NKJV Differences, NLT Issues and a HORRIBLE take on Mark 16:9-20 by Mike Licona.

In this evenings livestream I want to talk about the differenced between the 1982 and the 1984 editions of the NKJV, some issues that I have with the NLT, and a Horrible take by Mick Licona on what happened to the Long Ending of Mark. Come join me as I talk about textual criticism and translation issues from the perspective of a Byzantine Prioritist. I'm not a KJV onlyist, but being a Byzantine guy, I find the Textus Receptus to be a much better text than the Critical Text.
#TextualCriticism #NKJV #NLT

[@user-jy1jb3sl6p]

As a fan of both the KJV and the NKJV, I really enjoyed this video! Love your passion for the NKJV! Keep up the great work Brother!

[@fnscooter]

Matthew was written first according to Papias, so readers of Mark's gospel would already be familiar with the resurrection appearances in Matthew. I like the theory by a gentlemen that you previously interviewed (whose name I have forgotten), who noted that Mark was getting his information from Peter and posited that the long ending of Mark was written by Mark himself after Peter died, possibly at Luke's suggestion. Mike Licona has done great work on resurrection apologetics and I've learned a lot from his videos. His suggestion that Mark's original ending was lost is a bad take. Hopefully he changes his mind in the future or already has.

[@matthaeusprime6343]

Roman Catholic here. I am a big fan of the NKJV. I wish they had the deuterocanonical books though. Otherwise it would be my number one translation to read and pray from.

[@jamestrotter3162]

Actually, the Orthodox Study Bible, published by Thomas Nelson, does have the Deuterocanonical Books included with the Old Testament. But all of it is translated from the Septuagint. The New Testament part is the NKJV, same as any other NKJV.

[@mrtdiver]

Regarding Zechariah 6:59: And should someone say to him, ‘What are these wounds on your torso?’ Then he will say, ‘From being beaten in the house of my friends.’ Zech 13:6 TN: "torso" lit.= between your hands (בֵּ֣ין יָדֶ֑יךָ). psb. means: shoulders, back, chest - but torso covers both front & back sides. So here my translation notes (TN) have the literal (lit.) reading, and what is probably meant (psb.). The Hebrew word (yad) typically translated hand can also encompass one's arm.

[@rossjpurdy]

I believe the list is in progress as he posts updates every once in a while.

[@robertshirley624]

For study, I always read a ‘literal’ translation - usually the NKJV. However, I have found the NLT to be good for a general, quick read through the Old Testament, the Gospels, and Acts - the narrative, flow of the ‘action’ sections. But it is far too dynamic and misleading in the Epistles, Jesus’ teachings, and the Mosaic laws.

[@anthonykeve8894]

Too much drama over far too little if any difference between the editions.

[@not2bryte]

Hi, Dwayne! Although I'm on the fence regarding the passage's originality, I thought I'd ask about the preservation angle that you mentioned. What about, for example, 1 Cor 5 where Paul refers to something he wrote in a previous letter which we do not possess? Since he quotes a section there in 1 Cor 5 itself, it shows that Paul's previous letter was not lacking in authority or accuracy. He reinforces the point, in fact! Yet that previous letter -- not to mention any written correspondence from many of the other apostles --- has not been preserved. Re: Mark 16: what if Mark was unable to complete the document for some reason or what if it had been completed but the last bit got lost? (Losing an "end" of a document on papyrus or what have you would seem to be a frequent hazard, no?) Anyway, instead of assuming that the long ending is late, spurious, non-canonical, etc. as the reasoned eclectics mostly do, why not consider that associates of Mark appended a previous, abbreviated gospel account ending that Mark wrote perhaps a decade or more earlier?

[@Dwayne_Green]

yes, undoubtedly Mark 16:9-20 is what has been preserved throughout the ages. If Marks associates added it before being 'published', I don't think there's necessarily an issue with that.

[@murrydixon5221]

I have two NKJV bibles in the house. Mine is copyright 1992 and my wife's copy is 2018 but neither of them mention a copyright of 1984. They both say Scripture taken from 1982. One would think this is the original 1982 without being revised. That's quite misleading. The average person on the streets who picks up an NKJV maybe would not even realise it. This is not building trust at all for me and it's enough to be paranoid about. It should be trying to stay as close as possible to the King James Version and not further away.

[@ST52655]

💯

[@timmyholland8510]

I didn't know that about two revised, 1982 and 1984 NKJV. That's like a couple of years, curious at why the task, as going over such work's very labor intensive?

[@sbs8331]

Kind of late to this video. I like to download to audio, but most sites can't do it for one that was recorded live. I'm not expert enough to know a workaround. Interesting video, but two critiques regarding the NLT, though I agree with the overall criticism: 1. While I, too, think that "Lord" is a better translation than "Sir" for κύριος, the latter is not entirely without merit. It was stated that it's occasionally translated thus, e.g. John 12:21, and, yes, it's also the word used in the LXX for YHWH. However, I don't necessarily think that Saul knew he was addressing Deity, based on his question, "Who are you?". If he knew it was God, why the question? It doesn't strike me as being rhetorical. 2. While the NLT renderings in 1 Cor 14 are indeed highly interpretive in places, it's erroneous to state that every Christian has the ability to speak in tongues. Paul negates that very clearly two chapters earlier (12:4-11, 28-30). The NASB correctly renders the question in v. 30, "All do not speak with tongues, do they?" V. 11 succinctly states that the Holy Spirit decides which gifts go to which believers. Pentecostals cede the argument to cessationists when they go to the other extreme. Cessationism: "No believer today speaks in tongues." Pentecostalism: "Every believer today should speak in tongues." Though as a Reformed believer I don't share his Arminianism, I commend the book by Chuck Smith. "Charisma vs. Charismania".

[@truthwatch2858]

I love my NASB 1995

[@kainech]

I think "sir" is a horrible translation in Acts. I have a guess why it's done, but I'm not certain. However I'm not persuaded that when Saul said "Who are you, lord?" he knew it was Jesus or God. The question seems to point in the opposite direction, and there are a lot more than two senses for κύριος. There are a number of heavenly beings it could be. I'm pretty sure when he gets to "Lord what do you want me to do?" he does mean it as a divine title, but not in 9.5, else the question "who are you" makes no sense. For the long ending of Mark, besides the absurdity of ending a book on ἐφοβήθη γαρ, it has another glaring weakness: it requires Markan priority. That would be another thing to look into. The unanimous witness of the early Church is that Matthew was written first in the Hebrew διαλεκτος (Hebrew, Aramaic, or Palestinian Greek are in view there), and then the others. They aren't unanimous on that point. This is the overwhelming view of history until very recently, and almost all arguments for Mark being written first work for Mark being written last. If we adopt the historical view of the order of the Gospels, then the idea that Mark didn't have a resurrection account is impossible, because he'd have Matthew (and after the Markan priority hypothesis we pretty much have to say he had Luke too because of those arguments). A Matthean priority would end any consideration that Mark could have ended in v. 8.

[@DefinedFaith]

Yes! I am of the same opinion, that the arguments are equally forceful for Mark being last. It’s like pulling teeth to get people to see that.

[@kainech]

@@DefinedFaith People aren't persuaded, because it's really not a strong argument in itself. Nobody who believes position A, if provided with an argument for position B that says "All the arguments working for position A can work for position B" will adopt position B. They've no reason to, and if they do, they aren't thinking clearly. It would also fail, because "most" arguments can work both ways, not all, and someone committed to the position would know that. If someone is not, then the observation is of no use. This is why I tied it to the long ending and universal historical position; it provides a reason to consider it. If I can take time (and comments do not have space to argue it rightly), I'd point out each theory provides positive arguments and predictions that come true," and those points of evidence cannot be equivalent. One such argument would be "If Mark used Matthew and Luke, we should expect harmonization. Mark has what we usually call 'redundancy.' In any context where we were not convinced Mark was first, we would call that 'redundancy' 'harmonization.'" However that requires several examples, and a comment section is too limited to hash it out. It is a prediction from the model and has to be weighed against similar arguments for Marcan priority. I probably should have mentioned the harmonization observation. He recently made an argument that hinged on the traditional authorship of Mark being right for the ending. The reliability of this tradition is bolstered if the same traditions are also correct on the first Gospel to be written. It also provides a potential explanation for Acts language in the ending of Mark since it presupposes Mark is using Luke. Those are things that'd be fairly agreeable to him.

[@rossjpurdy]

They had to change it a couple more percentage points to not violate copyright law🤫😗😉😆

[@deeman524]

"The Living Bible" my first bible, was an awesome paraphrase that agreed mostly with the KJV and NASB and all the verses are there, The New Living Translation is an update of the Living Bible, but there is very little comparison the NLT seems pagan compared to the Living Bible

[@christopheryetzer]

I think the NLT is wrong at Mark 5:21. Translating "on the shore" creates an error since he was in Matthew's house which was "nigh unto the sea." It is a bit complicated to demonstrate, but if you do a harmony of the Gospels and pay attention to the words which specify timing and movement you will see it. The 1979 NKJV had “And white robes were given to each of them.” in Revelation 6:11 and “by Jesus” in 2 Corinthians 4:14.

[@rodneyjackson6181]

Nothing in Mark 5 talks about Matthew's house. Jesus cast out Legion, went back across the lake and people were waiting for Him on the shore or by the seashore. Jairus came to Jesus about his daughter There is no error here in the NLT.

[@christopheryetzer]

@@rodneyjackson6181 Matching the stories with the other Gospels can be helpful in some places. By doing a chronological study of the Gospels we see that after casting out the demons at Gadara (Matthew 8:28-34, Mark 5:1-21, Luke 8:26-39) Jesus crossed the Sea of Galilee and went to Matthew's house (Matthew 9:10-19, Mark 2:15-22, Luke 5:29-39). While at Matthew's house Jairus requests Jesus' help to heal his daughter (Matthew 9:18-22, Mark 5:22-43, Luke 8:41-50). There are reasons why some of these details are told in different places in the different gospels, but this is what you get when you put them together. In Mark 5:21 Jesus was "nigh unto the sea" in Matthew's house. Acts 10:32 uses the same Greek to show that Peter was in the house of "Simon a tanner by (παρά) the sea side".

[@notusedexer]

Can someone help me. Years ago i found two KJVs with one different word in Revelation. One word was different. Just one. Have no idea why. Anyone know about this?

[@Dwayne_Green]

which passage in Revelation are you talking about?

[@notusedexer]

@@Dwayne_Green that's the point. I don't remember. But one word was different. Just one.

[@DefinedFaith]

I think this may be an example of the difference between the Cambridge and Oxford body of the text if I had to guess. I don’t know the origins of the slight differences between these two texts in printed KJV’s.

[@WaimakBibleChapel]

Also Jeremiah 34:16- whom he and 1 Peter 3:20 - long suffering of God

[@jamespalmer4727]

If the Acts 9 example correct, then why did he ask "who?" Technically he did not know who it was until Jesus told him.

[@anthonykeve8894]

You MUST have video time to fill today! W/Your Acts 9 NLT rant, you used 10-20X words necessary to make your point. Further, in the process repeating your point several times over.

[@Dwayne_Green]

It's a livestream... This is part of the reason I was hesitant at the start to do them. I'm not as polished 'off the cuff', certainly something I'll be working on getting better at. If I were to edit this, there's much that I'd cut out.

[@rodneyjackson6181]

Ok, Bro. Dwayne, here we go! The NLT is my primary translation for over 18 years. I have studied from it and preached from it that long. I also pastored 9 and half years and used the NLT the whole time except maybe once or twice. I find it irritating that you laughed at the NLT about the whole time you were using scripture references. Its Gods Word whether you like it or not. First, dynamic equivalent translation, NOT commentary, does translate whole verses and just not each word. As far as interpretation goes, every translation does a certain amount of that because of language barriers which is why we have italicized letters in a sentence so we can know what the passage means. The Amplified Bible does alot of this. Answering the passages you laid out. First of all Saul was an unbeliever no matter how intelligent he was. He did not know the voice of the Lord and that is why he asked "who are you Lord or sir?" Jesus said His sheep know His voice and Saul did not know that. That is why Jesus had to tell Saul He was Jesus. You even admitted that you could use sir in the passage. I know when I want to show respect to authority or someone I respect, I will use sir and in England they use lord. Do I think sir was the best rendering? Probably not, but it can be used for that particular Greek word, so its not weird. Samuel thought the voice of God was Eli. I think mutilation was exactly right in Galatians because in Greek it means to castrate. Lastly, to accept the Lords authority is not necessarily a bad rendering either. Adam and Eve did not accept Gods authority or they would not have eaten from the tree the were forbidden to eat from in that instance. Satan and his angels didn't accept Gods authority or they would not have rebelled. Our society we currently live in does not accept Gods authority. There could have been a time where angelic beings had a free will like humans but now they may not have. I understand in the future every knee will bow and confess Jesus Christ is Lord. Currently, not the case. So again, accepting Gods authority in 1 Peter 3:22 is not wrong or a bad rendering given what we know about Satan and his angels, the fallen angels in Genesis 6 and Jude, even though some of them are in Tartarus and humanity in general. You and I accept Gods authority because we know Jesus and are subject to Him willingly. As far as 1 Corinthians goes, we as Pentecostals know there is a difference in being filled with the Spirit and speaking in tongues and the gift of tongues. The Spirit gives the gifts and not everyone has the gift of tongues. So if we have been given this ability, we use it for the edification of the body. Blessings!!

[@Dwayne_Green]

Thanks for the response, I did read the whole thing :) I understand the distinction between Dynamic translation and commentary, but I think the line between the two gets more and more blurred as a translation get more and more dynamic. I also understand the necessity to do SOME level of interpretation when making a translation. However, I'm not so sold on Dynamic translations for the reason that a greater degree of interpretation is necessary to make them, a greater degree that's really not necessary in my opinion. Now to be clear, I'm not waging war against the NLT, and I'm also not waging war against those who use it. The NLT has it's place, but I also think that there are better translations out there.

[@rodneyjackson6181]

As far as better translations, that is a matter of opinion. If English is your second language or you have a basic or limited education, the NLT is a "better" translation to those folks. I have seen many testimonies to this fact. People like me who want a clear to the point understanding of Scripture, the NLT is far better. Lastly, even a scholar like Chuck Swindoll whose study Bible is in the NLT likes it alot. I respect you and your channel. You are a scholar and I am not and I value your opinion even if we don't always agree.

[@Dwayne_Green]

@@rodneyjackson6181 I did mention in the video that those with ESL needs may benefit. I didn't mention this in the video for fear of it being misunderstood, but those with some learning or intellectual disabilities could benefit from something like this as well. (This doesn't imply that those who use it have an intelectual disability) I appreciate that we can disagree and still be cordial, kind and Christlike :)

[@rodneyjackson6181]

As far as the the long ending of Mark goes, it belongs. Most manuscripts contain it. The main ones saying it does not belong are Calvinists like MacArthur and James White. I find those of this theogical belief have a lot of unbelief when it comes to the gifts of the Spirit, signs, wonders, miracles and casting out demons. In a nutshell, they and alot of other cessationists simply don't believe in the supernatural.