Textual Absolutism: A History | TCC 2/7

The second episode of the Textual Confidence Collective Podcast examines the history of Textual Absolutism and the story it tells. We test the claim that there have always been “Two Streams of Bibles,” culminating in the Textus Receptus (TR) and King James Bible (KJB). We introduce some men in history who resisted the Textual Absolutism of their day, including creators of the TR and KJB. We explore Miles Smith’s preface to the KJB and sketch out five forms of Textual Absolutism active today.
🎁 Help me end Bible translation tribalism, one plow boy at a time:
✅ / mlward
✅ buymeacoffee.c...
📖 Check out my book, Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible:
amzn.to/2r27Boz
🎥 Watch my Fifty False Friends in the KJV series:
• 50 False Friends in th...
👏 Many, many thanks to the Patreon supporters who make my work possible!
Name, James Duly, Robert Gifford, Lanny M Faulkner, Lucas Key, Dave Thawley, William McAuliff, Razgriz, James Goering, Eric Couture, Martyn Chamberlin, Edward Woods, Thomas Balzamo, Brent M Zenthoefer, Tyler Rolfe, Ruth Lammert, Gregory Nelson Chase, Ron Arduser, Caleb Farris, Dale Buchanan, Jess English, Aaron Spence, Orlando Vergel Jr., John Day, Joshua Bennett, K.Q.E.D., Brent Karding, Kofi Adu-Boahen, Steve McDowell, Kimberly Miller, A.A., James Allman, Steven McDougal, Henry Jordan, Nathan Howard, Rich Weatherly, Joshua Witt, Wade Huber, M.L., Brittany Fisher, Tim Gresham, Lucas Shannon, Easy_Peasy , Caleb Richardson, Jeremy Steinhart, Steve Groom, jac, Todd Bryant, Corey Henley, Jason Sykes, Larry Castle, Luke Burgess, Joel, Joshua Bolch, Kevin Moses, Tyler Harrison, Bryon Self, Angela Ruckman, Nathan N, Gen_Lee_Accepted , Bryan Wilson, David Peterson, Eric Mossman, Jeremiah Mays, Caleb Dugan, Donna Ward, DavidJamie Saxon, Omar Schrock, Philip Morgan, Brad Dixon, James D Leeper, M.A., Nate Patterson, Dennis Kendall, Michelle Lewis, Lewis Kiger, Dustin Burlet, Michael Butera, Reid Ferguson, Josiah R. Dennis, Miguel Lopez, CRB, D.R., Dean C Brown, Kalah Gonzalez, MICHAEL L DUNAVANT, Jonathon Clemens, Travis Manhart, Jess Mainous, Brownfell, Leah Uerkwitz, Joshua Barzon, Benjamin Randolph, Andrew Engelhart, Mark Sarhan, Rachel Schoenberger

[@DavidJHarris43]

I love how Peter defines the absolutist temptation: "If I can't stand in God's place, I can't trust God. If I can't have the same access to the Scriptures God has, then I have no access. If I can't see as God sees, then I can't see."

[@markwardonwords]

Yes, that was striking!

[@christianacosta4922]

Loved this episode, especially the careful distinction btwn various contemporary KJVO groups. The history of the absolutist perspective was fascinating. I figured the Vulgate would be included in that camp. The deep dive into the KJV was great, may need to relisten. Thanks for producing this content. One thing that impresses me is that I'm positive the collective IQ of this group of men is off the charts, but they speak so plainly and sensibly to the common listener. I don't come away thinking this is a podcast for the educated alone. I genuinely appreciate the humility on display here.

[@markwardonwords]

Pray for us, Christian, that what you said would be or remain true of us! We want to be humble before the Lord and before others!

[@davidguerrero25]

I enjoyed Timothy Berg's explanation and historical background of sections of the KJV preface. He definitely needs to write a commnetary on the preface. Looking forward to the next video.

[@markwardonwords]

He and I are talking about doing that!

[@charlespendergast4882]

Thinking of the critic's comment on why you need so many English translations brought to mind Henry Ford's statement about the model T, ""Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants, so long as it is black"

[@theoria-agent]

Thanks for presenting the history of this issue. It has always being surprising to me that, what they calling, textual absolutism is even an issue for people.

[@markwardonwords]

But I remember when the view was appealing to me.

[@DevlinDomini]

It’s good to see sincere men of God tackling a difficult situation. Really appreciate your work.

[@markwardonwords]

Thank you for the kind word!

[@Ssurrett]

Thank you all for doing this series!!! I am really looking forward to a well laid out discussion on this topic.

[@markwardonwords]

Our pleasure!

[@michealferrell1677]

I just can’t wait for the next video brothers ! Very informative for someone of my level of knowledge. Would like to see more interviews with Dwane Green if The lord wills

[@markwardonwords]

More to come!

[@theretroreseller2434]

This is *absolutely* well done. Great work. Great balance too. The fair representation at the end of the episode shows your heart is not one of divisiveness or exclusion, but purely educational and edifying.

[@markwardonwords]

Thank you so much!

[@josiahdennis2376]

Great episode! I’m so thankful for this group’s clear explanations of these topics.

[@markwardonwords]

Glad it was helpful!

[@classicchristianliterature]

Thank you Mark for representing views that you do not agree with in a charitable and accurate way - covenant baptism is the result of seeing more continuity between the Old and New testaments.

[@markwardonwords]

I don't always succeed!

[@biblesonabudget213]

Hey brother Mark! Thank you for bringing together these brothers to talk about these important things about textual criticism and such. One thing I would like to suggest for you guys, is consider adding a de-esser to the audio. Your “s” sounds are quite piercing to the ear. Love you channel bro and I really enjoyed Authorized as well!

[@foxfirefarmhouse7567]

Thanks for the helpful production advice. I'll make sure to work on that for the next episode.

[@biblesonabudget213]

@@foxfirefarmhouse7567 May God bless your efforts here! I did just now notice that the “s” is not that bad through headphones.

[@Simdumise]

This is a great series with very helpful history. As a seminary student this channel has been very helpful. Thank you very much 🙏🏾

[@markwardonwords]

You're very welcome!

[@joshuamercer854]

I like how the conversation momentarily veers off into credo vs infant baptism lol

[@markwardonwords]

Yup. ;) I think it’s an illuminating parallel.

[@Dwayne_Green]

Great discussion guys!

[@markwardonwords]

Thanks, Dwayne!

[@jopeunmo1]

Congratulations. I will watch it all attentively, God permiting! This second part reminded me Kant's noumenon and phenomenon ! What, ever, is the Logos Itself (noumenon?), and what do we have more than phenomena (actual texts/translations)? Yet, we DO know the Logos, by the Spirit, even being unable to materialize but tentative phenomena!

[@ncMatthan]

Phenomenal work! Would y’all consider turning your combined studies and arguments into a book? This would be such an invaluable resource. There are so many quotes and resources cited that would be so useful to have compiled and on hand.

[@markwardonwords]

We've got our eyes on a future book project. It's more in the scholarly realm. But this suggestion is welcome!

[@johnraymond9295]

Another very interesting discussion, thank you.

[@markwardonwords]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@brendaboykin3281]

Thank you, Mark. Thank you, Gentlemen. 🌹🌹🌹🌹

[@markwardonwords]

Our pleasure!

[@AlienDad]

Thank you very much for tackling these topics. Also, for starting the history with LXX. That is one area that seems quite overlooked - the textual history of the Hebrew Bible. It has this legendary status of being perfectly and meticulously copied and preserved as if there were no variants there at all. Would you please consider addressing this even more? (Background info on OT textual criticism and its impact on absolutist, sceptical and confident view.) A piece of linguistic trivia / tough nut to crack: I translate and interpret from English to Czech and I immediately thought, how am I going to translate "textual confidence view". Because there is a semantic mismatch - there are two words in Czech, "certainty" and "trust", but not one that would include both. Thanks, brother Mark, for making my life more difficult 🙂

[@MAMoreno]

The topic of the Hebrew Bible is especially interesting because it shows how "absolutist" some translation committees are in regards to the Masoretic text. A good test verse is Genesis 4.8. The RSV includes a reading found in a number of ancient versions, in which Cain requests that Abel join him in the field. This reading is also adopted by the NRSV, CSB, NIV, NLT, CEB, NET, NABRE, REB, NJB, and GNB. It's absent from the Masoretic text, so it's absent from the NASB, NKJV, and ESV. A second notable example is Psalm 145.13. Again, the RSV follows a variant reading from the ancient versions. In this case, it adds an additional line to complete the psalm's acrostic structure. The NRSV, ESV, NASB, CSB, NIV, NLT, CEB, NABRE, REB, NJB, and GNB follow suit. The NKJV and NET provide it in a footnote. A controversial passage is 1 Samuel 10.27. The NRSV includes an additional paragraph found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, as do the CEB and NLT. It's provided in a footnote by the CSB, NIV, and NET. The NASB and NABRE acknowledge it in a footnote, but they don't provide a translation. Other major translations ignore it altogether.

[@stephaniekanoun4409]

Thank you! I enjoyed this very much (and my 3 and 1 year old seemed to as well).

[@markwardonwords]

Ha! My kids aren't exactly big fans of my channel content! Glad some kids have good taste! ;)

[@stephaniekanoun4409]

@@markwardonwordsAt their young ages we're almost always sharing media together and I can only take so much Cinderella/Beauty and the Beast. At some point it becomes "Mama's turn to pick." Hopefully my tastes are rubbing off on them. 😊

[@nerdyyouthpastor8368]

Great video! I really appreciate the careful distinctions amongst the various positions of textual absolutism. These distinctions are so hard to make because everyone has a slightly different position and there is disagreement on the definitions of terms. For example, I had a pastor who held that the King James Version was inspired. He didn't read Hebrew or Greek, but he wasn't opposed to their use (at least in theory). He simply believed that if God inspired an inerrant original, He must have also inspired an inerrant translation. Another disagreed, but still held that the KJV is good and all modern translations are at best inferior and probably demonic. I don't believe he accepts that there are any errors in the King James Version. The first considered himself King James Only, the second does not. I'm not sure whether to call him a KJB Defender or a KJB/TR Defender. I've typically defined a King James Onlyest as, "one who insists that the King James Version is the only English translation which can rightly be considered the word of God" because the self-proclaimed King James Onlyests I grew up with were not Ruckmanites. Even those who believed in double-inspiration did not claim that the English corrects the Greek, only that it was a perfect translation of a text they couldn't read.

[@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175]

KJVO is easy to spot since they pretty much only use KJV due to various reasons. There are some Reformation Era Traditional Texts (masoretic texts, TRs or Scrivener TR) Only believers who do use new translations of the Traditional Texts such as ylt, lsv, nkjv, mev. There are some Reformation Era Traditional Texts Only believers who only use kjv and these are KJVO.

[@nerdyyouthpastor8368]

@@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175 Right, but not all who insist on the exclusive use of the King James Version for English speakers consider themselves King James Only. This is often because they are (at least in theory) open to the use of the original languages or translations in other modern languages. Thus they are not "King James Only" in the strictest sense.

[@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175]

@@nerdyyouthpastor8368 Lots of KJVO claim they are open to other traditional text translations like ylt, lsv, nkjv, mev, but they will never actually use them due to various reasons. Lots of TBS people claim they are open to new english translations of the traditional texts but consistently automatically attack new translations like nkjv and mev, just bec new translators make different translation choices from the old translation choices of the kjv translators, so can easily identify KJVO by how tightly they hold on to the KJV traditions. Lots of KJV lovers are fine with kjv typo errors but always attack the typo errors in nkjv and mev.

[@nerdyyouthpastor8368]

@@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175 But, given that they deny being King James Only and that they are technically correct (at least in the strictest sense), I appreciate categorizing them as King James Defenders rather than KJOs. It may not be the perfect term, but I think it's more accurate.

[@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175]

@@nerdyyouthpastor8368 Some who are TR only do not like to be called TR only so maybe can call them Reformation Era Traditional Texts Only (masoretic text and TRs or Scriverner TR). Some of these are kjvo if they give more authority to the TRs and latin vulgate behind the kjv.

[@michealferrell1677]

When Daniel Featly mentions the term “original” does he have in mind the autograph or simply the original language ?

[@timothyberg8455]

He is referring to the biblical text in its original languages. No direct reference to the physical artifacts or autographa is intended.

[@michealferrell1677]

@@timothyberg8455 but could not the same be said of the hand written copies within the Greek language that are not all identical? This quote confuses me a bit . 46:05

[@timothyberg8455]

Yes it could apply to Greek manuscripts as well. It is simply for him and many of that era a way of speaking of the divide between original languages texts and translations of them.

[@alexshadowfax1119]

I know little to nothing about the KJ only position nor do I have strong opinions what translation is best, but I do have a little bit of a problem with humans saying with confidence that something isn't divinely inspired. The KJ translators claim they were under no divine or holy inspiration, very humble men they probably were and would never claim such a thing. Only God knows, so perhaps say it with a little less confidence ? Anyways, very much enjoyed the conversation. Thank you

[@Aztshirts]

Thanks!

[@markwardonwords]

Thank YOU!

[@gdawg2098]

Has anyone in this group encountered the writings of Floyd Nolen Jones on this topic? I am reading two of his books (Ripped Out of the Bible & Which Version is the Bible) and I'm not finding any responses to his writings online. I wasn't sure if that lack of response is due to a lack of familiarity or rather that his arguments are redundant to more popular KJV-only writers. If you've had an opportunity to read his work, would you mind sharing your thoughts? Thank you!

[@markwardonwords]

No. Looked him up. Didn't see anything I haven't seen before. I surely could be wrong, however. I've never heard of him, though, and I kind of think that says something.

[@gdawg2098]

@@markwardonwords The reply is appreciated. I'm working my way through Jones's "Which Version is the Bible?" (www.floydnolenjonesministries.com/files/135866244.pdf) and I"m grateful for these Collective podcasts. Jones appears to frame his position on the same grounds that you've noted - divine preservation. Side note...as a professional creative, I definitely enjoy the quality audio & video in this series -- not to mention your separate content addressing type & book design. Great stuff!

[@markwardonwords]

@@gdawg2098 You on Behance?

[@No_auto_toon]

Would someone that holds a TR position but doesn’t pick one TR because he thinks the best one can’t be known be considered a Textual Confidence position? Why not?

[@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175]

Reformation Era Traditional Texts Only (masoretic, TRs or scrivener TR) believer is similar to Latin Vulgate Only believer, both are just tradition based beliefs. Byzantine Texts Only (orthodox church) believer and Majority Texts Only believer are also mainly tradition based beliefs and involves rejecting lots of evidence used by expert consensus to support critical text and are examples of many Non Critical Text Only beliefs.

[@michealferrell1677]

Well just ask yourself this one question , Do I have real confidence in anything other that the KJB? And if the answer is no , then scrivener is your real answer .

[@timothyberg8455]

I would want to probe with some questions. 1. By “not picking one TR” does that mean that any variant between any editions of the TR is acknowledged to be textually uncertain? For example, are Acts 8:37 or I John 5:7 textually uncertain given different readings in different early editions? Or are these considered “settled” in some sense? I’d they are “settled,” and not open to further revisions, then on what ground? More importantly, 2. Does this person support continuing revision of the TR? That’s really the key difference between the two categories as we have sketched them out. The Textual Absolutist holds a particular form of the text as an absolute authority above revision and correction. Textual Confidence allows and welcomes careful revision of the text to make it more accurate, while acknowledging that this work of revision is never done perfectly.

[@MAMoreno]

The Byzantine Priority position is the less absolutist form of the TR position. It removes the assumption that only Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza were adequately equipped to engage in textual criticism, but it still holds to the notion that the readings preserved in the Eastern Orthodox textual tradition are the more reliable ones as a whole.

[@timothyberg8455]

@@MAMoreno I would suggest that the Byzantine Priority position sits firmly within the “Textual Confidence” label, accepting and encouraging continued revision and correction. It really has little reference to the TR, rejecting the TR readings that aren’t supported by the Byzantine Manuscripts.

[@AJMacDonaldJr]

Traditional folks don't trust modern scholarship. You should read Mark Noll's book: “Between Criticism and Faith: Evangelicals, Scholarship, and the Bible in America.”

[@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175]

fundamentalists tend to reject the expert consensus from scholarship and also the science consensus. Catholic church used to be fundamentalist until the mid 1960s vatican II reforms when the catholic church decided to accept the expert consensus on the critical text and also science consensus (such as theory of evolution).

[@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175]

i have read the history of the break between fundamentalists and evangelicals which explains why some fundamentalists will never use any evangelical works such as ylt, lsv, nkjv, mev, even though these are all translated from the same reformation era traditional texts used for the kjv.

[@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175]

I enjoy scholarship and currently reading a 20 year old book The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman.

[@lewis7315]

We will all find out the full truth soon enough!! :)>

[@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175]

maybe in 7 days, same time, same channel.

[@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175]

atheist bart has new books on heaven and hell so maybe we will see heaven or hell soon.

[@lewis7315]

@@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175 :) I was refering to the imminent rapture of the Church :)>

[@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175]

@@lewis7315 I look up every day to check if I have been left behind or not.

[@mosespsalm_1108]

And these guys who encourage the corruption of God's word would be shocked

[@samuelvasquez589]

I have a question for Mark Ward and Peter Montoro. What is your view of Homosexuality? Specifically are there Christian Homosexuals? As some promote the notion of homosexual Christian brothers. Another question: Do Christians have homosexual friends? Specifically, Do Christians have homosexual friends that they have a close relationship with, enjoying food, fellowship, fun and especially deep friendship?

[@markwardonwords]

I've done some hard work in the Greek, and I presume Peter agrees with me. "Homosexual Christian" is a contradiction in terms. 1 Cor 6:9 makes it impossible. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jJTRiIKdpL6Zqbc I have to think it is possible for Christians to have non-Christian friends, no matter what the sin of the latter is. I myself find that Christians and non-Christians don't tend to remain close; they are citizens of different cities and are ultimately drawn apart.

[@samuelvasquez589]

@@markwardonwords My question is very specific. Do Christians have Sodomite friends with which they have friendship, fellowship, food and fun? For clarification, your answer is yes. Is that correct?

[@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175]

RescuingTheChurch channel has written a book Authorized The Real 1611 King James Bible by Reginald Jacob Block with John Doerr, published by thebookpatch. If write the author via email, can get the pdf book for free. Some kjvo seem to claim there are no minor translation fixes to the 1611 kjv over more than 400 years, altho they usually admit typo errors have been slowly fixed over the years. There are kjvo believers like Reginald Jacob Block and John Doerr who only use 1611 kjv rather than 1769 kjv bec they believe printers ignorant in hebrew and greek have done minor translation fixes on the 1611 kjv over the years. Kjvo who claim 1611 kjv never got minor translation fixes are maybe out of touch with reality. Kjvo who prefer 1611 kjv seem to like the 1611 kjv printed in 2005 by Hendrickson. Looks like 1611 First Edition KJVO is just 1 of many types of KJVO, and they prefer to refer to 1611 kjv as AKJB authorized kjb bec the many later revisions to the kjv were not authorized.

[@markwardonwords]

checked out that channel briefly. Seems like he's pretty extreme.

[@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175]

@@markwardonwords Most of the currently printed 1611 kjvs seem to have more modern fonts altho still hard to read, unless you are a shakespeare scholar. Not sure if a modern printer has printed 1611 kjv in current font and maybe modernized spellings to make it easier to read.

[@reformationtoys]

“Textual absolutism?” You say that like it’s a bad thing.

[@markwardonwords]

I am absolutely an inerrantist. I absolutely believe in the resurrection, and on Jesus’ miracles, and in the fact that God created male and female-I am an absolutist about a lot of things. But not about textual criticism. God hasn’t given us the warrant.

[@reformationtoys]

@@markwardonwords my faith isn’t in naturalistic methods; the object of my faith is Christ. It is because of this that your label doesn’t bother me.

[@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175]

@@reformationtoys naturalistic methods does not mean sin. I heard artificial intelligence is now being used to do textual criticism so even robots can do it.

[@reformationtoys]

@@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175 Take the word of God out of the hands of the plow boy and put it back in the hands of academia. What could possibly go wrong?

[@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175]

@@reformationtoys good to learn hebrew and greek bec many things are lost in translations. For example, hebrew YHWH is often translated LORD which is not accurate.

[@mosespsalm_1108]

These guys are their own authority. Imagine thinking we don't have an inerrant bible and dumbing down inerrancy to include different bibles saying different things like in 1 Sam 13:1. The "yea hath God said" collective

[@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175]

protestants do also rely on authorities like parents and preachers. Even with the kjv, you can get thousands of interpretations, so you do need to rely on some authorities like private interpretation, parents, preachers, institutions, etc.

[@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175]

Many things are lost in translation so better to learn hebrew and greek. For example, hebrew elohim is plural and means many gods. hebrew YHWH is often wrongly translated as LORD.

[@lewis7315]

Thanks... the issue here is that all "bibles" other than the KJV use the corrupted Latin and Alexanderian manuscripts... There is a Spanish version of / from the same Syrian text the KJV comes from... so no, a person does not have to know English language to read the uncorrupted Bible...

[@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175]

If like the reformation era traditional texts like reformation era masoretic text and TRs or scrivener TR, can learn hebrew and greek bec many things are lost in translations. For example, hebrew YHWH is often translated LORD which is not accurate.

[@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175]

If like the reformation era traditional texts, can try the Jubilee Bible which is based on reformation era spanish translation and reformation era masoretic text and TRs.

[@markwardonwords]

Lewis, keep watching, my friend! I do not believe you are correct!

[@timothyberg8455]

@Lewis, we will actually get into some of those issues in the next episode.

[@coryaustin4474]

You believe the Latin is corrupt, and you're KJV only.... ? I think you missed having "the talk" somewhere along the line. This is awkward, but unfortunately Santa is not real, and there is no KJV without the Latin. I'm sorry no one told you sooner.

[@jamessheffield4173]

Are the gospels legends? Another point is that on that view you would have to regard the accounts of the Man as being legends. Now, as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever else the Gospels are they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing. They are not artistic enough to be legends. From an imaginative point of view they are clumsy, they don’t work up to things properly. Most of the life of Jesus is totally unknown to us, as is the life of anyone else who lived at that time, and no people building up a legend would allow that to be so. Apart from bits of the Platonic dialogues, there are no conversations that I know of in ancient literature like the Fourth Gospel. There is nothing, even in modern literature, until about a hundred years ago when the realistic novel came into existence. In the story of the woman taken in adultery we are told Christ bent down and scribbled in the dust with His finger. Nothing comes of this. No one has ever based any doctrine on it. And the art of inventing little irrelevant details to make an imaginary scene more convincing is a purely modern art. Surely the only explanation of this passage is that the thing really happened? The author put it in simply because he had seen it. C.S. Lewis, "What Are We to Make of Jesus Christ?" (1950)

[@lewis7315]

a meaningless discussion??? ... or term ??? ... Either you believe in God and his inerrant Word (the KJV Bible) or you dont believe and aren't saved...

[@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175]

many types of kjvo, so even kjvo might not be sure about salvation. RescuingTheChurch who uses 1611 kjv rather than 1769 kjv says printers who do not know hebrew and greek fixed minor translation errors of 1611 kjv in some places. He uses the 1611 kjv printed by Hendrickson in 2005. He has written a book Authorized The Real 1611 King James Bible by Reginald Jacob Block with John Doerr, published by thebookpatch. If write the author, can get the pdf book for free.

[@michealferrell1677]

Is it possible that you have never given thought to how exactly the KJB came into existence , in English that is ? Remember none of the biblical writers spoke in English . Yiu are reading a translation from the original languages, Hebrew and Greek .

[@gen_lee_accepted5530]

oh yuck.

[@jsharp3165]

@@michealferrell1677 And some of the Greek used for the KJV was back-translated from a Latin translation.

[@michealferrell1677]

@@jsharp3165 oops ! I forgot about that :) Must not be confessional anymore if I am KJB preferred