Is the KJV Easier to Read than the NKJV? -with Mark Ward

[@captainnolan5062]

A multisyllable modern word we all know is much easier to understand than an archaic or obsolete one syllable word that no one uses or understands anymore.

[@PastorScottIngram]

I Agree. It is, sadly, dishonest to claim it’s ease of reading using that test.

[@alisonk3148]

I appreciate the spirit of charity between these two brothers. John 13:35.

[@PastorScottIngram]

Thanks! Mark is a great guy

[@jonathanrector]

You two are honestly my favorite channels for this type of content. I've been in translation soup for a year, feeling I HAVE to or SHOULD be reading the KJV because of it's prowess, but being lost in understanding while I read it. Gold bless you both for your work, have a great weekend.

[@PastorScottIngram]

Thanks so much for you kind words. I am sure @markwardonwords appreciates them too.

[@captainnolan5062]

@@jonathanrector give the NASB 2020 a try.

[@NeedAVacay-y5u]

I love the NET. Very thoughtful note system. Whatever translation you choose let God bless you. Don't be embarrassed by the way you understand God's word.

[@cloudx4541]

Same boat for me. I have settled as TR preferred and read the NKJV now.

[@jonathanrector]

@@cloudx4541 Awesome! What made you prefer the TR?

[@tacticaltradingpennystocks7206]

I am a KJV guy. I do use an ESV, NKJV & NLT along with my trusted KJV in my studies. It allows me to get a good understanding of the text by reading a chapter in each translation. When studying with my Wife & 3 youngest, I use The NKJV and my oldest son, we use the KJV. I always defer to the KJV when differences in the text arise. I admit, I was not too fond of Dr. Ward. But, I continued to extend charity to him for his obvious love of The LORD & now must admit, his False Friends has expanded my understanding of the KJV which I love & allowed me to switch to NKJV with my wife & children. Be blessed. Great video Brothers

[@PastorScottIngram]

Thanks for watching. I am glad it was helpful.

[@living_the_mac_and_cheese_life]

My 2 favorite people to listen to on Bible Translations! Thank you gentlemen!!

[@davidbrock4104]

I hope that this collaboration continues, I like both channels, they have helped me a lot. Mark's book and his video series on false friends was the tipping point for me regarding translation use in the pulpit. I now use the NKJV almost exclusively. Great conversation.

[@michaelclark2458]

The issue is some doctrinal choices that the NKJV took for me. It is my number 2 translation choice but there are few things that raise concerns for me. Gen 12:7, Gen 22:8. The former does damage to Galatians 3:16, 29. The Latter borders on heresy on NKJV in my opinion claiming that God will provide "for Himself" a lamb".

[@justindavis9880]

​@@michaelclark2458honest question, I read those verses, would you mind expanding on why you consider it heresy?

[@michaelclark2458]

@@justindavis9880 God has no need for blood shed sacrifice. Only sinful humans do. When it claims “for himself” it is implying God needs to have the sacrifice. God is without sin and therefore has no need of sacrifice. There is a big difference between God will provide himself a lamb, and God will provide for Himself the lamb. That little word for changes the whole meaning.

[@justindavis9880]

@@michaelclark2458 thank you for your response in clarifying your position!

[@justindavis9880]

@@michaelclark2458 I have read this passage a few more times in context, and I'm still struggling with the conclusion you're presenting. Every English translation I've looked at uses "himself". Are you saying that himself shouldn't refer to God? If it does refer to God, all translations, including the NKJV and KJV, are implying that God will provide the "lamb" (haś-śeh) for the sacrifice, and that Isaac doesn't need to worry/know where it comes from. Is this not a correct interpretation in your opinion? Personally I don't see a difference in changing the article 'a' vs 'the' creating a different context to the passage. In fact, the same Hebrew word is used in the previous verse when Isaac asks where "the" lamb is. Is there a translation error in the KJV in verse 7? Humbly, please correct any error I have and others that view this passage the same way I do.

[@Dwayne_Green]

I've come to the conclusion a while ago that Gail Riplinger is not a good faith interlocutor. She has been cannibalizing those also who would argue for KJV primacy.

[@michaelclark2458]

I agree completely. I am pro KJV but she does a disservice to those of us who want to make good faith arguments in favor of the KJV.

[@PastorScottIngram]

Amen brother!

[@daveuk888]

Very good discussion. Thank you! "So likewise you, unless you utter by the tongue words easy to understand, how will it be know what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air." 1 Cor. 14:9 (NKJV)

[@PastorScottIngram]

Thanks! I am glad it was a blessing

[@PastorKThroop]

I appreciate both of you so much! Thanks for all your efforts to help the body of Christ trust their Bible more. May God bless you as you keep up the good work.

[@PastorScottIngram]

Thanks for your kind words! It is good to hear that this ministry is helping others.

[@rafaelroxas2818]

Very enlightening presentation. Thank you.

[@PastorScottIngram]

Thanks! I am glad it was helpful.

[@catholicforever]

What I really appreciate about this channel, and Pastor Scott Ingram is his willingness to discuss the Bible translation variations, and being cordial/respectful with Mark Ward. We may have disagreements over our preferred Bible translations, but we’re all brothers in Christ and we should work together and try to reason with each other. I prefer the KJV, and I believe it’s translated from the best manuscripts. I also happen to believe the NKJV is a suitable translation as well.

[@PastorScottIngram]

Thanks for your kind words. It was a blessing to have Mark on the channel to help separate the facts from fiction on these issues. I’m glad it was a blessing for you.

[@CaptainMayo]

Thanks!

[@PastorScottIngram]

Thank you! I appreciate it!

[@keithfuson7694]

NKJV is more intelligible and clearer over all. Easier to read..

[@PastorScottIngram]

I totally agree and it seems that would be obvious even to those who dislike it.

[@femiwilliams7906]

I would not have read the Pilgrim's progress by John Bunyan if not for modern translation/revision of the book.

[@JESUSISTHEONLYWAYTOBESAVED]

You do not have to have a PHD or education to know the word of GOD or have discernment

[@supermiatabros505]

But it gets the message of salvation wrong and takes away from the power of Jesus in several scriptures

[@living_the_mac_and_cheese_life]

@@supermiatabros505 Read the book of Mark and tell me how this is the case?

[@mrstofu2]

I believe that Mark Ward showed an extreme amount of patience with that initial first interruption.

[@PastorScottIngram]

What interruption?

[@dolanridgecommunitychurch7433]

Acrostic algebra always got me. It’s sad. But I pray for her. Love the podcast

[@PastorScottIngram]

Thanks! I'm glad it was a blessing.

[@carpecoffee7988]

As far as copywrite law, there ARE English translation that have put their copywrite into public domain, allowing anybody to publish or print from it. World English Bible and Berean Standard Bible for example

[@PastorScottIngram]

Good point.

[@curtthegamer934]

Yup, and, because they're in the public domain, anybody could theoretically take those and insert the Textus Receptus readings into them when they publish them, if they wished to do so. Theoretically, somebody could make a Critical Text edition of the KJV for the same reasons.

[@aldeureaux5184]

I taught myself how to understand the KJV by reading it side by side with a paraphrase until I no longer needed the paraphrase. That was prior the NASB. The RSV had been revived but we didn’t know it and didn’t trust the National Council of Churches.

[@PastorScottIngram]

That is one way to do it.

[@CharloAlmeda]

What is your opinion on the Geneva Bible? When the KJV was published in 1611, it was considered an “imperial” based version and did not reflect the “Protestant” lingo. In fact, the Geneva Bible was still popular for another 50 years. Are the manuscripts the same in the Geneva Bible as was in the KJV? Thank you.

[@PastorScottIngram]

The Geneva, KJV, and NKJV are using the same traditional text to translate from. I think that is a good thing, but as originally presented in 1560, as you find it in a logos bible, it is a bit harder to comprehend. Geneva: For God so loved the worlde, that he hathe given his onely begotten Sõne, that whosoever beleveth in him, shulde not perish, but have everlasting life.

[@CharloAlmeda]

@@PastorScottIngram Hi Pastor! Thank you for replying. I believe there is a recent published Geneva Bible with the modernized spelling. Does the Geneva Bible have the “false” friends dilemma as well? Also, does the MEV resolve the “false” friends dilemma? I believe the MEV is also another fresh TR Bible based translation. I am currently using the MEV, even though I love the KJV and NKJV. I am a TR adherent. Thank you again.

[@michealferrell1677]

It would appear that if brothers will remove the extremes there remains much room for agreement.

[@itzcaseykc]

Jesus was considered a radical in His time. HE came not to bring peace but division between believers and non-believers.

[@michealferrell1677]

@@itzcaseykc I wouldn’t call Jesus a radical for it was the teachings of the scribes and Pharisees that were at odds with the message of the gospel. The message of the gospel does separate believers from nonbelievers and I would hope that it would draw believers closer together. As someone has said “ in the essentials unity , in the non essentials liberty but in all things charity “ Augustine I think ?

[@itzcaseykc]

@@michealferrell1677 I wouldn't say Jesus was radical in a negative fashion, however... the Jewish leaders of His time thought He was very much so, since the things He taught and did went against what *they* promoted.

[@michealferrell1677]

@@itzcaseykc I think I get your meaning brother

[@PastorScottIngram]

Yes. The gospel should always be our main point of agreement and then work others out. It is the great dividing line.

[@genewood9062]

Excellent! Thank you.

[@PastorScottIngram]

I’m glad it was a blessing

[@ThW5]

In modern English we tend to think "prince" means son of a king, or something like that, not "governor of a province in the ancient Persian empire", which is what "satrap" means, so "satrap" is the EASIER word, as it leads us not into thinking they were all close relatives of the King. With the terebinth tree, that's a tree which can grow big, strong and old, like an oak, so oak makes some sense as a dynamic translation AND the Hebrew for oak and terebinth look pretty similar, but still, it is another kind of tree, and if most linguists, Hebrew speaking botanists and the like agree that it was probably a terebinth tree, terebinth is the easier translation. Which makes it clear what the bible says, a tree which is exotic to England and the USA, it still is a tree of which we can see pictures, which we may grow in some of our botanical gardens, and so on. Tamarish tree, that's indeed a bit odd, tamarisk tree (normal English) or just tamarisk (EXTREMELY normal English), or Tamarix (botanical) or even salt cedar, would have been better, again a very normal tree, exotic to England and the USA, but at least one Tamarix species is an invasive exotic species in some parts of the USA, so this is a much better translation, informing the bible reader what kind of tree Saul was sitting under, that this was a species found in the parts of the world the events in the Bible are set rather than in Pre-Columbian America, is hardly amazing. That in the 17th century Biblical botany was not as advanced as it is now, is hardly amazing, but that should not be a reason not to use the much more precise, better translation. I mean Saul sitting under a tree, while the ground text does tell us what kind of tree, is not an easy translation of the text, it uses "simple words", but at the cost of hiding rather elementary aspects of the source text. People who want to create, say, a biblical garden, might like a bible with trees, oaks, terebinths and tamarisks over one with just oaks and trees. I don't think it is a salvation issue, granted, but lots of people want to know what the trees, animals, cities, countries and peoples in the Bible really were. Be honest "Saul Under The Salt Cedar" is a much better title for a work of art than "Saul under the Tree"...

[@PastorScottIngram]

While there a few hard words in the NKJV, I think it could be argued there are many archaic words that are more difficult to understand and find the definition for today. Just a thought.

[@ThW5]

@@PastorScottIngram Finding the definition, or even entire lemma's and articles on the use of that obviously strange word is not the problem to the ploughboy of this day and place, so if he does not know what a "bittern" or a "terebinth tree" is, he asks or looks it up on the internet. The ploughboy understanding he does not understand a word is with access to the internet almost one who does grasp that word much better than any Bible translator could make him do it, "foreign" words for foreign concepts is fine, the translator may be a traitor to the text, but should not dumb it down to lies for children. That said what is the better translation for Isa 14:23, "broom" (which in context could easily be misread as the mildly toxic plant, besoms were made of), "besom" (old-fashioned, but still current English, which is however not understood by everybody anymore and could be called archaic), "sweeper" (which could be misread as "sweeping person)" or "sweeping utensil" (correct, but sounds like a linguist hedging his bets, rather than a natural or well translated text)? It ain't easy... Perfectly translated texts do exist, but they are very short.

[@FreelyByHisGrace]

Anyone who is honest and has actually sat down and read the NKJV, cannot say it’s harder to understand than the NKJV.

[@PastorScottIngram]

I understand and agree that NKJV is easier to read than the KJV for the modern English reader.

[@trevinodude]

As someone who preaches in my church, I used to use the King James Version in my sermons when my church realized that many new generations brothers and sisters don’t know Spanish and we needed to go bilingual…and I had the culture shock of learning that many of my brethren didn’t understand the archaic language of the KJV either. But since my church uses the RVR on the Spanish side, I wanted to find a way to preach by using a translation that is clear to understand, but still close to what the Spanish side of the congregation was reading… and then I learned about the NKJV, and people started understanding my sermons more when I switched. This is why, years later, I still preach using the NKJV… don’t get it twisted, I love reading the KJV, I love the fact that it tries to be more literal to the original text… but when one teaches the word of God, one must also bring understanding to those they mentor, and it’s difficult to do so when using a version so different than modern English you might as well be teaching Shakespeare. People who say KJV is easier to understand likely hasn’t truly read the NJKV, or understands Old English better than current English.

[@thinktank8286]

Actually trying to read the KJV recently. Out of respect. Proverbs 7:25 "Let not thine heart decline to her ways, go not astray in her paths." The word "decline" was interesting. I know what this verse means. Yet if read with a modern use of the word decline, one is NOT supposed to reject the prostitutes offer! Do not decline her! 400 years makes a difference.

[@murrydixon5221]

If there is ANY confusion about part a then part b immediately follows: GO NOT astray in her paths. It is not that hard.

[@michaelbradley6004]

have you ever reclined, in a chair? to decline, is to, go down. So do not leave your estate and lower yourself to her level. This gives insight into other verses, not just spoon feed you words so you dont have to think. Get strong, use a KJB. bless you always

[@murrydixon5221]

@@michaelbradley6004 Right on brother! We should slow down when we are reading the bible. There is always context and the only way that "decline" does not make sense is when you isolate it. It is as if the Ward-ites cannot grasp that words have multiple meanings and which one to use.

[@salvadaXgracia]

​@@michaelbradley6004why are you allowed to update the KJV by defining words in modern language, but translators are not allowed to publish them in a book that anyone can read?

[@PastorScottIngram]

Good point. thanks for sharing.

[@justmoseying]

Hi Pastor Scott, Have you approached Gail Riplinger to come on the podcast for an interview/discussion? Thanks

[@PastorScottIngram]

I have not because I consider Riplinger, not only wrong, but to be a false teacher on these issues. I have Mark on the channel today because I consider him to be a brother in Christ whom I disagree with about the differences in the critical and traditional text, but not a false teacher. Those are important differences. Mark and I recognize the same facts but come to different conclusions. Riplinger is making things up and presenting them as truth to argue her points instead of dealing with the same facts and presenting her conclusions. I hope that helps you understand my reasoning.

[@justmoseying]

@@PastorScottIngram I do understand. One of the main issues I do have with the Critical Text folks though is that they do remove portions and deny the fact that they are Scripture. In principle, that seems a pretty important issue. Is that something that we can agree to disagree with them about? It seems a more important issue than that to my mind. I find that a bigger issue that the translation issues to be honest. 🤔

[@curtthegamer934]

I doubt Riplinger would agree to appear on the podcast anyway. She has pretty much avoided on-camera/recorded audio debates ever since the James White interview on the radio, apparently because she got trounced and is afraid of it happening again.

[@charlesf2804]

Listening to this enjoyable discussion, I think that even having the original manuscripts wouldn't solve this issue.

[@PastorScottIngram]

True. Many simply will not hear facts and logic even when clearly placed before them.

[@carjam0607]

Sincere question - I’ve been taught that the entire Word of God in Hebrew and Greek does not exist in its entirety- some parts are missing . Since God said He will preserve His Word, and if this is correct, where does it exist today ? I’ve been told there are errors in all of them so then who decides what is error and what is fact. The differences among the various versions cause me to question all of it since I haven’t recd direction on this question. I’m looking forward to your thoughts. Thx!

[@PastorScottIngram]

I actually discussed this question about biblical origins in another video that I think might help you. The premise is a little different than your question but I think they both arrive at the same place. I have many videos discussing these type of issues. I hope you take advantage of them all. Here is the one i mentioned: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eoGol3WXqZ2nrqs

[@salvadaXgracia]

Great interview! I don't think the difference is understanding 9/10 versus 10/10. I think it's more like understanding 8/10 versus 9.9/10 words and more importantly sentences and paragraphs.

[@PastorScottIngram]

Thanks! It is hard to get an exact percentage on readability considering each person comes from a different perspective.

[@salvadaXgracia]

@@PastorScottIngram oh definitely! If I remember correctly, you were discussing it in the context of giving a KJV Bible to children.

[@rrsafety]

Mark a is truth teller. That can put him in the line of fire.

[@murrydixon5221]

Lies will be exposed🎯

[@PastorScottIngram]

I believe he does strive to hold to the truth about the issues even though we have different perspectives on the issues.

[@russell13904]

On "caul", I'm gonna say many of Pastor Scott's congregants would know what it is - all the ones who have gutted a deer at least 😊. Thanks Scott and Mark for another interesting discussion.

[@PastorScottIngram]

Thanks! I'm glad it was a blessing.

[@keithfuson7694]

We intelligently give our children the best Bible for them.such as the NLT. Its readable, understandable, intelligible , beneficial.

[@PastorScottIngram]

I don't hinder children from reading the NLT, but I think I would want them to know one day that that version doesn't have all the verses. I would want them to move up to a more exact and readable text eventually. There is a lot to consider in choosing a bible for children.

[@cG-es8mb]

If someone isn’t saved because they don’t understand kjv then I say if your saved you should know Aramaic Greek and Jewish without studying it. That’s ridiculous.

[@PastorScottIngram]

It is a horrible thing that people have been told and gotten in their mind. It may sound crazy but I know of those who think this way and have told me that is why they can’t understand it.

[@procop4063]

Your question of which is easier the KJV or the NKJV It depends on age of reader. Im 70 used the kjv for many years for me the nkjv is easier to understand. I switched to the nkjv myself. I think simply for reading the NIV is easier to read and understand for new Christians. I read it myself and have not been corrupted. How about the LSB...Legacy Standard Bible. I haven't read it ?????

[@PastorScottIngram]

I have read all the translations I have reviewed on the channel. I wasn’t corrupted either, but I did learn that many are deceived into removing so much of the text. I did a study on the NASB here if you’re interested: What is the Difference in the KJV and NASB? kzbin.info/www/bejne/ganLo4B6qrdmi9k

[@procop4063]

Maybe the kjv is easier to read because it seems more poetic and I dont mean that negatively.

[@PastorScottIngram]

I definitely think it makes it easier to memorize because of that fact. The NKJV does do some stuff to give the poetic feel too though which other translations of today don’t consider.

[@trevinodude]

As someone who grew up reading the KJV, who reads both the KJV and the NJKV currently… I believe it is important to have differing Biblical translations, some that focus on accuracy to the text, and some that are focused on simple understanding of the Word. How can people grow into strong, faithful Christians if they do not understand the Word? The NKJV is a true blessing to Christians who wants to read the King James Bible, but wants to read it in modern English. I think years down the line, maybe the KJV should be redone into modern English again because of the modernization of language. As long as English is a prevalent language, the original KJV will last forever, but the more English changes… the less understandable the KJV will be. And people who do not understand this is unfortunately misguided. The KJV is the Bible… yes… but it’s not THE Bible. It’s not the original language, it’s not the original text, and it should not be held to the standard of the original Hebrew and Greek text.

[@PastorScottIngram]

I totally agree. Common sense tells us that language does change and we need to keep updating our translations of the traditional text. I don’t think it needs to happen often, but at times it will be necessary.

[@DannieDecent]

Fantastic video

[@PastorScottIngram]

Thanks again

[@mikehopper1674]

The KJV is probably just as easy to read as the NKJV. But the NKJV is more understandable. A better question is: is the KJV as understandable as the NKJV. Also, the ESV has the same false friend of host that the he pointed out the NKJV missed. Most translations probably have a few false friends. And no. I’m not KJVO!

[@PastorScottIngram]

I would agree that whatever translation we choose, we need to do more than just read it but also study it.

[@Greywolfgrafix]

Is Gail Riplinger still spewing her hibbity jibbity KJVO squirrel words? Lololol...🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@PastorScottIngram]

Sadly

[@alanhowe7659]

No. But Riplinger isn't a sound commentator.

[@PastorScottIngram]

So, you think the KJV is more understandable?

[@alanhowe7659]

@@PastorScottIngram No. Definitely not.

[@Greywolfgrafix]

I prefer the ESV over the NKJV or KJV

[@PastorScottIngram]

There are some substantial differences between the KJV/NKJV and the ESV. I discussed them here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/oWTRgoyvbs1sp8U

[@CaribouDataScience]

Of course (as you know) all True Believers read the American Standard Version.

[@PastorScottIngram]

Interesting, ;)

[@salvadaXgracia]

I love how they preserved God's name Jehovah and did not remove it and replace it with LORD. I use it sometimes for this reason.

[@robertvaughn457]

Though I disagree with Mark on a number of things, I join with him on urging people to throw away the Flesch Reading Ease and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level tests as a way to compare the readability of Bible translations. I learned this long ago and have said so, but my blog does not have much reach. Perhaps stating it hear will help reach some more. For example, plug in the Svenska Folkbibeln (Swedish Bible) for II John in to Microsoft Word and test it. I got a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of 7.9, but I cannot read it. I would also caution that most Bible publishers touting the readability of their Bibles are probably using the same sort of method to compare their Bible to others -- and it is just as meaningless for them as well.

[@PastorScottIngram]

Thanks for your comment! There certainly is an aspect of opinion in this question, but I think that just the archaic words would have the NKJV as the more understandable of the two to the modern person.

[@robertvaughn457]

@@PastorScottIngram you're welcome! To be clear, I was not addressing what might be an aspect of opinion and subjectivity regarding readability. I do not believe the matter of the use of the Flesch-Kincaid tests regarding Bible translation is a matter of opinion. It can be objectively proven that the test is computer generated and does not measure people's actual comprehension of what they read. I wish both sides would stop referring to it, except to possibly admit it confuses more than it answers. Thanks.

[@deeman524]

NKJV for life! yeah 🎉🎉!!!! But there is good reason to reading the KJV, everybody should own one regardless of what their favorite is

[@michaelclark2458]

what are your thoughts on Genesis 12:7 and Genesis 22:8 compared to the KJV

[@PastorScottIngram]

I would agree on both counts. The KJV and NKJV are both great translations of the traditional text each with their own special helps.

[@deeman524]

​@@michaelclark2458they're saying basically the same thing

[@michaelclark2458]

@@deeman524 they do not when you look closely. Genesis 12:7 imports into the text dispensationalism ascribing the text when in light of Galatians 3:16-29 you see that thy seed referred only to Christ Jesus not seeds plural or descendants plural. Genesis 22:8 adds the word “for” for himself meaning that the lamb is not giving himself in the KJV, but rather for himself in NKJV. As if God needs to atone for his own sin rather than being the perfect sinless lamb given for atonement of our sin.

[@deeman524]

​@michaelclark2458 I believe the NKJV has it right and the word "Seed" is simply descendants or offspring, it maybe that the modern versions don't connect the passage as a prophecy to Christ, but everybody can see (if they're reading) that symbolically it is.

[@timmyholland8510]

I think KJV is readable. Mostly because when English wasn't standardized, English Bibles became the rules for standard English. English rules remained, even if some words had different interpretations over time. There are KJV that had interpreted phrases and words within. My Mom's Bible somewhere bought in the seventys was such a Bible. She liked never having to look a word up, being it's noted in the Bible for her.

[@PastorScottIngram]

It is nice to have those type of bibles with an inline dictionary. My mom and dad bought me one that did that too.

[@itzcaseykc]

P.4 Before we open the Word, every earnest and honest seeker of truth needs to pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit. Then as we are reading the Bible, we are not to lean on our own understanding as we compare scripture with scripture on a specific topic. When we do this, we can understand what the context in which the writer is talking about. I agree that a computer using the Flesh Concade Readability Test is useless. When the scribes were copying and translating the OT, they counted the numerical value of each character and if there was a discrepancy they would either go back and find where the issue was and redo the error or rewrite that page to ensure consistency and integrity of the scriptures. Modern authors don't know how or refuse to take the time to translate as the Jews once did to ensure accuracy of the scriptures. They're more concerned about making a name for themselves & a buck versus relaying truth. 1 Cor. 14 actually is talking about speaking in another language, i.e. tongues... not of using a version other than the KJV. IF people do not understand anything other than English and someone speaks in a language they don't understand, someone who does needs to interpret as the person is speaking, otherwise edification (strengthening, building up) in the church does not occur. Instead, it merely causes chaos & confusion, misunderstanding, and division. When in my 10th-16th years of age, there was a family from another country like Haiti who spoke their native French language and English. The father would sometimes pray in French leaving no one else but his family to know what he was praying about. That is not what scripture tells us to do. That is how the Catholic Church operates. They love to pray and preach in Latin and very few people know what they said. The parishioners automatically revere the priest, etc, in part because of that. Totally wrong for them to carry on in such a manner. God is not the author of dissension, confusion, and contention. He is the One of order, truthfulness, integrity, and love. IMHO, departing from the KJV just so that we can *feel* more comfortable reading other versions are opening the door to demonic doctrines that these authors infuse in their private versions. the end

[@PastorScottIngram]

This is the danger of not having a translation that is understandable to most people: When anyone hears the word of the kingdom, and does not understand it, then the wicked one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is he who received seed by the wayside. Matthew 13:19

[@gator7082]

KJVO seems like idolatry to me; especially in the context of total Christian history. In the beginning was the Word. Jesus. Jesus has always been the word, to elevate a particular bible above the Word seems heretical. I don't know if I'm right, but I'm willing to admit that. I just always keep in mind that Jesus is the Word when I read a Bible regardless of translation.

[@matthewweaver5610]

Amen. King James didn't die for me

[@PastorScottIngram]

There is a lot to the translation issue and I would advise you to study it out deeper. I have found the KJV and NKJV to be trusted. Those who use the KJV alone are really more like a sect than a cult or idolaters. When we don't give the Bible a proper place, It must also be understood, that one might tell us that this is "Jesus" and the only way to prove them right or wrong is to point them to the text He has declared as His Word about Him. Just some food for thought.

[@Matthew-307]

Gail Riplinger is a proven liar, and she is unrepentant. I trust nothing from her. And to say that the kjv is easier to read & UNDERSTAND just clearly shows the cognitive dissonance of the kjv-only mind.

[@PastorScottIngram]

Sadly, I see people doing just that in these very comments. KJV usage can be defended without resorting to lies and conspiracy theories and would have a better argument if they would not resort to such tactics.

[@brucemcqueen5395]

While I understand that language has changed over 400 years, I fail to understand some of the choices made by the KJV translators or our understanding of some of their choices. For example, Mark describes the word "halt" as limp in 2 Kings. In context, at least to me, that makes no sense. How does one "limp" between two opinions? If you read it as it is written in the KJV, it makes more sense. If God be God, worship Him, If Baal be god, worship him. I don't understand how you can "limp" between those two choices. You can certainly halt or hesitate between the two choices, but for me "limping" doesn't work.

[@losthylian]

Nonetheless, it is what the Hebrew (and English) mean here! The imagery of a limp giving someone an uneven walk was used figuratively to indicate one who was wavering. "How long will you lean back and forth between these two options, wobbling all over like a guy with a limp? Make up your mind and walk firmly in one lane or the other! God or Baal, your choice!"

[@PastorScottIngram]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on it. I am sure many haven’t gotten confused on that as Mark has said he certainly did.

[@Australian_Made]

Bruce, perhaps instead of LIMP, you'd prefer HOP? “JUMP from one side to the other”

[@Australian_Made]

Bruce, how about Flip-Flop from trusting one to... or toggle from trusting one to... or switch from trusting one...

[@frederickanderson1860]

Languages change and words old English is not same as today. Apostle Paul who was stepped in his own scrolls,said " the letter killeth the spirit giveth Life. Why because read Isaiah chapter 29 how God himself sealed the scrolls that the learned and unlearned cannot understand.

[@itzcaseykc]

You didn't quote 2 Cor. 3:6 KJV in its entirety which says, "who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." Isaiah 28:14, 15 gives us a clue about why the people could not read and understand what God wanted them to know. In Isaiah 29:1-16 is quite thought provoking. Verse 16 can apply to our time, just as it did in Isaiah's time for the people in and around Jerusalem. Considering how history has a habit of repeating itself when people fail to lean on God, overcome their obstacles and move forward, we see how folks are blinded to the truth even when it is staring them in the face in black & white. In 29:11, 12 it says, "And the vision of all *is become unto you as* the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned." The book itself was not sealed, just the eyes of the people were blinded for various reasons, just as today people's eyes are blinded to the truth of scripture because of their rebellion against God. What was written will seem like they are sealed and not to be understood, but in all reality, it is the people reading it that do not have spiritual eyesight to read & understand. Many people have been told the same thing about the Book of Revelation. That it is a sealed book and can't be understood. That's a delusion/a deception made by Satan to discourage people from knowing what will soon come to pass. He wants people to be blind & ignorant and prevent them from discerning truth from error when he breaks out with his greatest deception of all time that will ultimately lead many to destruction.

[@PastorScottIngram]

Languages do change and God has blessed us with translations. Understanding the difference in translation and the original words is huge for your understanding of the Bible when you grasp it.

[@JackCrawford-k2p]

The NKJV is much easier to understand, especially for those who dont read at all. It's a good choice for those who cant follow the script of Romeo and Juliette.

[@PastorScottIngram]

I totally agree!

[@maxwellhufford7115]

No brainer for me, 400+ year old English is not 100% intelligible.

[@PastorScottIngram]

I agree, but as you can see in the comments, many don’t agree. :)

[@kapirk2244]

So, should we stop reading Shakespeare now also? I really hope these classics don’t get tossed aside just because they are a challenge to understand. I wish people would continue to increase their knowledge instead of throwing in the towel. We are bringing in the “Idiocracy” society.

[@salvadaXgracia]

I cannot understand Shakespeare without a modern English rendering next to it.

[@PastorScottIngram]

I think it is perfectly fine to read Shakespeare and the KJV. The issue I have found is that most modern folks don't completely grasp Shakespeare of the KJV. Thus, the NKJV is a useful tool.

[@photonjohnny]

This ploughboy is wondering if the KJV is consistent throughout all the books. That is important to me. In no way do I poo poo anything or the efforts of others, cause I do not know. Learned a lesson humility long ago. My wife and I are reading a "Life in Christ" NKJV from the beginning to end. What does our Father think of us? Is that clear everywhere you look? Our Father has an undying love for us, but humankind is a bit limited in that translation. IMHO.

[@PastorScottIngram]

One of the pledges of the translators was to make it more consistent with the traditional text. That is somewhat a matter of one’s opinion. I would say you should read and compare and see if you think that accomplished that goal.

[@PastorKThroop]

I agree with Mark that the NKJV (in an attempt, perhaps, not to sound too unlike the KJV) did not get rid of all the false friends. The words “hosts” and “mansions” (John 14:2) are examples of this. This makes me think that, although some resist the idea, it is time for an update to the NKJV.

[@murrydixon5221]

Are you claiming to be a pastor? If you cannot understand the King James Bible, then I would suggest you step down. That makes you unqualified to preach, teach, or lead. Step aside. John 10:27-28

[@PastorKThroop]

@@murrydixon5221 Yes, I have been a pastor at Immanuel Baptist Church in Bloomington, Illinois for more than 30 years now. I did not say I cannot understand the KJV, although I agree that there are what Mark calls “false friends” in the KJV that lead many people to misunderstand it in places. As for the notion that a pastor must know 17th century English in order to be qualified to preach in 21st century English, I must say that I'm a bit perplexed as to how that makes good sense. Well, I suppose it would only make sense if one assumes the truth of KJV-onlyism, which I don't. If you would like to talk about biblical qualifications for pastors, I would not be averse to that discussion. If you want to argue about KJV-onlyism, I'm probably not your man.

[@murrydixon5221]

@@PastorKThroop Alright, well you brought up translation first right? So I think it is fair game to talk about. What does your teaching look like? What bible do you preach from? If someone came to you after the service or at a bible study and said "Pastor I can't understand this." What is your next move? Will you point them to a modern version rather than take the time? There is nothing "false" in my bible.

[@PastorKThroop]

​@@murrydixon5221 I have taught from the NKJV throughout my ministry at Immanuel (although I taught from the KJV for a couple of years while in Bible college). The NKJV is the version I use every day as well, although in my studies I examine the Hebrew and Greek, as well as other versions such as the KJV, LSB, ESV, CSB, NET, and NASB. If people ask me about things they can't understand, I try to explain it to them as best I can. That is my job, and I constantly ask the Lord Jesus to help me do it well. By the way, the term “false friend,” as used by Mark Ward, does not imply that there is anything “false” in the KJV as an original translation in the 17th century, since he acknowledges -- as do I -- that those words were good translations at the time. But some people may be led astray by them now, since many words have changed their meaning over time. To take the example above, “mansion” is a perfectly fine 17th century translation of monḗ in John 14:2, but it is not a good translation for modern English speakers because the term doesn't mean simply a “dwelling place” or a “room” to modern speakers. Yet the Greek word actually means a “dwelling place” or a “room.” So, “mansion” is a “false friend” because a modern reader sees it and thinks he knows what it means but really doesn't, and he doesn't know that he does not know what it means. He is thus given a false impression as to the meaning of the text due entirely to the fact that the meaning of the word has changed. True, as a pastor I could simply explain to him what it meant in the 17th century and how that meaning corresponds to the actual meaning of the Greek, and that is, sadly, something I have to do with my NKJV in this instance. But I think it would be better if I didn't have to explain to him an antiquated meaning of the word. I think it would be better if he had a more up-to-date translation of the Greek. Hence, my previous suggestion of a need for an NKJV update.

[@murrydixon5221]

@PastorKThroop When do the tweaks and updates end pastor? Is the "false" friend in the Bible text itself or is it in the mind of the believer? That's why the Holy Ghost can come down and help us all to understand. It seems to me that people need to pray for more light and study or be diligent (whatever floats your boat) . You are propping up Mark Ward who is the Joel Osteen of bible translations and textual criticism. Let's roll with just that one example: You don't like mansions and you prefer "rooms". Without writing a 50 page essay on it, for your average sheep of today does rooms truly convey the best sense? In the New Jerusalem there are many mansions but one Kingdom of God and one King. Rooms to the average person means you get roommates at college or you get a hotel room. Now I am happy to get either a mansion or a room. But I believe that is a false false friend.

[@rosslewchuk9286]

I use only NKJV based tracts for street evangelism. We need immediate readability. As a boomer I was raised on the KJV, and the public schools taught us how to read it. Today's public school students certainly are not taught this way, and need modern English Bibles. After the NKJV, I like Pickering and Boyd for the NT, and the BSB, LSB and WEB. Thanks again! 😊👍📖🙏✅

[@PastorScottIngram]

I agree and it is one of the convictions that led me to use it more in the ministry at the church.

[@itzcaseykc]

P.3 *Sincerity does not mean they are in the right though.* I'm glad to hear you guys talking about the copyright issues and how that works with regard to the KJV and other versions out there. Authors of their writings cannot contain more than the established percent of the original without being in violation of copyright laws. The word *version* is just that. It's an alternative to what the AV says, thus what they are presenting is an alternative gospel than what was originally shared by Jesus and the Apostles to the early Christian group. One reason why these versions vary from the KJV is due to the source material being relied upon by these authors. They are corrupt manuscripts and these authors' egotistical pride will not admit they are wrong about the errors they infused into their work. It's interesting how these other versions require revisions every few years due to people spotting serious deviations. They contain far more than the KJV had due to misspelling partly while in the translation process and during the printing process. Critical Text sources & ideology is dangerous. It is as its foundation demonic since it attempts to rationalize and develop a different perspective contrary to the sure word of God in the KJV Bible. Some people are now calling the NKJV as the *Not KJV.* When people try to change the credible sure word of God, they are going against what God would have us to know to be saved, despite their sincerity of heart to make it easier to read. Replacing a word changes the meaning and context of the sentence. When verses and/or words are removed, they are meddling with truth. Reading just one verse by itself can cause people to be confused as to what is being talked about. Many in this day-n-age don't know how to read & comprehend sentences... regardless of the format of the English language being used. IF people do not understand what a word being used in the AV is about, it only stands to reason that they look it up. IF people can do this simple basic thing with other things they come across in life, what's so difficult about doing it to find out what the Bible writers were saying?!?!? People need to exercise the habit of doing their due diligence so that they may know and understand what the scriptures is saying so that they are not misled. to be continued...

[@calvinclemons030]

Amen and amen!

[@PastorScottIngram]

I am trying to do a series here on why there are certain differences in the KJV and NKJV. I hope you will be following along.

[@JohnANellis]

Brother Scott, what is your Final Authority? The “modern” bibles are one of the ways satan has removed the final authority from the word and replaced it with the opinions of man(I like the way it’s said in this version better, or I can understand it better in this version, or a better translation from Greek is this). What is your final authority? Do you really think the word “Study” in 2 Timothy 2:15 was an oopsy? When you don’t understand a Bible passage, you read the context, at least 10 verses before and after the passage. It’s called studying. If you study what you’re reading, you can understand it just fine. This is how you prevent false doctrine. A text without a context is a pretext. Then again 2 Timothy 2:15 only says to “Study” in the KJV doesn’t it? Do you believe you can have the very words of God in your hands and read them? The Bible says we can. If that is true, and I believe it is because I’m holding it right now. Then there can only be one word of God. Not hundreds all saying different things. In the last 5 years I have watched you go from the NKJV to the KJV and back to the NKJV. So, I’ll ask again. What is your final authority? Is it your opinion on what the Greek and Hebrew say or the word of God? If it’s the word of God, then which one is it? There can be only one. God didn’t make His word to be like a salad bar, to pick and choose what you like. His word is sharper than any twoedged sword. I ask you this because I used to read the NKJV, ESV, NASB, NLT, and NIV. I would sometimes pick the wording from 2-3 versions in one verse to get it to say what I wanted to hear. I tried to read the KJV but could not understand it very well. I would find myself going to other versions to find out what is being said(which often times would not make sense). This caused so much confusion that I almost walked away. I asked God to show me His Truth. I read 1 Peter 1:25, Ephesians 6:17, Hebrews 4:12, Isaiah 34:16, Job 23:12, 2 Timothy 3:15-17 and many more verses on the word of God. I realized that if these verses were true, there must be only one that He inspired, that He preserved, that He wants us to read. That, or God is a liar. I chose to believe God is not a liar, so I started to study manuscript evidence and church history. Over 10 years of study led to the KJV being that word of God. Once I understood context, the rule of first mention, and that the KJV is a concordance to itself. The KJV came alive, and I knew I was reading the very words of God. Can you say the same about the NKJV? Is it the inspired, preserved word of God?

[@FreelyByHisGrace]

Your proving the point of this video, “study” in 1611 did not mean what you think it means.

[@PastorScottIngram]

I can say that about the NKJV because it is translating the same text preserved down to every generation. I have studied it out extensively and am firm in my conviction. I can say that about the KJV 1611, 1769, and the 1982 NKJV. I have read thru the other translations and have discussed them extensively in this channel in a playlist called “What is the Difference in Bible Translations?” I cannot support them because of the removal of the underlying text preserved down to every generation. I discussed that difference in study here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/q6rbiGOHmrymmtksi=-ehvHE129bMD3F0u

[@jamessheffield4173]

My experience: I gave my two boys NIV’s to read. They didn't like it, I took them to an old poorly educated woman who worked for the Volunteers of America. She taught them from the AV and they loved it. To this day they won't use any other Bible.

[@PastorScottIngram]

As I learned the differences in Bible translations, I learned to shy away from translations like the NIV as a means of making things easier for people to understand. Some will use nothing else and say they can’t understand anything other than a NIV. I just try to tell them then that the NIV is not using the same traditional text and they should be at least aware of that issue. When it comes to English translations that use the traditional text, I see nothing wrong with using them if one chooses. I think the fact that your kids are great with the KJV to be good. It requires deeper study, but I think it is worthwhile if they are willing.

[@jamessheffield4173]

@@PastorScottIngram My elder son debated Dr. Bart Ehrman, has done some deep studies. Blessings.

[@PastorScottIngram]

Yes! I know him and have talked with him online before. Very nice guy. I am sure you are proud of him.

[@jamessheffield4173]

@@PastorScottIngram Yup. Thank you.

[@edwatson4997]

👍

[@PastorScottIngram]

Thanks!

[@normmcinnis4102]

Well, there's easier to read vs what is it saying?

[@PastorScottIngram]

Yes, understanding is important.

[@barryjtaft]

Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel fame in 1979 in his message "Foundation of the Word(1-3)" Makes two powerful statements. 1 - There have been no great movements of God in the last 400 years apart from the King James Version. The second, thankfully there is a version of the King James coming out which goes back to the textus receptus, The New King James Version. One month later at a Sunday night bible study, with my wife in the audience, he said we are going back to the King James Version because there are real doctrinal problems with this version (referring to the NKJV).

[@PastorScottIngram]

I don’t know where you heard that but it is only half true. Chuck understood the Bible version issue as I do and did point out the errors of the critical text. He did switch to the NKJV but didn’t claim it had issues later and leave it. Up unto his death, Pastor Chuck Smith preached from the New King James Version (NKJV) Word for Today Bible. Smith also wrote a Kindle book titled Why I Choose KJV which showed his concerns with the critical text.

[@barryjtaft]

@@PastorScottIngram i heard if from my wife who sat under him for 13 years and was in the bible study when he made the announcement. that is i witness testimony. unless you can impeach her eyewitness testimony it is not open to debate.

[@PastorScottIngram]

@barryjtaft sorry, I have actual records of him preaching from the NKJV in his app up until his death. It is just public knowledge.

[@barryjtaft]

@@PastorScottIngram you have an app and i have a wife who began attending CC in 1979 and continued faithfully for 13 years. She heard in all three "Foundation of the Word" messages from Chuck live where he sang the praises of the NKJV and a month later where he said we're going back to the KJV. And for 13 years she heard him preach out the King James Bible and no other version.

[@dhblue431]

What are those doctrinal problems? Is this the same Chuck Smith that explained the Lord was coming back by 1988?

[@rosslewchuk9286]

Excellent session! 🎯 🤔Would not Wycliffe be disqualified by the KJVO crowd because he translated from the Paris Vulgate?🤔 And remember Rome's "Vulgate Onlyism," which led to the death of many true believers! What is the heart condition of some of the more hostile KJVO crowd?

[@PastorScottIngram]

I’m glad it was a blessing. It is amazing how many times translations have been put in a place where they should not have been placed throughout church history.

[@christopheryetzer]

The KJV was never modern colloquial language. Adam Nicolson wrote, “[The King James Bible’s] English is there to serve the original not to replace it. It speaks in its master’s voice and is not the English you would have heard on the street, then or ever...These scholars were not pulling the language of the scriptures into the English they knew and used at home... It was, in other words, more important to make English godly than to make the words of God into the sort of prose that any Englishmen would have written...” Leland Ryken agrees, “The vocabulary is predominantly noncolloquial...The goal of the King James translators was to be answerable to the reverence with which they believed people should approach a sacred text. In their view, the Bible should sound like the Bible, not something as casual as a gossip session in the corner coffee shop." Tyndale was never modern colloquial. He made up words. Read Norton's book on the English Bible as Literature. He explains this. In some places the NKJV does not follow the Greek of the KJV. Dr. Price himself admitted that. I could give you and did personally send you several examples. I wish you would be more consistent. Hebrews 3:16 according to Price, "The issue hinges on the accent mark on the Greek word τίνες (tines), whether it is on the first syllable (τίνες) or on the last (τινές). With the accent on the first syllable, the word is the interrogative pronoun “who?” as in the NKJV; with it on the last syllable, the word is the indefinite pronoun “some” as in the KJV… this seems to be a rare exception, perhaps the only place, where the NKJV translators chose not to follow the minority reading of the Textus Receptus (TR). To the best of my knowledge, in all the other places the NKJV translators followed the TR, even when the TR reading was not supported by the majority of copies, sometimes by a very small number, or by no Greek authority at all. I can’t give the reason for this exception…” Unfortunately there are others. Luke 1:35 Scrivener’s TR reads, “το γεννωμενον εκ σου αγιον κληθησεται υιος θεου” which is translated in the KJV as, “that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” The critical text does not include the words “εκ σου” which are also not found in the NKJV, “that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.” Some have argued that the NKJV might be following a different Textus Receptus. Erasmus, Stephanus and the Elzevir texts did not contain the reading (although Stephanus did include it in the margin of his 1550 edition). Beza defends his inclusion of the words by writing, “Indeed the old interpreter does not read this [way] (i.e. Jerome). However, I did not hesitate to restore it to the context, partly following the Syriac translation, partly [because it is] found in several old copies, and in the [Greek] Complutensian. Also these same words [are found written by] Athanasius in his letter to Epictetus, the Bishop of Corinth, translated by me into Latin as follows, ‘Gabriel,’ he says, ‘plainly and with certainty explained to Mary his joyful message: when he did not simply say “that which will be conceived in you,” so that no one might think that a body is introduced into her from outside, but “from you” so that we might believe that what is conceived is from her nature itself.’ He addressed this against the Dimoerites who believed the body of Christ to be coessential with His Deity, an error that others later followed.” 3 other times “εκ σου” is found in the NT and every time the NKJV translates the words. If indeed the NKJV translators used a different Textus Receptus, the question must be asked, why? The publisher said that they were using the text underlying the KJV and specifically Scrivener’s text. In the end the NKJV translation agrees more with the NA28 text than it does with a literal reading from Scrivener’s TR or the KJV. There are others as well. Nick Sayers used to use the NKJV and was so disturbed by the footnotes and such that he changed to the KJV. As much as Mark would like people to read his research we would like the same for him. Sayers has written a whole book on Revelation 16:5, and yet Dr. Ward is still making false claims about it. We are all busy and we should all do our due diligence, but when it came time for Dr. Ward to critique Bryan Ross, his research amounted to watching some of his videos on triple speed while doing yard work. And yet he was willing to call him cowardly without having even spent the time to listen carefully to what he was teaching. Ward does not define all words correctly. He is still mistaken on "commendeth" and "miserable". A KJV translator himself said that miserable means miserable. Dr. Featley was given the portion of Paul's Epistles to write comments on. When he came to 1 Corinthians 15:19 he wrote, "In regard that Christians do not only forsake the pleasures of this world, and are subject also for the profession of the truth to a great many crosses, tribulations and persecutions: therefore, should there be no resurrection, Christians must needs be most miserable. For then they should enjoy no good nor comfort at all, neither here, nor hereafter, neither temporall, nor eternall. The ground of this argument is this, that the perfect felicitie of the soule, and the imortalitie thereof, are by Gods order inseparable from the resurrection of the bodies, wherefore he that denies the one, overthrowes also the other. See Matth. 22:32." Ward doesn't believe this. 1 Corinthians 14 is not specifically about Bible translation and if it does than you must get rid of every Bible. Sheol is not an English word and Dr. Ward and I agree that there are good English substitutes for this. I don't like the NKJV because not a single translator believed in it. Dr. Dan Wallace said in the Credo Course lesson number 35 titled Which Translation is Best, at about 18 minutes and 35 seconds, “The New King James Version done in 1982 is a curiosity... I worked on it. I was Arthur Farstad’s assistant for quite some time. He was the senior editor of the New King James Bible, and I did a lot of proofreading and a little bit of editing… So not a single one of the translators, not a single one of the editors of the New King James Bible thinks that the Greek text that they translated is the best one available today. Not one of them. And over 100 scholars worked on this.”

[@PastorScottIngram]

This is what the NKJV trans lord believed and their goals in translation of the NKJV: What did the NKJV Translators Really Believe? kzbin.info/www/bejne/jqTTfaWqfNKVj68

[@Australian_Made]

· @ timestamp 10:03 - 10:04 The greek word myriad transfers across in the English language, with TWO DEFINITIONS. #1.). ten-thousands of ... #2.). countless ... With respect to def. #2.)., it functions *SIMILARLY* to the way that plethora does in the English language. The difference between “plethora” *and* “myriad” is demonstrated in the grammar!!!!! A person says, I have a plethora of options to weigh. ✓ ... *OR* A person says, I have myriad options to weigh. ✓ For "'myriad'" ’s grammar, →→ think *along the lines of* countless, ... As in, A person says, I have countless options to weigh. So to use "'myriad'" here, simply swap out countless for myriad. ➜ ✏ ✉ ✍ NOW AS FOR def. #1, as per Acts 21 : 20 it is more literal to apply "'myriad'" here, but it's *reading* in English is a little more clumsy!!!! Since English language doesn't use a robust & serviceable & handy word to mean exactly a ten-thousand or a multiple / several / or many of ten-thousand, which doesn't *ALSO* have a second meaning of countless, then I'm afraid myriad is not quite so handy & robust as the *far less accurate* “thousand” [ or even “thousands” ] In English, thousand *IS INDEED* robust & serviceable & handy to use, and when applying *thousands* of Jews in like manner to applying *myriads* of Jews, the *INTENT* of this verse is preserved. Please constrast this to saying the fishermen caught dozens of fish and the statement the fishermen caught scores of fish. One literally means they caught several 12s of fishes. One literally means they caught several 20s of fishes. *NEITHER* scores *NOR* dozens is clumsy in the English language. *CONCLUSION* who cares if one translation states many myriads of or if one translation states many thousands of ❓ Doctrine is *not corrupted* !!!

[@itzcaseykc]

P.1 To those who can only tolerate short quips of comments, I'm sorry that my posting is too lengthy for you. There was just so much content to respond to and am posting this in segments because many of KZbin watchers and commenters dislike having to read LONG postings. This may be due to their short attention spans or just don't like deep thoughts. I, also, grew up using the KJV and still do for my foundation, even though I will sometimes check out the others to see how they read on a verse or to verify which version someone is using online. I had a Today's English Bible, the NIV and ESV, but did not like any of them whatsoever when growing up, and still don't care for them. Having the KJV, even in an early age, as being used corporately in church and elsewhere is important because there needs to be a common foundation when reading scripture. Pastors or anyone who stands up and reads scripture from anything other than the KJV needs to make known what that version they're reading from, however, the person leading out should use the KJV. IF the person in the pew wants to use another version, that's on them. Many young children, during that time when the AV was distributed, during the settlers period, and in our generation (including myself) can understand what they're reading in the KJV Bible. IMHO... as a whole, all too many people are just lazy; they don't try to apply themselves when reading the Old English as seen in the KJV. That's why we ask those who are older and who are more capable, to help us understand what we read, but we all need to be aware that everyone are prone to make mistakes and interject our own faulty understanding of things. IF a child is incapable of processing what they read, then sure... the option to provide them with a child's Bible would be the ideal way to go, especially IF that parent is either unwilling, unable, or just too lazy to take the time to explain things to the child on their level. When Mark said, "weigh you know the potential of using the New King James versus *the trustworthiness* of the King James..." says alot in itself. He admitted that the KJV is trustworthy, which implies that the NKJV and others are not. to be continued...

[@farainyika2365]

you seem like you are trying to cause division

[@itzcaseykc]

@@farainyika2365 IF sharing the truth about things is what you call "division" then maybe I am. God doesn't want His people to be in ignorance and darkness.

[@PastorScottIngram]

I believe we can trust the KJV and the NKJV. They are both translating from the same text.

[@itzcaseykc]

@@PastorScottIngram Actually pastor, the NKJV has numerous changes in it that affects its ultimate meaning.

[@karlcooke3197]

Hi, I was a King James onlyist, I love the Geneva bible, The problem is that all versions have errors, more so modern versions. 2 different Text, Geneva Bible,, King James bible and NKJV. Modern versions text is a another bible.

[@PastorScottIngram]

I think that really depends on what you understand as an "error"

[@bobbymichaels2]

Learning involves learning new words you are unfamiliar with. This is necessary in every subject. I was taught that early in elementary school with those endless vocabulary lists. I am about one year away from retiring and am still learning new words or learning meanings of words I thought I knew. Once you learn a few "false friends," then you know them for life. Learning is fun.

[@PastorScottIngram]

I would agree. There are some false friends we are unaware of even after years of studying. Whether it be the NKJV or KJV let’s all study deeply Gods Word.

[@TerryChambers7]

The NKJV translated Joshua in this verse. Are both correct? “Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;” ‭‭Acts‬ ‭7‬:‭45‬ ‭KJV‬‬

[@PastorScottIngram]

I have answered your question here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nojKgZxmpsxkq7s

[@keithfuson7694]

No. It was Joshua, not Jesus..Read the OT passage.

[@Froto1976]

I've done a lot of studying in this subject, and im convinced that it's not just out of date language. I agree that it is a bit different, but consider the passage Hebrews 2:16. How the newer translations have actually changed the meaning in verse 16. I agree that the greek word they use there can mean giving aid or giving help, but when you read it in context, the whole chapter, the King James translators got it right. In many cases, they seem to try to make Jesus lesser than the Son of God. The NKJV did the same, went with the Nestle-Aland while saying they went with the TR. But in most cases didnt. My opinion obviously

[@Matthew-307]

Titus 2:13, kjv vs nkjv. Deity of Christ is much more clear in the nkjv. This common argument is easily disproven when one compares all of the scriptures that reference the deity of Christ, and not just the list that kjv-only folks like to use.

[@PastorScottIngram]

I am trying to answer a lot of the differences between the KJV and NKJV and give logical reasons why those differences occurred from 1769 to 1982 here on the channel each Friday. I have found there are good reasons why the choices were made. You can find some past studies in this playlist: kzbin.info/aero/PL-dMPDGX0OTE46F9wfgCrq0zmLeAMhgIM

[@Froto1976]

​@Matthew-307 if you have a list that'd be great. Or some of the verses at least. I'd be interested in studying more. Thanks

[@captainnolan5062]

caul /kôl/ noun 1. the amniotic membrane enclosing a fetus. 2. historical - a woman's close-fitting indoor headdress or hairnet.

[@PastorScottIngram]

2 very different definitions

[@captainnolan5062]

@@PastorScottIngramthey both indicate/describe something that holds something else.

[@childofthelight888]

The King James Bible is God's Perfect, Preserved and Inspired Word.

[@PastorScottIngram]

I am glad you like it and apply it to your life.

[@WordMadeFlesh777]

Yes….no….sometimes….maybe?

[@PastorScottIngram]

:) hopefully the video helped answer that

[@calvinclemons030]

There is only one reason why MTC'S make word changes to The AV KJB, and that's because the modern version bible conglomerate is a billion dollar industry. The texts used in nearly every MV come from two mss. The Vaticanus (Rome) and Sinaiticus (also Rome). Why would I or any Protestant accept so-called bibles from Roman Catholic mss? Try watching the 12 part series, "Battle for the Bible" on Y/T from Madison Baptist Church and see for yourself how and why MV's change major doctrines concerning salvation and the making of false converts God bless

[@MAMoreno]

The Textus Receptus was compiled by a Roman Catholic textual critic using seven manuscripts in the possession of Dominican friars. Also, to be pedantic, Codex Sinaiticus came from an Eastern Orthodox monastery, not a Roman Catholic one.

[@calvinclemons030]

@@MAMoreno "Codex Sinaiticus came from an Eastern Orthodox monastery, not a Roman Catholic one." Well, that's what they say. Why are those at The British Museum so opposed to having the ink tested to verify it's authenticity and age? Tischendorf met with the Vicar of Christ aka The Pope and several other high ranking cardinals for weeks, just before leaving on his journey to find this codex. Smells just a bit fishy to me and a lot of others, as Codex A has no lineage before 1475 and B has none whatsoever. Whereas The Byzantine mss. can be traced back to the 2 century. They're (A and B) are both forgeries and the Papacy has been caught many, many times forging other documents that bolster their claims in audacious ways and these two are no different.

[@MAMoreno]

@@calvinclemons030 The Byzantine manuscripts cannot be traced back to the 2nd century. The earliest witness is from the 5th century, and even then, it is only "Byzantine" in the Gospels. Don't confuse early citations of Byzantine-esque readings with the confirmed existence of an early Byzantine text.

[@calvinclemons030]

@@MAMoreno Don't confuse Roman Catholic forgeries for true mss. Textual critics are petrified of having Sinaiticus ink tested for authenticity. They have come up with every excuse known to mankind as to why it should not and cannot be tested. Where's the lineage for codex's A&B going back to the 4th or 5th century? Nowhere, nada, none.

[@PastorScottIngram]

That having been said, the NKJV uses the same traditional text to translate from as the KJV. It is not using the critical text that the other Modern Versions are using.

[@mrtdiver]

I don't think this is where the real battle is. It's not the KJVO vs. all others. Rather, there is a plethora of Bible paraphrases that people are flocking to. I'm talking about The Message, NLT, EASY, NIV, NET, the Passion translation, et al. These have adopted the Dynamic Equivalence translation philosophy, basically - thought for thought. They both add and take away from the Word. They don't care to follow closely to what the Text says; that's been done in the formal equivalent translations (LSB, ESB, NASB, NKJV, etc.) The NIV led the charge with their liberal mindset. Things such as gender inclusive language. In matters of textual criticism, in a few places they have adopted the "harder reading" based on late (not early) manuscripts. The tide has swung towards Babel (confusion). Percentage-wise I would guess 25% have faithful translations, 5% KJVO folks, and 70% in the land of Babel with their paraphrases.

[@NeedAVacay-y5u]

I would agree the The Message, NLT, EASY, and NIV probably shouldn't be a main translation, but give the NET a chance. It is insanely accurate. they posted their drafts online and had open discussion with the world wide web about different translation options. The NET has over 60,000 footnotes that explain almost every important translation decision they made. Most study Bible's only has 30,000 notes. I have made the NET my main translation after using the NASB, NKJV and the ESV. I will add that there is no such thing as word for word as every translation adds words, changes phases, and in some cases (in the NKJV and others) replace idioms. Even the NASB. Some Bibles like the NRSV have gone too far in gender neutrality, and that is considered a academic translation fit for use in seminary. They make almost all appearance of brothers into "people" or "Mankind" or remove the word entirely. The ESV, NASB20, NET, NLT, and NIV are going for gender accuracy. The Greek word might literally be referring to "brother" but it means brothers and sisters. On the flip side when it comes to the Greek word for a male adult they keep "brother".

[@PastorScottIngram]

I would consider these thought for thought translations as more akin to storybook bibles than true bibles. They have some of the full bible but not all of it and they aren't as exact. I trust the NKJV and KJV because they are literally translating the traditional text passed down to every generation.

[@NeedAVacay-y5u]

@@PastorScottIngram I respect this position pastor. God bless you.

[@longstreet2740]

From my experience, when I first became a believer in Christ Jesus in mid 70s ( in my teens ) GOD Led me to an IBC Church and I began to read, with great zeal, the Bible KJV with little problem, being that before that time I had poor grammar skills . By College Days, early 1980s I began to read from New NIV and NASB. I found these new versions somewhat 'hollow' . I went back to KJV and was 'sneered'. even by a RPC pastor who many from IVCF attended. Today, I still Trust KJV, My understanding is that the majority TR manuscripts are the true Line of texts as compared to minority texts. I have no problem believing that minority critical texts originate from Early Catholic 2nd-3rd century gnostic corruptions. I don't need to compile a short /or long list of verses missing from Critical text vs TR KJV. I do believe that major doctrines are affected by these differences.

[@MAMoreno]

"TR manuscripts" is a bit of a misnomer, as the TR didn't exist until the 1500s, and no line of manuscripts agrees completely with the TR. But if you want to stick with the TR, you also have the NKJV and MEV among the modern versions (not to mention simple editorial updates such as the SKJV and KJVER).

[@PastorScottIngram]

I also trust in the traditional text.

[@danny-yy9fv]

Apparently since language will never stop evolving, there will never be a 'final' version to rely on correct? That's ridiculous. Just because you guys have 'never heard' of such things as Gail Riplinger points out, is that supposed to convince me that it's impossible to believe? Don't be prideful. Mrs. Riplinger is a very respectable woman and I have read her books and seen her dvd's exhaustively and understand her views. Unfortunately, people are gullible and easily convinced to go with the majority rule. I refuse to jump in the lake. The things of the Spirit of God are foolishness to a spiritually unborn person and no new or simplified version will render anyone the spiritual eyes or ears to understand with. KJV...all the way. peace.

[@PastorScottIngram]

I hope you will check out the other videos I mentioned about riplinger in this video. They are here on the channel. She is deceptive in her teachings on the NKJV. There is no doubt.

[@ElSiv84]

I've watched quite a lot of Mark's work now and have real concerns about whether he is even saved. He has spent around four years posting videos all about bible translations, but notice what he's never covered in any of his videos: - A Gospel message. - His own personal witness. - Any solid bible teaching. - Apologetics. And I could go on. He doesn't NEED to cover those areas, of course, but they sure would be a sign of a more fruitful Christian labourer. He has personally described his online work as a "ministry"; what kind of ministry includes no evangelism? I've not once heard him declare any love for the Lord, any allegiance to the Lord Jesus or belief in the Gospel of Jesus Christ and Him crucified. He seems to me to be a guy that was raised in a Christian home but, perhaps, not actually saved himself, hence a lot of head knowledge and desire for intellectual pursuits, but a gaping lack of any real heart knowledge and zeal for evangelistic work.

[@PastorScottIngram]

Mark has a strong desire that people would understand the Word of God.. I think that is an aspect of a Christian. I have spoke with him personally too of course, and he has a strong Christian character as well. He has also served as an assistant pastor. Perhaps he will share his testimony on the channel one day too, but I think his focus is on one thing right now.

[@Australian_Made]

El Siv 84, There is but one reason *WHY* he prioritises this line ... ... it's because of the dominance and overabundance of the KJVo message. If the KJVo message wasn't so excessive and saturated and pernicious, then Mark Ward wouldn't be taking this line at all. There are those who take their KJVo line to the point of hæte spēëch and cross well beyond the line of absence of Christian love. Mark Ward's seeming obsession with pushing his message is *NO MORE THAN* a reaction to the high-level hātē spèéch already out there.

[@jimmyallen9188]

From NKJV to KJV: I made the commitment when Jesus called me to repentance in 2018 to familiarize myself with only the NKJV because I thought it to be absurd to wrestle with the old English of KJV, but then one day while desperately wanting to repent of the sin of pornography that I had given myself over to practicing, I went to Romans 7 Seeking encouraging comfort from brother Paul to relate to his struggle with sin…and to my horror, he used the word ‘practice’. I knew that couldn’t be right because in my spirit, I knew not to make a practice of any sin. It gave me the sense that there was no hope of repenting from this practice. The KJV does not use the word “practice” which in essence is a giving over to sin, but rather simply uses the word “do” which is a much more temporal sense that gives hope to repentance. Also in John 1:14 the KJV supports the trinity with “was made” more so than the NKJV that unnecessarily changed “was made” to “became”. I know it sounds trivial but to our ‘oneness’ friends it’s not so trivial. I by no means bash the other versions, just something I noticed; and also there’s a strange sense of more razor sharpness I get out of KJV

[@PastorScottIngram]

If you prefer the KJV there is nothing wrong with using it. That is not the point here. The intent in this video was that even though the KJV can certainly be simpler in some places as well, generally, the NKJV is more instantly understood. I also recognize that the KJV is more exact. Thanks for sharing your testimony.

[@maryunderwood9641]

Deuteronomy 4:2 "Ye shall not unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you". Ignoring the facts of the attacks on God's Word which began with Eve in the garden of Eden is to be complicit in these attacks. Labelling the uncovering of these attacks as "gossip" is nothing but gaslighting.

[@PastorScottIngram]

I am not sure your point? In this conversation, we discussed the KJV and NKJV which are both translations of the traditional text. They do not take away from it.

[@salvadaXgracia]

Are you saying translating the Bible is adding or diminishing God's word?

[@johnyates7566]

The word of God is spiritual and understood by revelation not by being a PHD the kjv is the perfect word in English the other translations are corrupt , after all its the first thing Satan did was to question God's word .

[@PastorScottIngram]

Making the Word understandable is not to question God's Word but to seek out what it is saying. This is a good desire for people to have. To remove large portions and such as the critical text does is unacceptable, but not to attempt to bring the understanding. This is what happens in every pulpit each Sunday.

[@johnyates7566]

@@PastorScottIngram "making the word understandable" is an excuse to alter God's word with these corrupt versions, thats why God put that warning in the book of revaluation not to add or take away any words of the book of this prophesy.

[@DutchMcGinnis]

Great discussion. I have read and collated 5 bibles and I still stand by the KJV. I do not feel I am reading the God's Word in any other version that came after the KJV. I am not saying that if one reads other than the KJV that they are not saved. However, they are simply lazy and want the easy way with very little effort. Textual criticism is most definitely satanic.

[@MAMoreno]

Without textual criticism, the KJV wouldn't even exist.

[@PastorScottIngram]

Thanks. I find nothing wrong with sticking with the KJV. I just think if you are going to do that, you need to be willing to do the deep study of the older words. I also believe if you choose to stick with the NKJV, you also better be willing to study deeply on the modernized one's as well. Be ready to give an answer to every man of the hope that is in you.

[@barryjtaft]

As to the NKJV using the received text, According to Arthur Farstad, the editor of the NKJV, the critical text is on every page. “On every page of the NKJV New Testament the studious reader will find three different textual views represented…2 “NU” in the NKJV notes, stands for the critical text, based on Westcott and Hort,…” - Arthur L. Farstad (executive editor of the NKJV) page 111

[@FreelyByHisGrace]

The original KJV also had marginal notes that referenced variants in the Greek manuscripts.

[@PastorScottIngram]

The notes are not what the text was translated from. The 1611 also shared marginal notes of the other translator’s decisions during its day concerning translation.

[@barryjtaft]

@@PastorScottIngram Not only is the critical text found on every page of the NKJV NT, the NKJV uses the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia in the OT. Not exactly the Masoretic text contrary to the claims of the publishers. The NKJV and the ESV is very deceptive in the claims they make for themselves.

[@PastorScottIngram]

The man who was the general editor for the Nee Testament has frequently shown he used the same text as the KJV in the OT. I don’t believe he is a liar.

[@FreelyByHisGrace]

@@barryjtaft The Biblia Hebraic Stuttgartensia IS an edition of the Hebrew Masoretic Text. The BHS Hebrew text which underlies most of the contemporary English versions, differs from the Ben Chayyim Masoretic text, which underlies the KJV (Bomberg), in only 8 places that would have an effect on translation: Proverbs 8:16; Isaiah 10:16; Isaiah 27:2; Isaiah 38:14; Jeremiah 34:1; Ezekiel 30:18; Zephaniah 3:15; and Malachi 1:12. 1 Kings 20:38. There are literally LESS differences between BHS and the Bomberg Hebrew text than there are between the 1611 KJV and the 1769 that most people are using today. Even in those places of difference and, the NKJV follows the Bomberg Text NOT the BHS. Some, like D.A. Waite, have accused the NKJV of using a different text, in the O.T., than the traditional MT. Price, the executive editor of the O.T. personally responded: 

 “As former executive editor of the NKJV Old Testament, I can confidently assure you that the NKJV fol­lowed, as carefully as possible, the Bomberg 1524-25 Ben Chayyim edition that the KJV 1611 translators used--I personally made sure.” You can see this clearly because the NKJV has “earth” (like the KJV) instead of BHS reading of “rightly” in Proverbs 8:16, and it has “red” (like the KJV) instead of “sing of it” like the BHS. And in Zephaniah 3:15 the NKJV has “see” (like the KJV) instead of “fear” like the BHS.

[@jtac9122]

How about this are we “saved” or “being saved” big and very important difference Mark. Joe in Pennsylvania

[@PastorScottIngram]

Thanks for your question! I discussed that here: Are You Saved or Being Saved? 1 Corinthians 1:18 (KJV/NKJV Comparison) kzbin.info/www/bejne/gXe8XqJ8brFnZpo

[@keithfuson7694]

We are both saved and being saved. Both are true. And we will be saved. Are we glorified and perfect yet? God has to complete our salvation..Rom8:30Ph1:6 Heb12:2

[@jtac9122]

@ Keith, love ya but… both can’t be true. Once we go through the process of repentance, acceptance and committing our life to Christ we are saved. We then start our journey with Christ and the guidance of the Holy Spirit in learning and putting into practice the character of Christ. Two totally different things. Blessed weekend to you and your family, Joe in Pennsylvania

[@tabbylynn4130]

Kjv for life

[@PastorScottIngram]

Nothing wrong with that if you trust and are studying it deeply.

[@tabbylynn4130]

@@PastorScottIngram I use multiple translations for study. Kjv is just my favorite.

[@barryjtaft]

Dr Leland Ryken, executive editor the ESV is on record as saying “I came here as a ten year old boy from Norway my English was very rough our family had always had devotions in the Norwegian Bible when we arrived in the United States my father said we're in the United States now we should be having devotions out of an English Bible and we started having devotions out of a King James Bible. I didn’t have any difficulty as a 10 year old immigrant child understanding the King James Bible.” The issue is not readability, the issue, increasingly, is reading comprehension. Recall that Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand."

[@FreelyByHisGrace]

There are a lot of people who claim they understand the KJV just fine, Im sure they think so, but Ive seen many of them prove otherwise, even preachers. Mark Wards KJV Research Project has PROVED that even KJVO Pastors ignorantly misunderstand the KJV.

[@PastorScottIngram]

I think study is always needed when comes to the Bible. One doesn’t just read it, they need to study it. That being said, we must be willing also to recognize that the KJV is simply harder to read than a newer English translation.

[@barryjtaft]

@@PastorScottIngram or as the critical text says "whatever! just do your best" 2: Timothy 2:15 (ESV)

[@barryjtaft]

@@FreelyByHisGrace That seems rather beside the point though. Lots of people misunderstand lots of things. It doesn't make the things themselves defective.

[@barryjtaft]

@@FreelyByHisGrace Give an example of some KJVO pastor ignorantly misunderstanding something and lets examine it. And keep in mind not all pastors are saved and indwelt with the Holy Spirit and as we know these things are spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:14) with exception of the pure gospel message. A non believer can understand it. It is all the rest of it that requires the Holy Spirit. Not every one has "ears to hear".

[@johnflorio3576]

Learn to read the Bible in Greek. It will turn you Catholic if you aren’t one already, but that’s a good thing.

[@PastorScottIngram]

I don't think it will. :)

[@barryjtaft]

Here is a couple of verse that is readily understandable in either the KJV or the NKJV, Hebrews 3:16 and Matthew 7:14 Hebrews 3:16 AKJV For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses. NKJV For who, having heard, rebelled? Indeed, was it not all who came out of Egypt, led by Moses? So which is it? Did some rebel or did all rebel? Did Moses rebel? Did Caleb rebel? Did Joshua rebel? You will say Moses rebelled. That is debatable but (howbeit) certainly Caleb and Joshua did not rebel. Furthermore God did not lay the charge of rebellion to any one under the age of 20. So the NKJV is clearly wrong in this case and doctrinally so. The NKJV condemns the entire Jewish race. One could argue that it is more understandable here after all "howbeit" is a hard word. Howbeit, I have known since the 5th grade that it means "but". While very understandable, it is heretical! Here is another one. Is it difficult to go to Heaven? Matthew 7:14 AKJV Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. NKJV Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. Are narrow and difficult synonyms? is it difficult to find the road that leads to life. Is Jesus hard to find? Are we not assured that we will find him if we seek him with all our heart? Jeremiah 29:13. “ But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” Romans 10:8-10 How difficult was that? While the one is as easy to understand as the other in these cases, and other cases, they are saying very different things. The issue is never about readability but doctrine, sound doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; 2 Timothy 4:3 Lucky for us the NKJV agrees.

[@PastorScottIngram]

I discussed the strait and narrow gate here. It isn’t what you imagine. What does the Strait Gate and Narrow Way mean in Matthew 7:13-14? (KJV/NKJV comparison) kzbin.info/www/bejne/jpSlmJaMjMemmsk

[@MAMoreno]

The NKJV is no more "wrong" in Hebrews 3.16 than the author himself is wrong. Look at the parallel structure of verses 16-18 in Greek. The sensible thing is to translate them all consistently as rhetorical questions, and the only real reason you wouldn't do that is if you wanted to correct the Biblical author on a point you think he got wrong. (This may have been the KJV translators' motive, or maybe they were just choosing to follow the Vulgate's lead instead of dealing the Greek text naturally.) It's better instead to recognize that he's omitting those few who weren't rebellious for the sake of his larger rhetorical purpose in bringing up this story. Joshua and Caleb made up such a small percentage of the Israelites' adult population that they were statistically insignificant. And the writer of Hebrews knew that his readers were aware of these exceptions, so there was no need to be pedantic about it when his goal was to pose convicting questions to the audience.

[@barryjtaft]

@@MAMoreno My bad, I forgot that in order to understand the Bible, one must study Greek and Hebrew because the KJV translators were not that smart, (especially John Bois), and listen to your priest (oops sorry i meant pastor) because he barely passed Greek with a C, so he knows better than you or I what the Bible says. And since i don't know Greek, the Holy Spirit can't lead me into all truth because English is the one language that God has trouble preserving Word in. Poor John Bois what a buffoon: o By the age of 5 years old he had read completely through the Hebrew bible. o By age 6 it was said he could write Hebrew with an elegant hand. o At 14 as a student at Cambridge, he was in the habit of studying Greek at the library from 4 am to 8 pm. o He tutored many of his fellow students in Greek and many of his professors attended his tutoring lectures. o He had the entire Greek New Testament committed to memory. o He wrote a commentary in Latin on the Gospels and Acts Unfortunately he and the other translators really blew it on this one because they all disagree with you..

[@codymeredith8953]

Had to give you a thumbs down on this one because you had Mark Ward on your show.

[@jamestrotter3162]

Why?

[@codymeredith8953]

@jamestrotter3162 I have my reasons. can't get into it.

[@PastorScottIngram]

I am sorry to hear that because I think it is a good thing when we can have the opportunity to discuss things with people whom we may disagree and reasonably share our reasons for how we believe with them and others while also showing the lost world where we do have points of agreement. Mark is also going to be on the King James Bible Research Council channel soon in a debate .

[@chessboxer35]

Man, KJV bashing.

[@PastorScottIngram]

I promise you that I am not attempting to "bash" the KJV. It is a great English translation but is obviously harder to read due to the "false friends" mentioned and the difference in how we talk today.

[@ksparky388]

The biggest reason that drew me to Pastor Scott's Chanel is that even though he might disagree with a transition, he is very respectful about it. One of my goals is to read some of these other translations to see for myself what the fuss is all about, and I have found some. With that said , I very much would like to get a better handle on the KJV. Could you recommend some resources that could help me out on this. Thank you for your time.

[@chessboxer35]

@@PastorScottIngram mark ward hates the KJV as among many other clear teachings, it teaches that as a man being effeminate is sin. You cant have this guy on and be fair and balanced, the guy’s hatred of the KJV is more blatant than James White.

[@jamestrotter3162]

@@chessboxer35 And you're guilty of slander and bearing false witness against Mark Ward. He definitely does not hate the KJV, and you have absolutely nothing to substantiate that. Your hatred of Mark Ward is more blatant than the devil. Get the log out of your own eye.

[@redsorgum]

Cope…..

[@knappingrk]

If people do not understand the King James Bible it is one of two problems yes either they are lost and have not been saved or they are lazy. 1 Corinthians 2:14 (KJV) But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

[@PastorScottIngram]

Some thoughts to consider about your comment: That verse is actually not saying that if you can’t comprehend a translation from 1769, then you cannot be saved. It is talking about grasping spiritual illumination. The person who originally wrote the words translated would not comprehend even more so the English of the KJV from 1769 either. While I agree we should all study diligently, it is not an aspect of laziness to use a translation of the same text that has been modernized either. One might actually use the NKJV to help them understand the KJV.

[@knappingrk]

@@PastorScottIngram you have been lied to . I'll see you at the judgment, I'm sure I failed far worse than you but one thing I have not failed in is my unwavering faith in the pure perfect preserved words of God found only in the King James Bible.

[@salvadaXgracia]

So only English speakers can be saved? The apostles themselves are disqualified by your standard.

[@knappingrk]

@salvadaXgracia no one said that.

[@knappingrk]

@@salvadaXgracia if you're lost you're not going to understand the bible if you're saved and you reject God's only form of perfection on this Earth well then that's your fault you are lazy my friend

[@KJBChristian]

Yeah nkjv is more clearly wrong

[@PastorScottIngram]

Tell me why?

[@markrobertsministries]

Enough is enough Scott. You know better than to lift up the NKJV it's a joke . You need to stop . I love u but enough is enough.

[@PastorScottIngram]

Hi Mark, I wouldn't' be a proper minister of God's Word if I didn't hold up the truth. These videos on the NKJV are simply refuting lies that have been spread about it. This does not help anyone show the traditional text position is correct by mixing it with conspiracy theories and lies. The KJV is the most exact English translation of the original words written but the NKJV is simply a more instantly understandable translation of those same words today. This is just the truth and to claim falsehoods about the NKJV does not help the KJV position. It hinders it.

[@freakylocz14]

What is your opinion of the Modern English Version (MEV), which is also based on the Textus Receptus? But I agree that once you understand the Elizabethian second person pronouns, the KJV is easier to read than the NKJV.

[@PastorScottIngram]

This is where u addressed it: What is the Difference in the KJV and MEV? kzbin.info/www/bejne/aqOzimZ6gdCpm5o

[@longstreet2740]

47:50 FYI .....YOU JUST ANSWER SOME OF QUESTION AS WRITING but I make reference ?? Would lawyers be comfortable with the differences in their legal documents as many Christians seem content with differences among translations ?? When In college I took a course in Land Title Insurance and we had to read legal deeds at Courthouse where original documents, some written a century prior were very exacting. "In addition, the translators of the King James Version of the Bible attempted to maintain the distinction found in Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek between singular and plural second-person pronouns and verb forms, so they used thou, thee, thy, and thine for singular, and ye, you, your, and yours for plural." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou#:~:text=In%20addition%2C%20the%20translators%20of,your%2C%20and%20yours%20for%20plural.

[@PastorScottIngram]

I am glad that you have found some answers here. My church website describes my position on the KJV and NKJV. I do find the KJV to be more exact. omegabaptist.wordpress.com/our-beliefs/ "“I use the NKJV and KJV in my preaching and teaching at the church. I believe the NKJV to be the more instantly understandable and the KJV to be the most exact of the English translations that we have today of the original words written down by holy men of God who wrote them down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit because both of these translations use the traditional Hebrew and Greek text used by all English translations of the past while most other modern English translations use a Hebrew and Greek text that removes a significant amount of verses, words and encourages the reader to consider large passages within the text, such as Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:12, as not being inspired by God. I consider translations that add to or take away from the traditional Hebrew and Greek text to be, at best, like story book bibles and, at worst, heretical. I make this point because the plain, literal, “preserved to every generation” words of the Bible in the original languages must be protected as the authority on what God has said above any tradition, Church official, scholarly teacher or one’s own feelings.” - Pastor Scott

[@Matthew-307]

Gail Riplinger is a proven liar, and she is unrepentant. I trust nothing from her. And to say that the kjv is easier to read & UNDERSTAND just clearly shows the cognitive dissonance of the kjv-only mind.

[@PastorScottIngram]

Sadly, I see people doing just that in these very comments. KJV usage can be defended without resorting to lies and conspiracy theories and would have a better argument if they would not resort to such tactics.

[@Matthew-307]

@@PastorScottIngram I agree, it is very sad to see professing Christians lie. And the mean-spiritedness and vitriol from kjvo people is unmatched. One can defend the traditional text without these tactics…

[@PastorScottIngram]

@Matthew-307 amen