stuff cited by ECF’s is a curious mystery they never like to adjust their narrative too.
@ glad to stumble across your channel, may God bless your journey. I am teaching myself Greek - and it’s teaching me that apparently I’m a masochist. If a first grader can learn to read, so can I - again. Those were the best two years of my life. 🤪
A man with two watches is never certain of the correct time. A man with 10 competing Bibles that don't agree with each other is never certain of the Word of God. I think the Holy Spirit Inspired the KJB, and he's not known for his mistakes. If the modern versions differ from the KJB, (and they do in very astonishing ways) I would hold them in great suspicion. Wouldn't the Bible be an obvious target for Satan...? He is after all, the most subtle beast in the field.
@@goldenarm2118 that may be true, but I think that showing the reality of textual variance is extremely important. I think not showing them at all can lead to problematic situations
@@goldenarm2118 what I was trying to say is that textual variance are a reality, so the average Christian might as well be aware of them. Being ignorant on this subject doesn't help anybody. Thanks for the comment!
@@JohnMiles117 I understand and mostly agree with you. What I don't like about the NKJV are all the section headings. With that being said, the NKJV is my preferred translation for reading and study. I memorize out of the KJV. Thanks for the video.
Any translation that removes the singular pronoun (such as 'thee' and 'thou', etc) creates thousands of errors and to no godly purpose. William Tyndale has the most accurate NT without numbering verses...all paragraphs for better understanding. There are numerous problems with translations, and people's preference without precision in translation is foolish...just to start.
I agree with your don't add don't take away from Deut 4 and Rev 22. The problem is the Canon of the Bible was not settled at this time. Are we saying don't take away from Revelation, don't take away from the NT, or don't take away from the Bible? The reading isn't clear.
Proverbs 30:5-6… unless you want to be proved a lair, don’t add not take away from Gods inspired, preserved Word… which is the King James Bible … before you attack it, prove its wrongs??????????!!!!!!???????!!!!!???????!!!!!??????? Read and May God give light concerning psalms 12:5-7…
His comment is not worth a thing because if he worked on it, why didn’t he do something to correct what he is now complaining about. If it’s not any good it’s part his fault. It’s like working on a car engine and not taking any fault for it blowing up.
@@monopolylife although I understand what you're saying and there is some truth to it, I think the reason is because ultimately he didn't really have a say what texts do they used. Because he was not on the editing team he was simply on the secondary editing team. But I do agree with you that if you did have a major say in the translation that he should have spoken up more. Knowing Dan Wallace I'm sure he did
Here is the problem: there can be ONLY one authority. Not many. This is simply an application of logic and reason. By definition there is ONLY one authoritative word of God that He has purified, perfected and preserved. Psalm 12:6 is there for a reason. Now couple this with the perfection of God Himself. Matthew 5:48 is also there for a reason. Again, applying logic and reason there can only be one authoritative word of God. Now as an example go compare Matthew 24:13 in like Biblehub. You will find that there is ONE endure “unto” the end. And all the others have changed it to “until” or “to the”. By definition there can ONLY be ONE perfect authoritative word of God. Again this is just basic logic. And yes I indeed picked this verse on purpose. With great purpose! This verse may be the most misunderstood verse in the entirety of the Bible. And only a single Bible retains “unto” which changes everything….. Choose what you read wisely folks! It really and truly does matter!
@@Scott767300 I sympathize with what you're saying and I honestly truly appreciate how gracious spirit in how toy commented. It really means a lot. However, with that being said, my only question is how can you know what is the authority? I agree that we need to have a preserved word of God, however (I'm assuming you prefer the TR) what makes the TR the perfect word?
@JohnMiles117 mostly because I'm used to the rhythm of the kjv. it sounds silly, but it just doesn't feel the same to me. Now I will say I will use the nkjv if I'm explaining something to someone. Rather than try to explain greek context and how this word in this context is actually this and means this where as in this context, they used this, but in English, it's the same word. Lol
The kjv has Strong's, Young's,, and Cruden's concordances. I don't know of any other bible backed up with a good concordance, and, if one exists, it's probably too expensive.
NKJV is surely fading. It shouldn't be used as a primary Bible. The textual basis is, ultimately, problematic. People have a strong attachment to Textus Receptus. People should be gently encouraged to move to a better text. I should say even for TR the Trinitarian formula in 1 John 5 v 7 can't, I'm afraid be justified. It ought not even be in the Textus Receptus. It got there by virtue of the Vulgate but it has no basis in Greek. I can understand there's a devotional attachment to the text if you grew up with it but .... I find it useful when working with the Greek however. It might be useful as either an Interlinear or a parallel text could be useful.
@@cpnlsn88 although I agree with you that I'm not the biggest fan of the TR, I still think it's an extremely valuable translation because of the quality both of the translation and its footnotes. I still think it has a valuable place in daily use
@@richiejourney1840 I'm referring to the eclectic text that is used in all modern day translation, excluding the MEV, which used the TR. I believe this eclectic text does use Wescott and Hort; My issue is with the Alexandrian and Vaticanus texts discovered in the 1800s which have been used to supplant the TR since they are considered older. Older doesn't necessarily mean more accurate. But my thinking says that we have a textual tradition that goes back to the 300's but new translations found in the 1800's has caused a "rewriting" of the Greek text which changes the "uninterrupted" tradition. It's like in the 1800's, we were given a "new" Bible that didn't exist before, reflecting all the changes found in just the texts from Alexandria and the Vatican. Hope that makes sense.
@@goldenarm2118 I don't know if you are TR only or not, but be careful not to end up in a position that can't answer "How can you justify a Greek text that didn't exist until 1611?"
John Mills, if you knew the Biblical Greek manuscripts, you would know that the NKJV is the most accurate translation. Don't believe Dan Wallace, because he is very biased towards the erroneous Alexandrian of Egypt texts who were Anti-christians. There's enough historical evidence that proves Dan Wallace wrong. No one used modern translations until the 19th century when anti Christians discovered the erroneous Alexandrian of Egypt texts, also known as the critical texts.
@@AlanHales-k6i I do agree that the NKJV is a very accurate translation, but I do want to caution you. Although I agree with you that I don't think the alexandrian text is the best, it doesn't necessarily mean that nobody used it. Even in the last 70 years God is powerful use the alexandrian text to bring many to Christ. I just think we need to be more careful with what we say. I do however agree with you that the Byzantine / majority text is the best text
@JohnMiles117 the erroneous Alexandrian of Egypt texts were stored away until they 19th century. The manuscripts were so erroneous that they were thrown away, but a catholic priest found them and stored them to, until the Anti-christians, Wescott and Greek discovered them in the 19th century.
@AlanHales-k6i I'm sorry to tell you this but everything you just said was not true. For example Erasmus the man who compiled the TR himself requested that somebody look at codex vaticanus, to verify if 1 John 5:7 was there. They were not thrown away by a priest. If you're referring to Saint Catherine's monastery with codex sinaiticus recent research by Dan Wallace has shown that tischendorf account of how he obtained codex in the sinaiticus might not actually be fact. It appears that the monks of Saint Catherine's treasure that text, rather than trying to throw it away
@JohnMiles117 there was an isolated page of the erroneous Alexandrian of Egypt texts, which Erasmus put in his first KJV then a Greek scholars told him 1 Jn 5: 7 isn't in the most and most accurate manuscripts, so Erasmus compiled a new KJV. Don't believe Dan Wallace, because there's enough historical information and evidence to prove him wrong. Historical evidence proves your information is wrong.
The quality is a little bit shaky on my filming. Unfortunately I accidentally deleted the original video so this is all there is. I hope you like it
Brother, i couldnt tell also i use youtube as a podcast but good work keep it up brother
The NKJV is my comfort translation. I find so much solace and a warmth from reading it. It was the first translation I read after leaving KJV Onlyism, and I will always love and cherish it.
@@DanielSteel1999 fantastic!!! Keep reading it dude, don't let anyone tell you otherwise!
My fave too
A man with two watches is never certain of the correct time. A man with 10 competing Bibles that don't agree with each other is never certain of the Word of God.
Rev 22:18-19
Genesis 3:1
If the KJB is the inspired word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit... I'd point out that he's not known for his mistakes.
@@douglashuston5628 The KJV is a geat translation, but no translation is inspired or perfect. The KJV has some extremely small minority readings, and a slight few of its choices cannot be backed up by any known manuscript evidence. Not to mention, language change is shortening the KJV's lifespan. The KJV translators did textual criticism, and it is still done today. You lose no doctrines by reading a modern translation.
@DanielSteel1999
I have a feeling that.. if after hearing what one behind the creation of the NKJV... share some of his thoughts against the NKJV.. does Not persuade you as to how perverse this translation is... Nothing will..
I Look at it like this,,...
From Romans chapter 1
"Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts,"
"Who changed the truth of God into a lie,"
Just because a person making a video.. tells you to keep on reading what you're reading all is fine.. does NOT make it so... remember it all comes down to followers for people like John here...
if he bashed everyone's translation he would have a lot less subscribers...
subscribers/followers means INCOME for them... some UA-camRS.. can live entirely off of their videos... Great for them... Not so good.. for ones who want the TRUTH..
Dan Wallace is a brilliant scholar, but if I were to be stranded on a desert isle and could have only one Bible translation, it would be the NKJV.
Good job. I'm with you, brother. I use the NKJV for the very reasons you have given.
I am a Jew who believes in Yeshua Moshiach. Whenever I read any Bible, including the original Hebrew Tanach and the Greek Bret Parashah, I always ask the Almighty to send the Holy Spirit (Ruach Hakodesh) to speak to my heart and give me the wisdom I need to understand what He is telling me through His Word. I like the NKJV, but in the end, how the Lord speaks to me through His Word is what matters. It takes faith and humility to truly understand.
Great video! Well said, John! The Berean Standard Bible has a similar note system that shows you the variations. I find the BSB to be one of the most well balanced translations.
Ha! I commented before I got to the part about BSB. I love the BSB and would love to hear your thoughts. Also, on the NET.
Agreed, the BSB is very good! I like how it reads smooth sorta like an NIV, but more traditional and almost akin to the NKJV at times. It's just literal enough while also being very readable in long sessions. The fact that they chose to put it in the public domain is quite a blessing. I was sleeping on the Berean Standard Bible but it's quickly becoming one of my favorites.
Again, I like your moderate approach & tonecin your videos. You hit 2 of my biggest points re: Bible translations. First, I like the textual basis notes in the NKJV also. Second, I often consult the NET Full Notes edition. When I write papers & books, I use the NKJV, primarily because so many of my fellow conservative Protestant Christian readers like it & the KJV. But when I teach or preach, I use the NASB. Sorry, but I am one who prefers the Critical Text as the basis for the NT. However, I would be interested in a video discussing your reasons why you prefer the Majority Text. Would you think about doing that?
@@dougbaker2755 you got it! Thanks for the super in-depth comment. I really appreciate these. I have no problems at all with people that are critical text advocates. I've actually been thinking about doing that and I probably will make a more in-depth video talking about why I primarily am a majority text Guy
Hi Doug...
Rev 22:18-19
Genesis 3:1
A man with two watches is never certain of the correct time.
A man with 10 competing Bibles that disagree with each other is never certain of the word of God.
If the Holy Spirit inspired King James and his team, I'm certain he provided them with what he wanted them to have. He's not known for his mistakes.
The Bible is the "A#1" obvious target for Satan.
Warm regards,
Douglas
Post Script: the UA-cam channel "Truth is Christ" has posted a number of fascinating video's on this subject, including a "side by side" comparison of the changes from the KJB to the Modern versions. Very much worth a peek.
I use a NKJV and BSB combo and am really enjoying an enriching time in the word. Would love to see a review of the BSB and am hopeful that their Majority version comes to print. Enjoyed the laypersons approach in your video!
I’m curious about the BSB and would appreciate video on that.
@@danimal you got it!
I am glad you mentioned the NET bible and its footnotes.
@@DonaldAdams-n5p of course! Trying to spread the word
I actually moved from the NIV to NKJV in my first saved years for the more formal equivalent reading due to serious systematic exegetical training in the text to which I fell in love with the footers as you mentioned. But alas NA27 and NASB 95 seem to be my “adult” academic study tools, although of course consulting all is enriching and needed for a full world view so to speak. Shoutout to the NET is needed, the information provided is beautiful! Blessings in Christ, thanks for the video!
@@jamesg6297 thank you so much! That's awesome! I love the NASB as well! Excellent translations
The NLT has excellent footnotes itsmy daily reader too. God bless
I also emailed Dan Wallace with questions once and he got back to me the same day and answered all my questions.
@@NeedAVacay-y5u send me the link! I'd love to ask him some stuff!
I would youlike for you to do a video on the CSB, please 😊
@@davecrawford4377 you got it!
That makes two of us, Dave. Although I prefer the NKJV, I started reading the CSB this summer and I am really impressed with its accuracy and readability. It appears to be an excellent translation and I now understand why it is growing in popularity.
NKJV was the first translation i read, and it was the first translation i read the entire bible in. Its the one i keep coming back to. I havent read much of it this year, but i always refer to it.
I still have it in my top 3.
I love the NKJV, i also use the LSB
Yep, I enjoy the footnotes on the NKJV, lets me know when it deviates from the TR. For serious study, alway use a word for word translation like the NKJV or NASB. For devotional or casual reading a thought for thought translation like the New Living Translation (NLT) or the New English Translation (NET).
For me, NKJV is the easiest to memorize against my more modern versions (I have ESV and NIV otherwise). NKJV just uses more interesting (and memorable) words. I love reading the old testament in ESV though.
@@KenjiStandlee that's an interesting point. That's one of the reasons I like the nkjv as well
I prefer the TR so I really enjoy the NKJV, especially where it doesn’t put the debated verses not found in the “oldest manuscripts” down into the footnotes. I also like the security of the text. A lot of translations really like to update their text for some reason and it’s really annoying. I like the ESV but their committee talks about wanting to update it about every 7-9 years and there’s just no need, language does not change that dramatically that quickly. I like that the NKJV is not interested in Constantly making updates. It makes it easier to find what the disputed translation choices are and form an opinion on them and better know your Bible and why it’s translated the way it is. That’s a lot harder to do with a constantly shifting translation. The NKJV will always be my favorite and go to translation.
@@Roadietodamascus I agree
My favorite is NKJV ❤🙏🏻
Great video. Some information I hadn’t known, and I feast on this stuff! Thanks for putting it out. Love the spirit in which you come across!
@@ly257 thank you so much!
I enjoyed your thoughts here John. I'm a lay person who does not read Greek, so I do rely mainly on the English. There are so many popular Critical text translations these days, but I thinks its valuable to be reading a Majority text translation. Majority/Byzantine is maybe even looked down on by evangelicals in general? Seems like it's assumed that finding more older texts and having constant textual and translation updates is better, but I have my reservations on that for sure. The NKJV is a real winner for a nice blend of readability, accuracy, and beauty. My daily reader right now is actually the Berean Standard Bible and it pairs well with the NKJV for reference. The BSB being in the public domain is a pretty awesome move, though the print editions are limited. The bigger publishers like Thomas Nelson with their Maclaren thinline series set a new high bar for me, and they can be had for around $30! Lots to love about the translation itself, but when it comes to Psalms and Proverbs for example, the New King James is hard to beat! Apologies on the novel of a comment, aha. God bless you, brother.
@@JosephAlanMeador no need to apologize! I couldn't agree more with what you said. You are right that there are so many good critical text translations, what is so bad with having one that isn't that. I agree
There have been a few times that I tried switching to the nkjv and never succeeded. Always came back to my ESV. I did, however, successfully switch to the HCSB for about 8 months. But again, came back to my hometown ESV. Familiarity is powerful.
@@nathanielotto258 same here. You find what you love and never stray far from it
Glad I found your channel. I primarily use the NKJV. Similar to you, I prefer the Byzantine text. I wish some publisher would invest in a Byzantine translation. I’ve often heard that the Bible market is flooded with too many English translations. Actually, it’s simply flooded with minor variations on the Critical Text. I think a Byzantine translation could get a lot of buy in!
@@32wfc well said. I couldn't agree more
The NKJV is one of my preferred translations for the reasons you gave in this video. I am starting to use the LSB more frequently, but I really like the footnotes in the NKJV. However, given that new versions of the Nestle-Aland text have come out since the NKJV was released, and work is being done on the Editio Critica Maior (ECM), I think that the footnotes may need an update sooner or later, as will the text itself (language changes over time).
@@genejoy637 excellent point! I agree that the notes should be updated!
A man with two watches is never certain of the correct time.
A man with 10 competing Bibles that disagree with each other is never certain of the Word of God.
A "Version" is "Like the real thing, but NOT the real thing."
Revelation 22:18-19
Genesis 3:1
@@douglashuston5628 your timekeeping metaphor is interesting; that being said, if I have two watches, I am likely to be either able to synchronize the two with each other or synchronize both with a third. While this metaphor does not extend precisely to translations, I would say that most translations are close enough for life and doctrine. I have a KJV/Greek Interlinear in which the Greek Textus Receptus text used is the 1550 Stephanus text. At Revelation 16:5 the Stephanus Text reads "the holy one" while the KJV reads "and shalt be". Given the history of the text, the fact that there are two different readings does not decrease my certainty; I am certain that the Stephanus reading is the correct reading as it has greater support in the manuscript tradition, and the reading "and shalt be" is widely recognized to be a conjectural emendation by Theodore Beza. However, I consider both readings to express truths about God: one says He is eternal and the other says He is holy, and I affirm both.
I love the NKJV. It is probably my second favorite translation behind the ESV. I am glad we have such a quality version of the TR.
NKJV and ESV are not TR.
I’m with you on this my brother!
@@richiejourney1840 Amen bro! Always happy to have another one in the ranks!
Comparison with MEV?
While I lately use a .NKJV as one of my main Study Bibles, specifically the NKJV Spirit - Filled Life Bible, and I do appreciate the foot notes, I also find that the NKJV and the NIV are very close. And as a reading Bible the NIV is easier (for me) to understand and it flows more smoothly. And the study notes in my NLT Life Application Bible are fantastic. So I use these three together.
@@kennethwolf3598 that's awesome! Honestly using all three of those you can't go wrong.
Fantastic thoughts!
For me brother my church went from KJV to NASB 95 20 years ago. I flipped to NKJV back about five years ago... Now it's the LSB is perfect?.
@@procop4063 those are all good translations, I'm confused do you mean to ask me if I think the LSB is perfect? Or do you mean what are my thoughts on the lsp?
at 7:14 Which critical text does DW think is the most accurate text the translators should follow?
@@joeangular I would suspect he would be the most in line with the Tyndale house Greek NT. But that's being said he would probably not have a problem with either the UBS or Nestle Texts either. He's definitely a critical text guy, nothing wrong with that btw, I just think that he's wrong lol. Just my take
@ thx. I think the same. I prefer Family 35 from Pickering
I would love to hear what you think about the BSB
@@SDsc0rch I'll make a video about that soon!
You share my exact position as well, including the love for the NASB! I would use it and the NKJV more often if they didnt capitalize pronouns for deity and didn't capitalize the "law" in passages such as 1 Corinthians 14. For more literal translation philosophies, it's a bit strange to make interprative choices that they didnt really have to make.
My church teaches from the ESV so it is my default. I do agree with Dan in that it is elegant. Listening to older RC Sproul teachings he uses the NKJV and it's powerful as well as elegant. But the Gideons version of the ESV keeps many of the deleted verses in the text vs a footnote. Very nice when reading the Lord's prayer in Matthew.
My favorite 5 : NKJV MEV, AMP, NASB and CSB, the NKJV to me is the most reliable , consistent and the one I trust the most. I am disappointed with Dan for backlashing it when he was one of the general editors of it AND one of the 1st to defend it.????????
Bsb would be a great video as most people dont know much about that one including me. Main concern is does it remove the verses that critical text does?
@@Sgomes-is4or I don't believe it does, I'll have to double check.
I have used the ESV for since it came out until three years ago. Then I returned to TR based translations. I always loved the NKJV, but decided to try the MEV. I studied and preached from it for two years. It is hands down my favorite.
But since Covid it has been published regularly, so I have returned to the NKJV. The NKJV has a wider publication and study Bible options for my congregants (Most prefer to follow in the same translation). It also has more premium editions which is good for me because they built better and wear out cheep Bible too fast.
But I have to say that I would go back to the MEV, even though there isn’t much difference, if it was being published regularly for my congregation.
I love the NKJV almost as much as the MEV.
The notes in the (H)CSB are similarly excellent
My Messianic Rabbi prefers the NKJV for accuracy, but I have several versions and enjoy all of them. The one that I could not tolerate and threw in the trash can was The Message. My most “way out” version is called the Cotton Patch Gospels. And the version I would most like to have (in my dreams) would be all the New Testament books in the original Hebrew. I’m not a scholar, so I cannot “study” my Bibles the way they do. I study mine to let God speak to my heart, mind and spirit to edify me and equip me to edify others. I guess I’m just a simple man who loves God.
New Testament in the original Hebrew..?
@ Yes, Jews spoke Hebrew. There are Hebrew-isms throughout the Greek texts where the original Hebrew gets translated literally. Order Sons of Zion vs Sons of Greece vol. 1 by Dr. Miles Jones for much more on the subject.
@@Bobbychildree I understand all that, but you think the entire NT was originally *written* in Hebrew?
@ I suppose there may be some exceptions, but the early church consisted of an overwhelming percentage of Jewish believers. Recall the day of Pentecost when Jews from every nation were present in Jerusalem for the commanded assembly. They all heard the 120 speaking in their own languages, which amazed them because the 120 did not know all those languages but were preaching in them supernaturally. However there is one language that all the Jews from all the nations did have in common - Hebrew, which was the language of the Torah and Prophets, the language spoken in Jewish homes and synagogues everywhere. The language every New Testament writer spoke was Hebrew. The Holy Scriptures that Gentile believers were being encouraged to study were already in Hebrew. It makes sense that the epistles, gospels and writings would at least be first published in Hebrew. And Dr. Miles Jones has collected quite a bit of evidence for just that over the last 30 plus years. You can get his Sons of Zion vs Sons of Greece vol. 1 from Amazon. I think his work is conclusive.
@ I don't need the lesson/speculation, but thanks for the reference, I'll check it out!
I enjoy the NKJV. Currently reading through the KJV
My three special requests for KJV Only heads:
1. Stop saying that English is a very Holy language and the other languages in the world come or are from Satan
1. Stop saying that God gave the KJV Bible to Moses as already written and the gospels pre-exists Jesus.
3. Understand that the KJV Bible is just one translation among thousands of other Bible translations in the world and is no more special than, say, a German translation or a Finnish translation and etc.
@@danielmalinen6337 well said!
never heard any one who is usually labeled as kjv onlyist to say these things. can you point me?
Well... this should be easily accomplished as I don't know of anyone who makes the claims you're concerned about.
As far as the KJB being the Gold Standard of God's word... well God is not known for his mistakes.
The KJB and the modern versions are not based on the same ancient manuscripts.
The KJB is based on the Textus Receptus, 5123 manuscripts that are in near prefect agreement.
The modern versions have changes that are based on the "Codex Sinaiticus, and the Codex B Vaticanus." The Sinaiticus is made up of 45 manuscripts, (40 of them are only fragments, are larger portions of the Bible. It disagrees with itself 40% of the time. The Vaticanus suddenly "Appeared
' In the Vatican's libraries in the 4th century... So they claim. Both are at best, Apocryphal.
I think we should consider the Holy Spirit and his guidance. If the KJB is the inspired word of God, He is not known for his mistakes.
The two mentioned Codex are filled with reasons to doubt their authenticity.
A man with two watches is never certain of the time. A man with 10 Bibles that disagree with each other is never certain of the word of God.
Read the last paragraph of the Bible.
The serpent was the most subtle of the beasts of the field.
@@douglashuston5628 I would add that these so called “old” manuscripts have never been chemically test, so for me, I do not accept them at all.
Awesome video man! If you're familiar enough with it, think you could make a video on the ESV?
@@cody5879 I'm making one now actually 😂
Id love to see a video on the legacy bible it is pretty new and would like a look of it through your eyes
@@theonly1689 it's funny that you mention that I'm actually working on it right now
Check out the YT channel "Truth is Christ." He has several VERY compelling videos on the subject of Modern Bible Versions.
Rev 22:18-19
Genesis 3:1
A man with two watches is never certain of the correct time.
A man with 10 competing Bibles that disagree with each other is never certain of the Word of God.
The KJB is inspired by the Holy Spirit, and he doesn't make mistakes or omissions.
Thank you for your candid thoughts! As to Dan Wallace’s remarks : “methinks the man doth protest too much” : an “updated” English TR revision was needed, and so was produced. Would I be blamed if, while not agreeing with everything that an ancient author had written, I were to produce a modern English translation which updated a seventeenth-century translation? Scholars are intelligent and knowledgeable people, but sometimes they’re just plain silly. ……. The NKJV continues to be popular both in the US and the UK, and the two are often used together by both general readers and also serious students. Personally, I was never taken with the editions of the NKJV, until Thomas Nelson produced in 2018 its updated and excellent Open Bible, an edition which I would say is a must-have for every serious Bible student. [As a Brit, I’ll forgive the Yank obsession with red letters!] ….. it may be of interest to know that, when the translation was produced in 1982, Bagster brought out an Anglicised edition, known as “The Revised Authorised Version” (an historically better title), which proved to be very popular in the UK and elsewhere : alas! it was discontinued when Bagster was sold off, but it is still used by some of the faithful! …… I do agree that the textual variances notes now need to be updated and enlarged; and there are (as there always are in any version) places where the translation needs to be improved : but, on the whole, the NKJV is a serious translation of the Bible.
@@alex-qe8qn that's fascinating! I've never heard of that UK revision! I agree it's a much better title. Yes, whether or not one thinks that the TR is the correct text, there are many that do, in a modern translation of that text was very necessary for them.
Another good video! 😊
1. I lean more critical text (CT), but I would have no problem using a Bible with a majority text (MT) or textus receptus (TR) basis like the KJV or the NKJV. I really like the NKJV a lot too!
2. Speaking of MT, is there an English Bible translation that uses the MT (not TR) as its primary basis? If there's not, I think it'd be nice if someone or some group could do it.
3. I agree the NKJV has great footnotes. I also think the CSB has great footnotes. And part of the reason for the CSB's great footnotes is (as I think I mentioned in the comments section of another video of yours) due to the influence of Arthur Farstad. Farstad was the general editor for both the NKJV as well as the HCSB, and Farstad wanted the HCSB to use the MT as its basis, sadly Farstad went to be with the Lord shortly after work on the HCSB began, and the HCSB translation committee went with the CT, but the HCSB translation committee paid deference to Farstad's memory by including footnotes with MT variants. I'm not sure if the NKJV has better footnotes or if the CSB has better footnotes or if it's equal. I should do a thorough comparison someday, but just speaking approximately my hunch is they're more or less equivalent to one another when it comes to footnotes (though I could be wrong since I haven't gone through every footnote).
4. Another interesting translation that most people don't know much about (including me, I only heard about it recently) is the Gideons International version of the ESV which apparently is kind of like a Majority Text version of the ESV.
@@philtheo I couldn't agree more! Yeah there really isn't any major publication of the majority text. There's a couple of versions that do use it however they're either not committee based translations or they're not mainstream. Yeah I think Arthur farstad definitely had a strong influence on the footnotes of the csb. I only recently discovered that Gideon version of the ESV with the new King James readings, honestly it fascinates me I really want to get a copy.
Hi Phil...
I think the Holy Spirit provided King James and his posse everything they needed to produce his word and inspired their efforts.
The Holy Spirit is not known for his mistakes.
Revelation 22:18-19
Genesis 3:1
A man with two watches is never certain of the correct time.
A man with 10 competing Bibles that disagree with each other is never certain of the correct Word of God.
Interesting... the Modern version all have a publishing company that own the rights to their version.
No one owns the publishing rights to the KJB.
@@douglashuston5628 Thanks, Douglas! I like the KJB, but I'd agree with the work of someone like Mark Ward. Also, at least in the UK, I believe the British crown holds the copyright to the KJB (which they have traditionally had printed via Cambridge Press).
Hi Phil...
Thanks so much for your thoughts and responding to my post. I think a person can get very deep into the weeds and nitty gritty concerning which translation or version is best.
It can be very confusing. God is not a God of confusion.
I think the simplest answer is the best. The word of God is an obvious target for Satan's attacks. This fella convinced a third of the Angels (who knew God by name and face) to rebel against God. You and me... we're low hanging fruit for deception.
I'd suggest a side-by-side comparison of the verbiage changes from the KJB. I found this to be eyebrow raising. There is only one True God, and only one True Word.
I started listening to each side of the argument about KJB only... and the Holy Spirit lead mee to fall on the KJB Only side. God's word should not change from version to version.
Hey Man... Pray about it.
Ya know... you can buy an oil lamp is Israel from 100 BC. Because of the antiquity, they are veery expensive. Of Corse... the guy selling it to you made it in his workshop 6 months before...
I'm highly confident Satan can pull up manuscripts or manufacture them to muddy the waters.
But... God Bless!
Warm regards,
Douglas
@@philtheo Hi Phil...
So... would you agree that Josheph is the Father of Jesus, rather than the Holy Spirit? Because that's what some of the modern versions tell me. This is one of the many changes made.
Rev:22:18-19
Genesis 3:1
Doing a side-by-side comparison of the changes in the Modern versions is indeed eyebrow raising.
Me...? I'm relying on the Holy Spirit to show me the truth rather my own understanding.
I love the NKJV, the TR is not perfect but it differs from the byzantine in about 1,800 places, where the critical text differs 6,500. It is not to far off and the footnotes and the translation itself is poetic. Although its not a byzantine translation, i prefer it to a critical text as my main.
I am a Byzantine priority guy myself, so of course I'm going to disagree with Wallace about the textual basis of the NKJV. I was a bit surprised to hear him say, however, that “not a single one” of the scholars who actually worked on the NKJV thought it was the best Greek NT text “available today.” For staters, Farstand, for example, whom he said he worked for, definitely preferred the Textus Receptus over the Critical Text. But I would also point out that I seriously doubt that any scholar working on any translation of the NT would agree with every textual choice in that translation. After all, such choices are never made only by one translator, but by a committee, and there is bound to be plenty of give and take in textual decisions. Thus, one could probably say about any NT translation that “not a single one” of the scholars working on it thought it was the best text “available today” at every point. At any rate, the way Wallace makes his assertions, and the context in which he makes them, could be a bit misleading for those with no deeper background.
@@PastorKThroop I think that he meant that none of them thought the TR itself was the best text, that they either were CT guys or MAJ/BYZ guys.
I don’t know, but Daniel Wallace seems like someone who, should I accidentally find myself walking across his yard, would have a few choice words for me
@@thescarletandgrey2505 😂😂 I think he's like one of those guys that looks really angry, but then you find out it's the nicest guy ever lol
Lol!
Why would older, rarer manuscripts where some scribe forgot to include a line be more accurate to the word of God than later, more common manuscripts used by most of the church for most of history?
Good video, thanks. This is informative and helpful, and it got me to thinking.
I like the NKJV and use it. I have two study bibles that use it. I do understand the arguments here; they do carry weight. That's why I also use multiple translations, KJV, NKJV, ESV, NIV (I'm not crazy about this one, but I consult it from time to time anyway). I think I have an NASB somewhere. The NASB has some appeal to me also, and I am beginning to understand why a lot of people have used that through the years. As far as I recall, it reads pretty well. However, I do not trust 100% ANY translation, knowing full well how subjective and arbitrary translations can sometimes be.
ALL translations have issues of one kind or another, whether they be the manuscripts that they are working with, translation philosophy, literalness, liberties with the original languages, "gender bias," clunky or wooden phrasing, etc. Let's not forget the existence of so many synonyms both in the originals and the translations, which sometimes make it rather hard to decide which word to settle on. That's why we have concordances like Strong's and a number of Greek-English lexicons to help us. I am making more and more use of these when I feel like challenging a word or phrase that I encounter in English, or am just curious how the Koine Greek expressed it.
Finally, there is the always delicate issue of language change. Some folks want to embrace recent changes in English and incorporate those into their translations. The NKJV is a classic example. For me, this all depends on which "changes" they want to incorporate and why. Not all these changes are even worth bothering with. Some involve mere fads, as words come and go in popularity, here today, gone tomorrow. I'd hate to see the translators inject their Bible versions with this sort of language. Translators need to remember that the English language consists of many dialects and varieties. It is quite impossible to accommodate or incorporate all of them. But translators do not NEED to worry about trendy or ephemeral items. What they need to focus on is a reasonably accurate translation which does not come out clunky or wooden, and has a poetic, majestic, and lofty air about it appropriate for the material being translated. That's how I see it.
@@tabletalk33 very well thought out in articulated! I really respect the amount of time that you put into this comment, it definitely shows both your character and your commitment to the truth. I agree with you that referencing multiple translations is good, is well as the fact that I prefer more stable texts. I don't necessarily think we need to update the English translations as much as we do, it's sort of a rubber ruler on what the standard of "readable" is. By and large I think we have more than enough English translations to satisfy every need of anyone alive.
Yes - it is the “best of all possible worlds”. To me it is the Swiss Army knife of bible translations. My desert island bible is the TCR NKJV,
Thank you- I concur, Dr. Wallace is the linguistic expert- but at the drop of the hat will promote the NET bible because he pretty much drives that translation. Money might be a factor also.
If you like the textual notes of the NKJV but like the textual basis of translations like the NASB and ESV then check out the BSB Berean Standard Bible. It’s like the NKJV on steroids but not a TR translation.
@@wendellpowell5838 I love the BSB it's a great translation.
I have great respect for Dr. Wallace.
My opinion doesn’t matter (but my opinion and $6 will get me a cup of coffee in most coffee shops!🤔). Anyway, I like and agree with Dr Maurice Robinson on the text, so the NKJV is about as close a modern translation that, mostly at least, follows that tradition.
@@aldeureaux5184 fantastic! Your opinion is worth more then 6$ 😂 I love DR Robinson!
@@JohnMiles117❤
Love NKJV. Cool video thanks
I'm going to go with the version that says "His only begotten Son" NKJV. I literally spoke with the Holy Spirit face to face, the Holy Spirit said in the beginning before creation, there was only the Father, and then I spoke the words, and then he begat the only begotten, the holy spirit smiled and said, and then I was summoned by the Father.
Remember guys the Holy Spirit, will convict you onto righteousness. Knowledge must increase and sin must decrease. Seek Jesus with all your heart and mind.
I've tried the ESV, KJV, NKJV, NASB and NET. I always come back to the NKJV because I see bias in many of the other translations. The ESV is the most readable and I admittedly love their OT rendering, but I can't get past the flavoring of some of the verses in the NT of the ESV.
I wanted to love the ESV, but it reflects poorly in places in regards to doctrine and can't be used in apologetics - especially at John 1:18.
I tolerate the Comma Johaneum in the NKJV (it interrupts the flow of the passage) and if I could get my hands on a new 2001 ESV I would.
Honestly as someone who thinks all the texts do have there value (tho I do agree that the TR is probably the least accurate) the NKJV is unfortunately (at least in my area) often overlooked and I don’t think used enough it’s one of my favorite versions to look at. Yes I use the ESV regularly (critical text) I don’t think it wise to stay “this text is the best and everything else is bad… where I live there is a lot of KJV onlyist and even some TR onlyist… I think most people agree that is dangerous but ironically (and sadly); we tend to fall in a onlyism text and that can be dangerous and uncharitable.
@@joshuasherrill6441 fantastic! Very well said. I agree whole hearted
The C.T. preferred guys used to say the C.T. Is not that different from the T.R.
Now they say the T.R. is “so bad”.
Which one is it, are they similar or not?
@@RevDavidReyes they are actually pretty similar. It's just that where they do differ from each other they differ significantly.
@@JohnMiles117 haha sorry i was being moody
@RevDavidReyes it's all good 👍
I'm Majority Preferred, NKJV is definitely my translation of choice.
@@UNAJacob1985 same here!
I strongly urge anyone seeing this to read Dave Brunn's book, One Bible, Many Versions. Also, watch his youtube video based on the book.
I love the NKJV. If it had the Apocrypha, it would be my daily driver. I wish that there was a good printing of the "American Standard Byzantine Text." It has the language of the KJV, has a Byzantine text, and it's even more literal than the NASB but not as literal as the YLT.
@@kainech that's true about the NASB not being as formal as YLT, the only downside to using Young's is that is put out by one person versus the NASB was by committee
I am curious brother... to my knowledge, the NASB is a critical text based translation. You said you do not like the Critical text but that the NASB is your main English translation for reading??
@@DonHuttonJr you are correct, I said that I prefer its translation philosophy. I created my own custom nasb in a way. What I did was I wrote in the margins whenever the critical text varied from the majority text. That way when I'm reading my nasb I essentially have a majority text version of it.
@@JohnMiles117 Cool cool. Interesting. I was just interested and curious. Good thing Im not a cat, huh? Lol
@DonHuttonJr very good! 😂
Casual indeed, bros always got the best scenery, but haven't seen that structure before, no cap
@@puritanpioneer1646 when you first started commenting I was convinced you were an 85 year old man, now I know surely of a truth thou must be younger.
Also, it's a columbarium for cemeteries. I install headstones in cemeteries for a living. Lol
@@JohnMiles117 so you're the guy we call when bad theology needs burying, huh? ;)
@@joelmcleay 😂 something I've noticed from the industry, unfortunately even when you bury the man histology somehow stays alive lol
@@JohnMiles117 LOL, I'm 18
@puritanpioneer1646 yeah I put that together from the "No Cap" comment lol
Btw, you should do a video series talking about the Westminster confession of faith, I totally watch it. 👍
I use the NKJV for my daily Bible study. I preach from the KJV because the church I pastor wants it that way. I grew up on KJV, but the NKJV will make passages in the Bible pop out at you, and you will see things more clearly. I also use 1599 Geneva Bible. It also gives in many places a better understanding of Bible passages. To some folks, the KJV is their version of the Roman Catholic virgin Mary. They put things on a plane that they should not be. I enjoyed your video. You did a good job on the topic.
If there is that much of a gulf between you and your church, you should probably move on
@@murrydixon5221 I disagree with you. It sounds to me that Chris is in a good place right now. God bless him.
@@murrydixon5221 I disagree as well. The best thing to do is find a church community and stay with it. Change it from within with the support of the Deacons/Elder board.
Just because the 'best manuscripts' are older, does not make them better.
@@DavidRodriguez-hg6kq agree
But like the KJB the NKJB is stuck in time therefore setting up the problem of readability for future readers.
I prefer the ESV / NASB for this reason and now use the NASB 2020 as it has really nailed it on the readability front while maintaining its translational integrity.
I don’t think English has really changed that much since 1984.
@
True but there must be a commitment to doing so as needed or we run the risk of making another semi idol of it .
I can go with NASB95 bracketing verses not in Critical Text.
I don't like ESV, NIV NASB20 putting it down in footnotes, if at all.
I Don't Think There Is A Right Or Wrong Bible. As Long As It's The Word Of God.I Have 5 Versions Of The Bible.
@@davewhitehead135 well said!
Hi Dave...
You should see my ESV... Highlighted everywhere, underlines... notes in the margins...
My ministry is to members of the Jehovah's Witnesses. For years I've been telling them their Bible is corrupted. Then... The Holy Spirit put on my heart a Question: "Hey Pal... Have you checked your own Bible?"
This is when I stumbled onto this debate about KJB only. (I say KJB instead of KJV, because a "Version" is LIKE the real thing... but NOT the real thing.)
I was stunned at what I discovered. I am now a KJB only kind of guy. I think the Holy Spirit presented King James and his team with what he wanted them to have.
If the KJB is Inspired by the Holy Spirit, he's not known for his mistakes.
A man with two watches is never certain of the correct time.
A man with 10 competing Bibles that disagree with each other, is never certain of the Word of God.
The UA-cam channel "Truth is Christ" has post some exceedingly compelling videos on this subject. He's definitely been blessed by the Holy Spirit.
I'd also recommend the YT video "Gematria Genesis." It's like an authentication code God placed on his word. Change one letter... and the code falls apart.
Change on number in your checkbook, and the balance falls apart.
Really... it's 12 minutes long. You should watch it.
Do you use the WEB? :)
@@lutefisk01 recently I've started to use it a little bit more. My personal opinion is I still think the nkjv is better
@JohnMiles117 And so much easier to get nice bindings, large font etc ... BSB and WEB in paper are heavy/for home/office use. :)
Did the KJ translators know Greek?
@@dougarters2691 yes they did.
I Have The NKJV Bible. I Like It Because It's More Modern.
While the KJV is my primary translation, I really like the NKJV. The footnotes are good, but they are dated and need to be updated.
He's right and it should be alarming that he is saying this. If they used the Septuagint (Hebrew to Greek translation in Alexandria) like the original KJV did as the source for the Old Testament you've done yourself a disservice. THAT is not the word of God. You want a beautiful sounding text but if it's wrong you better have a Bible handy that is an accurate translation of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
Enjoy your NKJV but get The New Oxford ANNOTATED Bible with Apocrypha: New Revised Standard Version 5th Edition which is used in accredited Biblical colleges. You need to know what the original text said.
If you are not a "critical text guy" then you are not getting the original word of God, folks, and that should be concerning.
@@crcurran praise that Lord that we have the freedom to disagree and still be brothers in Christ. 👍
@@JohnMiles117 Agreed. You want something that sounds good but I want accuracy to original text. I guess it depends on what the individual finds as important. 👍
P.s. . . . So Dan Wallace assisted in the production of a version of the bible which both he and his fellow translators believed was no good? Thanks Dan, great job. Dan Wallace has all the pastoral understanding of a donkey trying to lay eggs.
If the NKJV was to be truly in the line and tradition of the KJV, you would have to use the Textus Receptus. At least you would need to have a Byzantine Text which closely aligns with the TR. Otherwise, you would just have another NA/UBS translation.
@@rodneyjackson6181 exactly! They're already so many good translations of the critical text, but virtually none of the TR. I see nothing wrong with having at least one especially for those people that believe that the TR is the best text, or even people like myself who prefer the majority text. The nkjv is the closest thing to a majority text translation available today that was put out by a scholarly committee.
@JohnMiles117 agree brother!
The title should be changed to ESV, is it really that bad.
I Don't Think It Really Matters What Version Of The Bible You Read From. As L9ng As It's The Word Of God.
I’ve noticed that a huge textual variant Between the NKJV and Nasb is Matthew 18:15 …. Nkjv adds “against you” and The textual footnotes on the NKJV doesn’t mention the omission in the NU for that phrase “against you”…. a huge difference in dynamic when it comes down to church discipline…. Perhaps a great video to discuss in the future?
@@conceptionproductions4649 very interesting! 🤔 I'll do one on it!
Check out Luke 2:14 it's completely different in most Bibles. I trust the KJ and NKJ.
I used to read them *all. Interesting enough, I haven’t read anything but the NKJV for the last 2 years.
And I don’t believe it’s inferior. He makes points and is a great scholar, but his points are still just intelligent speculations.
This “older argument” just means there’s an older preserved copy in tact. TR stuff cited by ECF’s is a curious mystery they never like to adjust their narrative too.
@@Dirkkkkk I agree, well said
@ glad to stumble across your channel, may God bless your journey. I am teaching myself Greek - and it’s teaching me that apparently I’m a masochist.
If a first grader can learn to read, so can I - again. Those were the best two years of my life. 🤪
@Dirkkkkk so true! 😂😂. It's a painful journey learning at first, but it is well worth the effort!
A man with two watches is never certain of the correct time. A man with 10 competing Bibles that don't agree with each other is never certain of the Word of God.
I think the Holy Spirit Inspired the KJB, and he's not known for his mistakes. If the modern versions differ from the KJB, (and they do in very astonishing ways) I would hold them in great suspicion.
Wouldn't the Bible be an obvious target for Satan...? He is after all, the most subtle beast in the field.
Some people argue that the NKJV footnote, showing the alternate readings, creates more doubt on what was actually said.
@@goldenarm2118 that may be true, but I think that showing the reality of textual variance is extremely important. I think not showing them at all can lead to problematic situations
@@goldenarm2118 what I was trying to say is that textual variance are a reality, so the average Christian might as well be aware of them. Being ignorant on this subject doesn't help anybody. Thanks for the comment!
@@JohnMiles117 I understand and mostly agree with you. What I don't like about the NKJV are all the section headings. With that being said, the NKJV is my preferred translation for reading and study. I memorize out of the KJV. Thanks for the video.
@goldenarm2118 thanks for the discussion. Honestly you can't go wrong with either of those translations. 👍
Any translation that removes the singular pronoun (such as 'thee' and 'thou', etc) creates thousands of errors and to no godly purpose. William Tyndale has the most accurate NT without numbering verses...all paragraphs for better understanding. There are numerous problems with translations, and people's preference without precision in translation is foolish...just to start.
bravo! well done! : )
@@SDsc0rch thank you so much!
Dan Wallace is very arrogant.
Our thoughts don’t matter. God says don’t add don’t take away… settled.
What do you mean?
I agree with your don't add don't take away from Deut 4 and Rev 22. The problem is the Canon of the Bible was not settled at this time. Are we saying don't take away from Revelation, don't take away from the NT, or don't take away from the Bible? The reading isn't clear.
Proverbs 30:5-6… unless you want to be proved a lair, don’t add not take away from Gods inspired, preserved Word… which is the King James Bible … before you attack it, prove its wrongs??????????!!!!!!???????!!!!!???????!!!!!??????? Read and May God give light concerning psalms 12:5-7…
His comment is not worth a thing because if he worked on it, why didn’t he do something to correct what he is now complaining about. If it’s not any good it’s part his fault. It’s like working on a car engine and not taking any fault for it blowing up.
@@monopolylife although I understand what you're saying and there is some truth to it, I think the reason is because ultimately he didn't really have a say what texts do they used. Because he was not on the editing team he was simply on the secondary editing team. But I do agree with you that if you did have a major say in the translation that he should have spoken up more. Knowing Dan Wallace I'm sure he did
Here is the problem: there can be ONLY one authority. Not many. This is simply an application of logic and reason. By definition there is ONLY one authoritative word of God that He has purified, perfected and preserved. Psalm 12:6 is there for a reason. Now couple this with the perfection of God Himself. Matthew 5:48 is also there for a reason.
Again, applying logic and reason there can only be one authoritative word of God. Now as an example go compare Matthew 24:13 in like Biblehub.
You will find that there is ONE endure “unto” the end. And all the others have changed it to “until” or “to the”.
By definition there can ONLY be ONE perfect authoritative word of God. Again this is just basic logic.
And yes I indeed picked this verse on purpose. With great purpose! This verse may be the most misunderstood verse in the entirety of the Bible.
And only a single Bible retains “unto” which changes everything…..
Choose what you read wisely folks! It really and truly does matter!
@@Scott767300 I sympathize with what you're saying and I honestly truly appreciate how gracious spirit in how toy commented. It really means a lot. However, with that being said, my only question is how can you know what is the authority? I agree that we need to have a preserved word of God, however (I'm assuming you prefer the TR) what makes the TR the perfect word?
@ Impossible to respond. Platform just gets rid of it.
@@Scott767300 while I'm listening so if it gets through I'll hear you out
@@JohnMiles117 Thanks appreciate it of course but for some reason the YT algorithm hates discussions about the KJV!
I am not a fan of the nkjv. I prefer my kjv
@@jtalks5 ain't nothing wrong with that 👍
@JohnMiles117 mostly because I'm used to the rhythm of the kjv. it sounds silly, but it just doesn't feel the same to me. Now I will say I will use the nkjv if I'm explaining something to someone. Rather than try to explain greek context and how this word in this context is actually this and means this where as in this context, they used this, but in English, it's the same word. Lol
@jtalks5 😂😂 that's actually pretty accurate
The kjv has Strong's, Young's,, and Cruden's concordances. I don't know of any other bible backed up with a good concordance, and, if one exists, it's probably too expensive.
So it seems like a choose your own adventure bible, you can add or subtract what you like or dislike.
@@JohnMiles117 textual variance* heh
@@SteadfastBeard 😂 thank you for pointing that out to me my auto-correct must have fixed it in my typing 😂 I meant to say textual variance
NKJV is surely fading. It shouldn't be used as a primary Bible. The textual basis is, ultimately, problematic.
People have a strong attachment to Textus Receptus. People should be gently encouraged to move to a better text.
I should say even for TR the Trinitarian formula in 1 John 5 v 7 can't, I'm afraid be justified. It ought not even be in the Textus Receptus. It got there by virtue of the Vulgate but it has no basis in Greek.
I can understand there's a devotional attachment to the text if you grew up with it but ....
I find it useful when working with the Greek however. It might be useful as either an Interlinear or a parallel text could be useful.
How can you justify a Greek text that didn't exist until the 1800's?
@@goldenarm2118which text are you referring to? W&H?
@@cpnlsn88 although I agree with you that I'm not the biggest fan of the TR, I still think it's an extremely valuable translation because of the quality both of the translation and its footnotes. I still think it has a valuable place in daily use
@@richiejourney1840 I'm referring to the eclectic text that is used in all modern day translation, excluding the MEV, which used the TR. I believe this eclectic text does use Wescott and Hort; My issue is with the Alexandrian and Vaticanus texts discovered in the 1800s which have been used to supplant the TR since they are considered older. Older doesn't necessarily mean more accurate. But my thinking says that we have a textual tradition that goes back to the 300's but new translations found in the 1800's has caused a "rewriting" of the Greek text which changes the "uninterrupted" tradition. It's like in the 1800's, we were given a "new" Bible that didn't exist before, reflecting all the changes found in just the texts from Alexandria and the Vatican. Hope that makes sense.
@@goldenarm2118 I don't know if you are TR only or not, but be careful not to end up in a position that can't answer "How can you justify a Greek text that didn't exist until 1611?"
No such thing as the King James Bible.
@@bobbymichaels2 do you mean because there were multiple editions of the King James?
John Mills, if you knew the Biblical Greek manuscripts, you would know that the NKJV is the most accurate translation.
Don't believe Dan Wallace, because he is very biased towards the erroneous Alexandrian of Egypt texts who were Anti-christians.
There's enough historical evidence that proves Dan Wallace wrong. No one used modern translations until the 19th century when anti Christians discovered the erroneous Alexandrian of Egypt texts, also known as the critical texts.
@@AlanHales-k6i I do agree that the NKJV is a very accurate translation, but I do want to caution you. Although I agree with you that I don't think the alexandrian text is the best, it doesn't necessarily mean that nobody used it. Even in the last 70 years God is powerful use the alexandrian text to bring many to Christ. I just think we need to be more careful with what we say. I do however agree with you that the Byzantine / majority text is the best text
@JohnMiles117 the erroneous Alexandrian of Egypt texts were stored away until they 19th century.
The manuscripts were so erroneous that they were thrown away, but a catholic priest found them and stored them to, until the Anti-christians, Wescott and Greek discovered them in the 19th century.
@AlanHales-k6i I'm sorry to tell you this but everything you just said was not true. For example Erasmus the man who compiled the TR himself requested that somebody look at codex vaticanus, to verify if 1 John 5:7 was there. They were not thrown away by a priest. If you're referring to Saint Catherine's monastery with codex sinaiticus recent research by Dan Wallace has shown that tischendorf account of how he obtained codex in the sinaiticus might not actually be fact. It appears that the monks of Saint Catherine's treasure that text, rather than trying to throw it away
@JohnMiles117 there was an isolated page of the erroneous Alexandrian of Egypt texts, which Erasmus put in his first KJV then a Greek scholars told him
1 Jn 5: 7 isn't in the most and most accurate manuscripts, so Erasmus compiled a new KJV.
Don't believe Dan Wallace, because there's enough historical information and evidence to prove him wrong.
Historical evidence proves your information is wrong.