Five Reasons I Am NOT King James Only

[@Christ.is.King2210]

I think the use of Thee, Thy, Thou, Thine, and Ye is important. That's why I stick with the King James.

[@MAMoreno]

There's no rule that says you can't use the King James. There are even parallel Bibles out there so that you can look at the King James beside a different translation. That way, you can retain the benefits of the King James (such as the distinction in second person pronouns) while also having a translation in front of you that won't accidentally mislead you with a word that has shifted in meaning since 1611.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

Do you my friend.

[@Me2Lancer]

Thanks for sharing your insights, Tim on the need for reading translations in addition to the King James.

[@joyg7575]

I love the KJV, but I am not an onlyist. Sometimes the modern translation will click in my brain. I check the KJV, I think surely that's not right and then see that it's still saying the same thing. It blows my mind sometimes!

[@AustinReddBDL]

I did a small lesson in my church on this topic (mostly KJV Onlyism). I grew up with the KJV and LOVE IT; because we owe a lot to it paving the way for every day people to have the Word of God in their hands. If you prefer the KJV over any other translation, God will bless you for reading His Word. Now, for those who think that me reading my NASB, NLT, NRSV; is bad, dangerous or heretical, that is where I take issue. God's Word has been around LONG before the KJV and will continue to be spoken, read and preached in many different languages.

[@Fairford2001]

Excellent video. I’m like Tim where when I listen to a pastor preaching from the KJV, I can understand it a lot better than reading from it on my own. I use the NKJV for personal reading but read from the NASB 1995 when going to church because it’s what our church uses.

[@carben9143]

Thank you so much for this video Tim! I agree 100% with you. Hope you have a wonderful new years!

[@TheMudPup1]

Best translation is the on you read. I stared with NLT, Now I’m in NIV. If I like NIV I’ll stay in it. I am however leaning towards NKJV eventually. I do have a KJV I use at church. I enjoy it there, my pastor teaches from NKJV. I agree it is beautiful if it’s being read to you. Thank you for your video

[@lonnieclemens8028]

Thank you for sharing this video Tim. It is common sense and logical.

[@Dachshund_Smokey]

I have posted before, That I was doing my yearly read through of the Bible using the KJV, and I have quite enjoyed it. I keep with me when I am reading the KJV a, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828 Facsimile Edition)

[@charlesf2804]

I use that dictionary too. It's great.

[@BrendaBoykin-qz5dj]

Blessings for you and yours, Brother Tim.🌹💐🌟💐🌹

[@jasonc4430]

KJV is ok, but there are more useful modern translations in English. Even the KJ translators knew findings would happen and be used.

[@tjmaverick1765]

For me it’s because there aren’t enough paragraph single columns.

[@pastorgarrettseay]

SCR Bibles are my favorite!

[@brad32443]

Testify!

[@majormattmason8408]

Very solid video! I completely agree. Another reason that I would like to add is word definition changes with time and culture. For example: The word Repent did not mean ask for forgiveness to a Biblical author. It is a translation of the Greek word Metanoia which simply meant to "Change Your Mind". (This is easily researched). Try replacing Repent with Change Your Mind when reading the Bible and defining what you should change your mind about by the context and subject in the passages surrounding the word. Some things become quite clear when you do this. Further demonstration of this are the verses where God Repents (also easy to research). Does this mean that God asked for forgiveness or that He changed His mind? God is sinless, therefore when God repents it simply means He changed His mind. God Bless.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

I touched on this with the false friends point.

[@majormattmason8408]

@@anickelsworthbiblereviews Agreed. i just wanted to add a specific example to your excellent reasons.

[@megalyon]

@@majormattmason8408 very interesting, thank you for sharing

[@stujanner]

I have a copy of KJV, and new to faith I stumbled my way through reading it. I then went to NLT and was ....oh this is different. I get an easier to comprehend read. I now enjoy reading the word in Douay-Rheims, NASB 95 & NKJV. I acknowledge I can't read Biblical Hebrew or Greek, so I will always be reading through a filter of another person's view point.

[@HollywoodBigBoss]

An interlinear Greek/English parallel helps when you want clarity on some verses.

[@HollywoodBigBoss]

@@dantombs5697 Honestly the Douay-Rheims is my go to. Not a fan of the KJV.

[@HollywoodBigBoss]

@@dantombs5697 The King James translation has never been sanctioned by the Catholic Church. I will highly disagree that the "best manuscripts" were used for it's translation as the Received Text was pieced together from between 6 - 8 Greek manuscripts. The fullness of the message of Jesus Christ is found in the Apostolic Churches where in 382 at the Council of Rome affirmed a 73 book cannon and was again upheld in the North African Councils of Hippo 393 & Carthage 397. In 405 AD Pope Innocent I, in a letter to Exsuperious the Bishop of Toulouse embodied a list of canonical books which included the Deuterocanon. The Sixth Council of Carthage in 419 AD also reaffirmed the canonical books list of the Third Council of Carthage. The Douay-Rheims Bible is based off of the Latin Vulgate translated by St Jerome between 390 - 405 for the Protocanonical text taken from Hebrew manuscripts in Bethlehem. Tobit & Judith were taken from Aramaic copies translated in 407. 1 & 2 Maccabees retained their text from the Old Latin while Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, Epistle of Jeremiah along with the additions to Esther & Daniel were taken from Greek manuscripts. Lastly the Rheims New Testament was completed in 1582, the Douay Old Testament in 1608 & 1609 in two volumes. These would be updated by Bishop Richard Challoner between 1749 - 1752 to modernize the English used. The text tradition of the Douay-Rheims is far older than the KJV and has better readings than those found in the KJV.

[@HollywoodBigBoss]

I would also suggest getting a copy of The Orthodox Study Bible as well. It uses the New King James as a base but favors the Greek Septuagint readings over the Hebrew text. It adds clarity when reading the New Testament, mainly because the disciples & Paul were quoting from a Greek Old Testament and the verses match up better when using this.

[@HollywoodBigBoss]

@@dantombs5697 That argument holds no water as Greek Biblical manuscripts were found in Qumran in 1947. Get a copy of The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible. KJV Onlyism is Idolatry.

[@genewood9062]

Thanks brother. Excellent points, well reasoned.

[@Yesica1993]

Does anyone know if all KJV Bibles come in the verse by verse format? I could deal with double column. I didn't even know single column was a thing until recently! My eyes/brain just can't handle VBV. For me it's like reading one looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong wall of text.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

Are you meaning paragraph format? Yes. Thomas Nelson has a large print Thinline paragraph style KJV.

[@guymontag349]

@@anickelsworthbiblereviews Also, the Cambridge KJV Pitt Minion is in paragraph style, if you can handle the small font. And the Cambridge KJV Clarion is paragraph format and single column.

[@Yesica1993]

@@anickelsworthbiblereviews Yes. Thanks!

[@Yesica1993]

@@guymontag349 Appreciated, thanks.

[@megalyon]

NKJV & MEV use the TR. I wish there were better modern options for people who prefer TR. I think MEV is getting an update and the BSB will do a Majority Text option with all the verses. I think Gideons ESVs have all the missing verses too.

[@MAMoreno]

The MEV already did get an update. It came out a couple of months ago.

[@megalyon]

@@MAMoreno cool I might get one eventually 👍🏾

[@syriacchristianity9007]

The KJV 2023 New Testament by Sayers is an excellent translation

[@jimyoung9262]

NLT > KJV cometh at me brethren

[@MaMaLuJo]

I love the KJV for me but not necessarily for thee.

[@joebruno1130]

Lol, good job Tim, but I expect nothing less from you. As a kid I remember a sermon on "vanity" and the Pastor quoted Ecclesiastes. Enough said.

[@BigStack-vg6ku]

Yay Tim. I’m not a KJV onlyist! I am more Like you Tim. God bless this channel!

[@sandersdca]

Your affinity for hearing the KJV over reading it is well-founded. It was meant for public reading and as such was directed more to the ear than the eye.

[@Yesica1993]

I'd never thought about it that way. I am generally not an audiobook fan. But... hm, maybe this may be a project for next year. Thanks!

[@megalyon]

@@sandersdca interesting!

[@SpaceCadet4Jesus]

In my experience, comparing different Bible translations offers more value than directly studying ancient Greek or Hebrew. While I've taken a Greek course and plan to take another, I've come to realize that even after completing these classes, my translation skills will never match those of professional scholars who create the various Bible versions. The expertise and collective knowledge behind each translation are far beyond what an individual student can achieve. Instead of trying to become a translator myself, I find it more beneficial to: Compare multiple reputable translations Understand the translation philosophies behind different versions Study the reasoning and choices made by translation teams This approach allows me to gain deeper insights into the text without requiring mastery of the original languages. It also leverages the extensive scholarship that goes into each published translation, providing a more comprehensive understanding of the biblical text.

[@majormattmason8408]

I applaud your study of the Greek language. It is an extremely difficult language. I heard a native Greek speaker say that "even Greeks don't speak Greek correctly". :)

[@megalyon]

The education point is a good one, it’s true audio is great good point - I find it really good with audio but harder without - good points

[@Yesica1993]

Thank you for being a reasonable human. I do want to read through the KJV one day. I realized only recently that I have never done so! I started off as an NIV84 girl. Then I moved to ESV and that's my main version. But I am now also reading through the NKJV for the first time. (Thanks to you!) I am really enjoying it.

[@SpaceCadet4Jesus]

If you started with NIV1984, a great translation, give the Christian Standard Bible (CSB) a try. It tends to be more middle of the road and reads great. I started with KJV, then NKJV, then NIV1984 large print, and now CSB.

[@majormattmason8408]

I usually use the KJ simply because that is what I started with and am used to it. I really like the ESV though as it incorporates differences found in the dead sea scrolls. I have about seven different translations on my shelf.

[@Yesica1993]

@@SpaceCadet4Jesus I was curious about the CSB because it seems to be getting popular. But I read Psalm 23 and kinda wanted to cry. Sorry! I'm not totally ruling it out, though. I may still read through it sometime. I think there should be a hybrid translation, where narratives are in plain language but the Psalms and other poetic sections are written in more "flowery" language.

[@genewood9062]

@Yesica1993 Hi: I think, and many would agree, that Psalm 23 in KJV is the high point of all English literature. So it is not a fair comparison. I found NLT powerful in the Psalms. I also found ESV excellent in Proverbs.

[@SpaceCadet4Jesus]

@Yesica1993 You can try the ISV, which is also good but like the CSB may be different. On your note, I did read the CSB and well...laughed. Those KJV translators had a way with words. Or you could check the Jewish Publication Old Testament (JPS).

[@chadwilham3942]

Bro, be prepared for some of the angriest and most nasty comments you've ever received. The KJVO KZbin army aren't known for their charity.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

Meh, been there done that.

[@jonathanclemens4660]

Sadly I have discovered by experience that in far too many cases leaving KJV Onlyism, especially extremists like Ruckmanites, can mean losing most of your old friends and being told you hate the Bible. But I've seen the truth and I can't turn back. Thank God for his continuous presence and the other people he puts in our lives.

[@lefthandedleprechaun8702]

I basically got chastized from KJV only church when i brought my NIV , by a guest preacher, no one stood up for me ...I have 4 versions ,including the kjv, I just like to get a better understanding of scripture....

[@jonathanclemens4660]

@@lefthandedleprechaun8702 And you shouldn't be punished for that. When I first started privately using non-KJV Bibles it felt like smuggling porn or something. It's sad, precious Bibles being demonized when the world is starving for the truth in its pages.

[@tomthomasiii9994]

​@lefthandedleprechaun8702 ▪︎ ☆☆☆ Only the KJV has Godhead ☆☆☆ The words Godhead are removed from All modern Bibles, including the NKJV Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20, Colossians 2:9 ▪︎ There are 151 English translations of the Bible. The law says that to get a copyright, it must be 10% different from the original. Are there 151 different ways to say each of the verses in the Bible? Every version except for the King James Version is copyrighted. We need to be careful. Some corrupt publishers even copyright the KJV [Thomas Nelson, a division of HarperCollins 'Christian' Publishing, Inc] ***It doesn't say can't be used, as the others (non-KJV) do*** ~~~ Just found this. Wow. The Authorized Version or King James Version (KJV) 1611, 1769. Outside of the United Kingdom, the KJV is in the public domain. Within the United Kingdom, the rights to the KJV are vested in the Crown. I'm very sad if you live there !!! ~~~ ▪︎ Hebrew & Aramaic= Old Testament Greek= New Testament 1) through Syria with 5,321 manuscripts ~ These duplicates all agree with each other-Majority Text (MT) =99.2% of available texts 2) Through Alexandria, Egypt= 45 manuscripts (40 of these 45) are just a verse(s)~ that do not agree with each other. Makes up less than 1% of available manuscripts ▪︎ The King James Version is considered one of the most accurate English translations in existence. A *skilled committee of 54 translators worked for 15 years* to carefully complete the King James translation project. The KJV is the best translation into english that's faithful to literally about 6,000 ancient manuscripts that corroborate each verse that is in it. ▪︎ God did not give us, by the Holy Spirit, 66 books which comprise the Bible, full of how He wants to be worshipped and what His character is like, full of good food and sound doctrine so that we could dismiss it and merely go on our feelings. "....because they received not the love of the truth... God shall send them strong delusion...." 2nd Thessalonians 2:9-11

[@kevinbrown348]

I love the KJV and read it often but I agree 100% with this video.

[@syriacchristianity9007]

Kjv isn’t that difficult to read, I can read through two or three books at a time. It does help that I read modern versions up until recently but would suggest something like the 1611 Kjv(with the gothic font)because there are no italics which helps.

[@brad32443]

Why do KJV proponents hear "the KJV is hard to read" when someone says the KJV has dead words and "false friends"?

[@PeteWilson-y9m]

Is there any chance you could review the St. Benedict Press Catholic study bible and compare that to the Didache Bible, or Ignatius Study Bible? Also, St. Benedict Press has a black genuine leather Douay rheims Bible, and I wonder if that could be compared to the Baronius Press version?

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

They generally only have me review new releases.

[@Agben35]

Great stuff Tim! To go along with your understandability argument, I frequently hear a paster preaching from KJV in boyhood church that is ardent KJV (not KJVO), but when he gets to any difficult word, he stops to explain, and he uses the exact words from other translations, his expanding on the text is usually restating in NIV, NASB, or ESV. So what’s the difference?

[@Yesica1993]

That seems entirely reasonable!

[@majormattmason8408]

In my opinion, a pastor that does that reads from the KJ becuase he is comfortable with it (and that's fine). The fact that he explains words that don't fit common language is commendable. He is doing his due dilligence in clarifying scripture to the best of his ability. I wish more pastors would do this...

[@megalyon]

@@Agben35 he sounds like a great pastor!

[@joestfrancois]

Right, he is translating the text to the church, it is an unnecessary step.

[@Julie-t4v]

Some KJV only folk believe that the translators were inspired when translating. This group is the primary group that gets mentioned when discussing KJV only. The other KJV only group believes that the Critical text is not trustworthy and holds to the traditional text. The traditional text was widely used by the church and passed down throughout every generation. They only use the KJV because there are some serious translation issues with the NKJV and the MEV. J Vernon McGee also only recommended the Authorized version because we are so doctrinally separated that the translator will naturally translate with a bend towards his doctrinal beliefs.

[@MAMoreno]

The thing is that J. Vernon McGee had no objection to the Critical Text, and he spoke fairly well of the NASB, NIV, and Amplified Bible (despite having some quibbles with them). He defended his use of the KJV, but he was no King James Onlyist.

[@Julie-t4v]

@ What I was pointing out about J Vernon McGee is that he didn’t trust the new translations because he believed that the translators were so doctrinally divided that they would just naturally incorporate it into their translation. He only recommended the King James Version. The information concerning the critical text and it’s problems wasn’t really discovered until the 1990s. McGee was already dead by that time. If you have a NKJv read what it says about the Greek.

[@stevescoolstuff126]

Great video. I love KJV but ESV sure straightens out the issue about “hearing” in Acts 9 vs. Acts 22.

[@kumquat0910]

Like many of your commenters, I love the KJV and read it frequently…..but I’m very grateful to have so many excellent modern translations. I’d like to understand the Bible as well as I possibly can, so it’s always seemed sensible to me that reading multiple translations and taking advantage of new discoveries and scholarship is the way to go. But I would imagine it’s alarming and frightening for people who were raised or came to Christ in a KJVO tradition, to contemplate deviating from what they genuinely believe to be the only inspired word of God.

[@thomasshannon7793]

Another good one, Sir; agree on all points to consider. Personally, I use KJV because it's comfy after 40+ years, like a broke-in pair of Levi 501's, if they still even make those. I wanted to really dig in and work the Word, back then, and did just that. Pre-internet research looked a lot like page 84 of Tim W's Bible Translations tome. 501's & tees, though, no suit and tie, haha. Every day for years, a couple buds and I. I update the words as I read, anymore, and ye's are y'all, stuff like that. Comfy Father/son time. I love and use the others, as well, especially NKJV & CSB, the Shannon clan primaries. Pardon my verbosity, por favor, and God bless you and yours now and in 2025, should the Lord tarry.

[@bebakerus]

In the next video, Tim will place his hand in a mouse trap. It is expected to be less painful... Just kidding. I agree with your points completely. KJVO is not a justifiable position. Never has been.

[@rhondanewbolt9110]

I had a big guilt trip about the KJV for a while but now I mainly use NKJV and I also use the other main translations occasionally. Thank you for another great video Pastor Tim!

[@thescarletandgrey2505]

Speaking of coats could you tell me what brand jacket you wear in this video? Thanks

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

It is a Sonoma.

[@kainech]

I used to find it interesting how almost everyone wants to put out a video on KJVO when it is a decidedly minority opinion. Now I think it's because they take inerrancy and preservation doctrines to their logical conclusion. Inerrancy: The Bible is without error only _in the original texts,_ and inspiration is tied to this inerrancy. Preservation: This wording has been preserved. This combination emerged in the early 20th century (B.B. Warfield), but it has now been mainstreamed. Originally the extant copies were considered inspired and without error, but that eroded under critical texts. Differences in MSS were impossible to deny. When Warfield put the new view forward, there was still hope of scientifically reconstructing the text, but now we know cannot recover the exact original text. I doubt even the Byzantine text could be established with certainty in all places. I suspect KJVO initially began as a response to the idea extant manuscripts were prone to error. However, they insist they have the exact wording preserved. Since the most popular position holds this as the gold standard, but for original texts that will never exist again, I think KJVO becomes an outsized threat, because a text like this almost has to exist with the combination of doctrines, but almost everyone realizes it does not. The KJVO argument applies pressure that makes people uncomfortable (kind of like how JWs denying the Trinity makes people uncomfortable, because they can't articulate why the Trinity is important now). Perhaps it would be better to address how inerrancy and preservation is true, and in what sense, as without that tension, I doubt anybody would take KJVO seriously. Some scholars have revised inerrancy/preservation so that it fits with what we have better (sometimes it doesn't e.g. people claim "No major doctrine is affected," but but some most certainly are). However, popular views don't go much further than the "No major doctrine is affected" claim, and the sheer range of variation makes it an uncomfortable subject.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

I’ve dealt with inerrancy before. We make content based on things we enjoy, things we receive, and things we feel our audience will enjoy. Anything else is just pudding.

[@megalyon]

I agree that’s it’s good to mix it up, I’m not an onlyist but it’s my favorite one so far -- just sounds super Biblical to me

[@SpaceCadet4Jesus]

The pursuit of a "perfect" Bible translation is a misguided endeavor that conflates human efforts with divine attributes. It's crucial to remember the following: - Translators are human: Bible translations are the work of scholars, not direct divine intervention. While these individuals are often highly skilled, they are not infallible. - God's goodness is not tied to textual perfection: The concept of God's holiness or goodness is not dependent on providing humans with a flawless text. In fact, the absence of perfectly preserved original manuscripts challenges us to engage more deeply with the text and its context. - Manuscript history is complex: God has not preserved the original biblical manuscripts in pristine condition. This reality invites us to grapple with textual criticism and the historical transmission of scripture. - Closest to the source: For those seeking the most direct connection to the original text, learning Biblical Greek and Hebrew and studying the earliest available manuscripts is the most authentic approach. However, this requires significant time, effort, and scholarly dedication. - Value in multiple translations: Comparing various reputable translations can provide valuable insights into the nuances of the text and the choices translators make in rendering ancient languages into modern ones. As some have commented; The perfect translation is the one that you spend time "reading".

[@Yesica1993]

I was going to say a lot of this mess could be cleared up for the KJVO crowd if they just knew a second language*. Anyone familiar with a language other than the one they grew up with (this applies to any languages, not just English) knows that it is often difficult to translate certain words, phrases, expressions, etc. On the flipside, we must not to go to the other extreme, where we claim that nothing can EVER be adequately and clearly translated from one language to another. That's not true either. *This would require being reasonable. Some of these hardcore KJVO-ists refuse to be reasonable. I've honestly never seen anything like it, and from people who name the Name of Christ.

[@SpaceCadet4Jesus]

@Yesica1993 There is a guy on KZbin who takes an english phrase and retranslates it into literal German and vice versa. It is hilarious as he says the weirdest things, even though we know what he is doing. Languages are not a 1:1 word for word understanding, especially Hebrew, a language based on ideas and contexts.

[@megalyon]

@@SpaceCadet4Jesus very well said, thank you for sharing this thoughtful response

[@tymanis6398]

Hey Tim, I have a recommendation for you. Can you do a video on your take on the Deuteronomy 32 worldview? I’d love to hear your thoughts on that subject matter.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

Sons of God.

[@DarkHorseCrusader]

Fair and balanced. Thank you!

[@guymontag349]

Good video, Tim. And like you, I wish that all KJV onlyists would read the Translators Notes. Unfortunately, most KJV Bibles include the Epistle Dedicatory to King James, but not the Translators Notes. This is just one of the many reasons that I so appreciate the Cambridge Concord because it contains both. BTW Tim, what was that little flashing light that kept popping up on the large flat screen to your left. It looked like Tinkerbell was in the room with you. So is Peter Pan staying with you over the holidays, or are you being visited by extraterrestrials?

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

I think it was my iPad screen reflecting.

[@majormattmason8408]

@@anickelsworthbiblereviews Maybe it was a tiny drone. ;)

[@SpaceCadet4Jesus]

Tim, you gave us a "nickels worth", but I only gave my "two cents", does that mean I owe you "three cents" back? Or can I keep the change? Thanks.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

I think that means together we still aren’t worth a dime.

[@m.miller7926]

KJVO is laughable on its face in its claims and accusations.

[@jonathanclemens4660]

I thank God I came out of a church that believed all modern translations were Satanically inspired, perverted trash. They taught that the KJV was absolutely perfect and even better than the originals. I have been blocked and cut off by former friends because of my respectful disagreement with KJV Onlyism, while being told I hate the KJV and am attacking it. I pray that more eyes will be opened so that the slanderous lies and false teachings may stop and God is glorified through the reading and preaching of his word in many good translations.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

There are lots of stories like this one.

[@Luvmykindle]

Here to watch but not KJV only. I think the KJV is more of a tradition for some. They’re not going to give up their tradition.

[@megalyon]

@@Luvmykindle this is definitely true about Church tradition, I grew up in the Anglican Church so I’m really used to how KJV sounds, it’s as familiar as a warm blanket so it sounds like the Bible to me lol

[@stevetucker5851]

I’m a Masoretic Text and Family 35 onlyist. The most carefully copied and uniform transmissions of scripture. I believe God has actually preserved his word and that it doesn’t need to be reconstructed based on continued manuscript discoveries. The Refreshed American Standard Version for the Old Testament and The Sovereign Creator Has Spoken for the New Testament are fantastic.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

The ASV is based off the Wescott and Hort.

[@stevetucker5851]

@@anickelsworthbiblereviews I use the ASV only for the Old Testament and Wilbur Pickering’s translation for the New Testament.

[@Brianbrandfas]

Great video. I think your list should have been 6 reasons and the added reason was that you are not KJO because you are a reasonable person capable of critical thinking. Nothing to me has ever made sense about this argument. Nothing!

[@Yesica1993]

No lie, I was reading your comment and for a second I thought it was one that I had written. This is what goes through my mind all the time when it comes to this issue. I've never seen anything like it. Thankfully, I have only ever run into it online. Never in real life. I hope I don't. I honestly don't know how I'd handle it. I don't know how to communicate in any other way, other than using reason/logic.

[@jonathanclemens4660]

Unfortunately I came out of a Ruckmanite church and it is true much of the KJVO world consiste of the most stubborn and invulnerable-to-logic people I have ever known.

[@megalyon]

I would be into modern translations more if they wouldn’t cut verses out of the New Testament. The Humble Lamb Lion with the archaic words defined was my first KJV Bible - really helpful.

[@Yesica1993]

No standard, reputable Bible translation is "cutting out verses". Please stop with that.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

Yeah, I’ve made a few videos addressing this as well. It’s hard to believe this is still pervasive thinking in light of the wealth of information.

[@megalyon]

@@anickelsworthbiblereviews maybe but the verses are still MISSING from many modern versions, some of us want them in there and they removed THE WORDS OF JESUS CHRIST in some instances. You can make long scholarly arguments as to why but I prefer all the verses in there. Personal preference here.

[@eclipsesonic]

@@megalyon The NKJV and MEV are two modern translations that retain all the passages in the KJV, since they're both using the same textual source (the Textus Receptus) for the New Testament. Also, the NASB 1995 and LSB all retain these "missing verses", but they're in square brackets, with the footnotes noting the textual variants present in the manuscripts.

[@megalyon]

@@eclipsesonic yesss thanks those are my favorites for serious Bible study: KJV, NKJV, NASB 77, 95 or LSB. I really do miss the verses I know a lot of people don’t care but it bugs me when they just skip over and keep going lol.

[@yahusrevus]

This. Exactly this. (It's just too bad that most KJVO folks that really need to consider what was said never even clicked on the video on title alone. ☹ Let's pray for 'em.)

[@majormattmason8408]

@@dantombs5697 1. First crazy thing we believe that there is only one God what other religions believe in multiple gods, but we only believe in one God. Wrong. Muslims believe there is only one God. 2. We also believe that we are the one true religion that all other religions are false and wrong. True. 3. We also believe that our faith is what saves us, and there is only one faith, others believe that there’s multiple ways, but we only believe in one faith. True. However, do you believe you can only come to that faith by reading KJ or can that same faith be found in other translations? If it can found in other translations (and it can) your case for being KJV only falls flat. Other translations may be easier for those new to the faith to understand. Start with Milk. KJV is very "meaty" for someone new to Christianity. 4. We believe in one baptism. Wrong. We believe in two baptisms, physical and spiritual. 5. Why is it so wrong to believe in one holy Bible? It isn't. However, it isn't correct to claim that salvation can only be found through one translation of the Bible. If salvation can be found in another translation will you still deny it is the Word of God? KJV only readers tend to be traditionalists and very unbending to any other train of thought. But the fact is most of them were taught what to believe and never question what they were taught. Therefore, they pin their theology on the teachings of others and tend to fear any ideas that may differ at all. Yet there are different fenominations of KJV only believers who have fundamental differences in what thay believe the truth to be. If the KJ version is the only correct version, is the only true Word of God, why do different denomonations reach different conclusions using the same translation? (For the record--I know many KJ only believers and most are great Christians and I count them as brothers and sisters--even when they reject me because I read different translations). In my experience, most KJ only believers will not read another translation because they are afraid to. A new believer may put down the KJ due language comprehension challenges--(and those challenges in old english are very real). Now they pick up an ESV (or other) translation and find it easier to understand.. They read through the New Testament and come to the conclusion that Jesus was and is the Messiah and salvation can only be found through faith in Him. Are they in danger of losing salvation because they received that message through a different translation?

[@yahusrevus]

I'd probably have something to say about each one of those points, if I were remotely interested in debating on KZbin. But, to the heart of the matter... I suppose I'd have to go with the original Greek/Aramaic and Hebrew texts IF I were to believe only one was "true."

[@jonathanclemens4660]

​@@dantombs5697We do believe in one Bible. We just don't believe it is limited to one 400 year old translation in English.

[@treeckoniusconstantinus]

5:56 "For example, 'concupiscence.' Who uses that word anymore?" The Catechism of the Catholic Church, for one. 😁

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

In speech? No one.

[@treeckoniusconstantinus]

​@@anickelsworthbiblereviews Except for every Catholic podcaster, moral theologian, lecturer, and priest who speaks to others about the issue of sexual sin. I understand what you're getting at, Tim, and your critique in the context of translation into the common tongue is not unfounded, but I'm just noting that the word is much more common in Catholic circles than you give it credit for. For us, it's not just some obscure, long-forgotten word. And all that aside, I'm also just having some fun. 😁

[@zgennaro]

I love the KJ and for a lot of people it’s going to be the best for whole book memorization if they seek that out. Yet, I have not met people more cringe or uneducated than King James onlyists.

[@Yesica1993]

That's what gets me! If you cannot even follow a basic train of thought to have a reasonable conversation on this, don't expect to me to believe you understand a book in an older form of English that we don't even use anymore. It's baloney. Also, if you have no clue about the original languages and all of that, then you have no right to be making arguments on the textual basis, either. (That is why I do not do so.)

[@zgennaro]

That’s right, different languages don’t map onto each other 1:1, even languages that are close to one another, like Spanish and Italian. Never mind ancient greek. If one prefers the textual basis of the KJV, fine, but let’s not pretend if you prefer an ESV your theology or life will be altered in any meaningful way.

[@Yesica1993]

@@zgennaro Exactly, as I said in a different comment here, I think at least some of this could be cleared up if people just knew a second language. (Any language.) But that would require being a reasonable person. And it seems some of the more hardcore ones just aren't. They can't even seem to think in such categories. That's what scares me.

[@philtheo]

Uh oh, prepare yourself for the KJV Only proponents coming out of the woods! I kid, I kid. 😅

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

I’m sure they will come.

[@Yesica1993]

I had no idea this was even a thing until I started seeing it here and there on KZbin. Thankfully, I haven't run into it in real life. (Yet.) But I didn't have an accurate understanding of the severity and extent of it until I discovered Dr. Mark Ward just a few months ago! It's a cult. It's horrifying. The things these people who profess the name of Christ have said to him publicly is shocking. I had no idea they did this type of thing. And that's just what they say publicly. Who knows what they have said to him privately. I refuse to believe such people are even regenerate. But even the ones who aren't that vicious are not too far behind. If you cannot grasp basic facts like, 1) English didn't even EXIST at the time the Bible was written and 2) what did faithful Christians do until 1611?, 3) what about non-English speaking countries?, then don't expect me to believe you can fully understand a book written in an older form of English that we no longer even use. Dr. Ward has endless patience with this stuff. I do not. Willful ignorance, especially on basic, common sense things is not a virtue. It makes you look foolish. It makes all Christians look foolish. Worst of all, it makes Christ look foolish. I do not tolerate it.

[@philtheo]

@@dantombs5697 Nah, I love the KJV. 😊 Although I'm not KJV Only. I'm with Tim on this one. If we must compare, I'd say compare with the original Hebrew and Greek. Not only the Textus Receptus and Masoretic Text but all the available biblical manuscripts and texts. There's no perfect translation, whether NIV, ESV, or KJV.

[@tjstevens001]

I believe I will just stick with the KJV. Some clarifying text is left out, and you don't get the accurate picture.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

Right!

[@samuelm.5752]

I'll stick with the KJV, NKJV, NASB95, and BBT.

[@NeilTheCatholic]

I did not grow up on KJV and therefore i have no sentimental attachment to it. Perks of being a Catholic i guess. Love the KJV though.

[@michaelclark2458]

What do you believe would be the best thought for thought compliment for a KJV person who who believes the Textus Receptus is the correct text and the critical text is corrupted? Yes NKJV and MEV exist but they are more word for word like the KJV.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

It is a need that isn’t being met. Sort of astonishing.

[@michaelclark2458]

@ I agree. What is your preferred critical text thought for thought

[@mr.e8432]

Another thing, the king, James purist may not like, and you can double check me on this, I’m not 100% positive. But I thought I heard the original king James Bible contained all 73 books.

[@BigStack-vg6ku]

You are correct. The 1611 version had all of the books!

[@mr.e8432]

@BigStack-vg6ku So.. you're saying the King James purists, are actually reading a Catholic Bible?

[@MAMoreno]

@@mr.e8432 Anglicans have a certain view of the Apocrypha that other Protestants don't tend to share. As it says in the Thirty Nine Articles, "And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine."

[@mr.e8432]

@MAMoreno Thanks for that clarification. I'm not trying to stir up a 💩 storm or anything. I like this channel, was genuinely curious.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

It had the apocrypha between the testaments and separated from the scriptures.

[@brad32443]

KJVO people be wild... Here for the show

[@richardvoogd705]

Thank you!

[@70_X_7]

A college education to read the KJV?!

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

Didn’t say that. Listen again. I said you shouldn’t need a college education to read the Bible.

[@JesusIsKING7140]

Lol thats what i thought, i am not collage only went to grade 10 i hated old English like Shakespeare but after i got saved i absolutely loved the KJV, it actually really shocked me! I am not KJVO but i love it 🙏✝️💟

[@70_X_7]

@@anickelsworthbiblereviews, I’m just following the context of your video and what you’re saying, specifically why you are not KJVO. So, the reason you’re not a KJVO is because, #4 reason (1:35), “We need translations in a language we can understand today. We need a Bible in a translation that can be understood by someone with a moderate to average education. We don’t want someone to have to have a college degree in order to understand the Bible. We want to be able to read it to our children, teenagers, young adults etc”. You are talking about the KJV here, specifically why you do not hold to KJVO. You are contextually stating your position against KJVO, because the KJV is not understandable today, the KJV is not a translation that can be understood by someone with a moderate to average education. You’re not KJVO because “you don’t want someone to have to have a college degree in order to understand the Bible.” And in context, that would be the KJV. You might claim that was a general statement, however the video is not about Bible translations in general it’s about why you are not a KJVO and here are my reasons… #4 I don’t want to have to have a college education to read the Bible (ie KJV). This is how I understood you at least.

[@NeilTheCatholic]

Oh boy! Expert serious disagreements from some camp. 😅

[@user-px7je1xs3n]

If the King James is your primary translation, would you consider that person a King James Onlyist?

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

KJVo is the position that the KJV is inspired not only in its TR manuscript, but in its translation, and that all other English translations to follow it are corruptions.

[@MAMoreno]

@@dantombs5697 There's a difference between "King James Preferred" and "King James Only." The former is personally satisfied with the KJV as a primary translation and will only check other translations when it seems necessary. The latter is dead set on discouraging people from using anything other than the KJV; at best, they may say that you can glance at a modern version if the KJV seems especially difficult in some spot, but it's generally frowned upon to do so. It's the difference between showing favoritism and stoking fear.

[@user-px7je1xs3n]

Thanks for the definition and clarification.

[@davidrules90]

KJV needs to go out of print. It’s not the King JESUS Version it’s the King JAMES Version and it ain’t as high and mighty as people think the translation is. So with that we have far more superior translations and nothing archaic. It was good for the time but it’s time to move on.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

It doesn’t need to go out of print.

[@Fact-fiend_1000ASMR.]

Why do they give greater authority to the Textus Receptus over other older Greek texts like the Codex Sinaiticus or LXX? Which edition of the TR is inspired? The first? Which was, quite frankly, a mess. Enjoy the content!

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

This is a huge topic for sure.

[@MAMoreno]

Those who actually know what they're talking about will appeal to citations from the church fathers that agree with a particular reading found in the Basel manuscripts (the basis of the TR) over the variant found in Codex Sinaiticus. So, for example, if Clement of Rome went with a "TR reading," then that would be a reason to favor it.

[@Fact-fiend_1000ASMR.]

@@MAMoreno Makes sense to me. Thanks for the information.

[@kainech]

James Snapp has a book, _The World's Oldest Bible: Reliable or Liability,_ about verifiable errors in Codex Sinaiticus. He goes verse by verse through the Gospels and lists each of the variants that he deems translatable. He's not a diplomatic writer, but if you go through the book, you'll get a good idea why there are people who don't trust it. Another good work would be Maurice Robinson's _The Case for the Byzantine Text._ In it he argues that the Byzantine text should be given priority over those manuscripts. This is available for free online. I can't provide a link, or th comment will be blocked. Both of these are current textual critics, not KJV or TR people. It is a minority position, but there are reasons to hold a Byzantine text priority, and the TR is one of the outlier subsets of the BT (it has several Latin intrusions).

[@Fact-fiend_1000ASMR.]

@@kainech Ok. That's very interesting. I'm glad it's not from a KJVO, as that would be grounds for distrust. Not calling them liars, just biased. Thank you.

[@socalpreston]

100 years from now someone will make the same video explaining why they are not KJV Only. I’m KJV Only. It’s just means it’s the only version English-speaking people should use and trust. I use the 1865 Valera. All KJV Onlyist promote foreign language Bibles. Noah Webster made the same arguments you made about the words in the KJV. It fell on deaf ears. AWANA’s btw primary translation is the KJV. In the end it’s a mindset and attitude issue. All of your objectives can be refuted. It doesn’t matter because your mind is set!

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

Refute away.

[@Jesusismysword]

Kjv is the inspired true word of God. All the other versions are unnecessary and changed and missing verses. Whenever I read the Kjv it’s like the Lord speaks to me but all the other versions are just bland. Why is it that in the nasb and niv , in revelation chapter 13 it mentions the dragon but in the Kjv it mentions “I” as in John on the very first verse. Those translations aren’t even hand and hand with the original Hebrew and Greek. I’ve done my research. It’s all part of leading the elect astray. Be careful what you read

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

Got it.

[@peterlowe6064]

There are thousands of reasons why I am a KJV onlyist. ALL because the modern bibles corrupt the textus receptus. Ian not angry

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

Textual source is a bit of a different debate.

[@markspittal886]

Then you need to check out the Modern English Version there's a new eddition for 2024 out now

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

Backordered but on the way.

[@robbyk3249]

Splitting hairs with point # 5 with regards to the word closet .......good grief

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

Thank you.

[@abrahamnaula]

B R U H 😂

[@brandonruggles1715]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/epq6ipqjrtqheacsi=w8Gsgz0lh_4RRmgs

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

Don’t even need to watch this to know what it says.

[@megalyon]

😬😬😬

[@HollywoodBigBoss]

I'll take The Orthodox Study Bible & Douay-Rheims over the KJV any day.

[@HollywoodBigBoss]

@@dantombs5697 Every single reason you listed is why I reject the KJV. 1. Mary was described as the New Arc of the Covenant, the New Eve and Mother of God. For her to be the physical tabernacle of YHWH for 9 months she wasn't just highly favored. You look at the Greek it's past perfect participle. "Hail full of grace" shows that Christ protected her from sin and fulfilled Genesis 3 where YHWH told Satan he would put enmity between the serpent and the woman. There can be no enmity if Satan can have any influence over her. As a result Jesus showed his power as God protecting her from sin before he was born. To reject these puts you in grave danger of being removed from the body of Christ. 2. The Deuterocanon was removed from the Bible by Martin Lucifer during his reformation. However what people don't tell you is he also removed James, Jude, Hebrews & Revelations from the New Testament and placed them in an Apocrypha section as well. Your modern KJV is by legal definition an incomplete bible according to British publishing law. At no time has the Catholic Church rejected the Deuterocanonical books which were rejected by the Jews after 130 AD by Rabbi Akiva as recorded in the Babylonian Talmud. 3. I do not know what source you are using for Matthew 18:11. It is in my Douay-Rheims Bible. It is not omitted, so either you are using a bad source or are lying. The KJV is inferior because it was done at the behest of the King James I of England because he was afraid of the influence of the Geneva Bible & Douay-Rheims. The Septuagint is also superior as well because it was the favored translation by the Apsotles of Christ. When you read the New Testament and see that the Old Testament quotations don't match up, that is because the New Testament authors used the Greek Old Testament over 70% of the time. Additionally the early church accused the Rabbi's of changing their bible: Read Psalm 22 from a Jewish Tanakh for prime example. Your salvation by Grace Alone didn't exist until the 1500s so I would say you are following man made tradition & not apostolic. The Douay Rheims was also declared to be free from doctrinal error by the Church that Jesus Christ founded with his Apostles. I'll take that over a man made tradition of Protestantism any day. It took me 22 years and I am finally free from the heresy of Martin Lucifer and Lucifer Calvin.

[@HollywoodBigBoss]

@@dantombs5697 You are misinterpreting. Mary was sinless BECAUSE Jesus WAS her savior. It's far from adding a teaching when it is Apostolic Tradition. Read 1 Epistle of Clement, 7 letters of Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and you will see an unbroken chain of traditions handed down by the Apostles to be held on the level of scripture. There was no New Testament compiled until the Council of Rome at 382 and would be affirmed by the North African councils of Hippo 393 & Carthage 397 as well as the sixth Council of Carthage in 417 affirming a 73 book cannon. You seem to think the Jews had a unified cannon during the time of Christ and this couldn't be further from the truth. The Sadduccees and Samaritans only accepted the 5 Books of Moses as scripture. The Pharisees were divided between the schools of Shammai (which rejected Esther, Proverbs, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Ezekiel) and Hillel (which accepted all except Esther). Next you have the Essenes which are the Dead Sea Scroll community which also rejected Esther, but also included Tobit, Sirach, Epistle of Jeremiah, Jubilees & 1 Enoch (Chapters 1 - 36). After the destruction of the temple Flavius Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews ~96 AD rejected the 12 Books of Minor Prophets, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Ezra-Nehemiah (instead quoting 1 Esdras and a version of Nehemiah that no longer exists), and failed to quote Isaiah & Ezekiel at all but did quote Deutero-Esther & Deutero-Daniel. Apocrapha Apocalypse did an amazing video series on Rabbi Akiva and how the modern Jewish canon of scripture was assembled. You are under the impression that the Douay-Rheims add some sort of man made tradition to their translation. You are dead wrong as they use the traditions that was given to the church by the Apostles & their disciples which was given by the Holy Spirit and not man. The Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus founded in 33 AD and has the authority to bind and loose in Heaven. The thief on the cross was saved just as Paul was saved by a miraculous conversion. Jesus will meet us where we are and there are special circumstances for specific people. There is also tradition that when the side of Christ was pierced that his blood splashed upon him effectively baptizing him and as a result removing his sins as a result. When Christ says you will be with me in Paradise, he's not saying he's taking him to heaven but rather Abraham's Bosom. You need to know pre-rabbinic Jewish tradition to make sense of what is being taught opposed to 1800s protestant doctrine which is miles off and creates contradictions as a result in the bible. For almost 400 years Christians had no New Testament. Literacy rates didn't really grow until the 19th century which is why Apostolic Tradition is so important to understand. Jesus did not leave us a book. He left us a Church that the Gates of Hell would not overcome. You profess grace. I say what James 2:26 said Faith without works is dead.

[@MAMoreno]

@@dantombs5697 The KJV consulted both the LXX and Vulgate, and it was translated according to its own tradition (Anglicanism), which is why it originally contained the Apocrypha. If you read the 39 Articles (the doctrinal statement of the Church of England), you'll see that Anglicans hold that the Apocrypha can be used in church services "for example of life and instruction of manners" but not "to establish any doctrine." The KJV originally had a Morning/Evening Prayer calendar in the front that included passages from Wisdom and Sirach. Speaking of translating according to one's own beliefs, the oft-cited example is that of 1 Corinthians 11.27, where the KJV reads, "Whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord," when it should say "or" instead. (The underlying Greek conjunction means "or.") The reason for this decision is again found in the Articles: "The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people: for both the parts of the Lord’s Sacrament, by Christ’s ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike." Roman Catholics used this verse to argue that the laity could be offered the Eucharist in one kind (bread), and the KJV intentionally prevents the verse from being understood that way.

[@FierceMouse]

KJV is the perfect word of God. If God didn't give us a perfect translation, then what's the point? My God is good enough, and great enough to give me his PERFECT word.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

OK. I recommend you read the Translators to the Readers.

[@MAMoreno]

So why did no one before 1611 get a perfect translation? (The earlier Anglican versions, including the Bishops' Bible that served as the basis for the KJV, do not fully agree with the KJV at all points. Nor does any ancient manuscript or translation.) Why is the only perfect translation in English, and an archaic form of it at that? (The early Protestant versions in German, French, Spanish, Italian, etc., do not fully agree with the KJV.)

[@billiamnotbob]

@@anickelsworthbiblereviews Or The Forgotten Preface is a good one. Most KJV-onlyists won't though. That's truly sad.

[@FierceMouse]

@MAMoreno - The KJV is for this time. God knew English would be the language spoken most. (Secondary language for most of the world). The way it is written preserves the meaning. Anyone who studies their bibles can figure out the word changes. We have modern tools that make that easy

[@MAMoreno]

@@FierceMouse No, it's not for this time. Why should a person waste their Bible study time researching the nuances of Early Modern English when they could be spending it, you know, studying the Bible? It's one thing to make that effort if you're wanting to appreciate the beauty of Milton's Paradise Lost, but your spiritual life isn't dependent upon comprehending Paradise Lost. The Bible is far too important to be made unnecessarily difficult, and the translators of the KJV would agree with me on that point against those who misuse their work. Jacobean English is a second language to *everyone* at this point, and it's an unnecessary barrier between you and the Scriptures when there's already one major cultural barrier present (the Ancient Near East vs. the modern West). Using only the KJV rather than a version in your own language is intentionally obscuring the Bible for yourself. You're one step away from the Catholics of the Reformation era who were still arguing that everyone needed to read the Vulgate.

[@eclipsesonic]

KJV-Onlyists be like: Five reasons why I'm going to dislike this video. 🤣

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

I’d say so.

[@megalyon]

That suffer one was not hard for me nor closet

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

While it may not be hard for you, there are some that would struggle with it.

[@brad32443]

***golf clap***

[@michaelseay9783]

Modern translations of the bible are designed to deceive and confuse: KJV Revelation 20 3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a *little season.* NASB Revelation 20 3 and he threw him into the abyss and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for *_a short time.* The “little season” in the KJV *_is a very specific period of time designated for Old Covenant Israel._* By changing the wording, the NASB turns it into an ambiguous time period and relates it to Revelation 12, *_which changes the timing of events and deceives, and makes it seem like Rev 20 verse 3 and Rev 12 verse 12 are referring to the same time period event._* KJV Revelation 12 12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but *_a short time._* NASB Revelation 12 12 For this reason, rejoice, you heavens and you who dwell in them. Woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has come down to you with great wrath, knowing that he has only *_a short time.”_* Like the little season, the “short time” is a very specific time period in the Bible. So the NASB has changed “the little season” to “a short time” in Revelation 20. The “short time” and the “little season” ARE NOT THE SAME TIME PERIODS. The NASB is a false doctrine of demons. I just showed you an example of a modern translation twisting the word of God.

[@anickelsworthbiblereviews]

👍🏻

[@MAMoreno]

The words in Revelation 20.3 are μικρὸν χρόνον (micron chronon), which most certainly means "short time." Revelation 12.12 uses a completely different term, ὀλίγον καιρὸν (oligon kairon), but it means basically the same thing: "short time." The phrases are synonymous, whether they're referring to the same event or not. At best, you could argue that a "literal" translation should use synonyms in these verses rather than the exact same glosses (see examples below), but a translation committee should not pander to dispensationalist interpretations of the passage. Appendix -- How translations handle the terms in Rev. 12.12 and 20.3, respectively... RSV: short time, little while NKJV: short time, little while NRSV: short time, little while ESV: short time, little while CEB: short time, little while MEV: short time, little while TEV: little time, little while NLT: little time, little while NET: little time, brief period of time NASB: short time, short time NAB: short time, short time NIV: short time, short time CSB: short time, short time LSB: short time, short time

[@byrondickens]

"Twisting the word of God" is an essentially meaningless polemical catchphrase thrown about by people who are not capable of articulating why they think their (usually backwards and divisive) interpretation is better. Because they can't compete in the arena of ideas - actually engaging with differing viewpoints - they employ thought-stopping cliches instead.