The NKJV Study Bible - an honest review (including thoughts on the NKJV translation in general!)

[@daynehaworth9258]

Fantastic review! Your reviews of study bibles are the best I have come across on KZbin!! You go into aesthetics, practicalities, theology and translation bias. Its really excellent work. Thanks for the time and effort you take in reviewing these bibles! Your heart for believers to grow in their understanding of theology and to use their study bibles more effectively is so commendable

[@DiscipleDojo]

Thank you for watching and for the encouragement!

[@megalyon]

Agree his reviews are the best and so detailed ! Very helpful

[@daynehaworth9258]

Agreed very helpful in so many ways

[@Me2Lancer]

It should be noted that NKJV editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament and to indicate major Critical and Majority Text variant readings in the marginal notes.

[@SaneNoMore]

Even better, they tried to insure the footnotes were non-bias and that they clearly indicate which variant is found in which text, unlike many bibles like the ESV that just lists all variants as “some manuscripts”. These are the reason I have given preference to using NKJV as a primary translation.

[@jwatson181]

​@@SaneNoMoreThe NKJV reads pretty clunky at times. With that said, every Bible is precious without reason!

[@SaneNoMore]

@@jwatson181 Having been trained in a KJVO environment but as I matured moving past that nonsense I find the NKJV to be a pretty nice leap forward. I usually reference multiple translations but I find that due to the clear footnotes and modern but literal translation and nearly all bibles (study, reference, etc) being available in the NKJV makes it my first choice. Second would probably be the ESV but there are several translations I've not fully vetted for myself yet.

[@jwatson181]

@SaneNoMore proud of you sir! I grew up in a kjvo church as well. Thankfully, I was never personally convinced of the position and the church matured.

[@angelamc2923]

Which having the textual notes is awesome!

[@Yesica1993]

I know this is an older video, but thank you for this thorough review. (I've been toying with the idea of going from ESV to NKJV.) I appreciate when reviewers talk in detail about the content, rather than wasting my time for half the video going on and on about the cover and other outward things.

[@Jame629]

I know and when does it become idolatry im English so reading kjv is not a big deal but i do like other translations NRSV NIV for a while coming back to Christianity they helped me so much .

[@SaneNoMore]

The one thing I do like about the NKJV is that despite using the TR it has excellent non-bias footnotes for both the critical and majority text variants unlike many newer translation that use generic footnote terms (some manuscripts…). This way you at least through footnotes and the text all 3 manuscript variant represented.

[@txsilentknight]

None of that matters when they leave out so much scripture and the lost translation

[@SaneNoMore]

@@txsilentknight Nearly 6000 Greek manuscripts and 25000 ancient translations are available (and used) for textual comparisons and translation. There are no "lost translations" nor are there any "Missing scriptures". There is a lot of uneducated nonsense that runs around the internet and media channels. Some are ignorant of the facts and others purposefully misrepresent them to garner more views. Even educated skeptics (like Ehrman) no longer attack the accuracy of our text.

[@SaneNoMore]

@@user-yz1jq6yx4c You can find NKJV bibles with no footnotes but honestly there is no reason to be ignorant of textual variants. It’s important to know that meaningful, viable differences are only found in about half a percent of the text and have no effect on doctrine. We cannot bury our heads in the sand on those though. By studying the nearly 6000 Greek manuscripts and the 25000 or so ancient translations we current have we can be so sure of the Biblical text today that even educated skeptics (like Ehrman) no longer argue against textual accuracy of the Bible. So the studies that led to those footnotes do not cast doubt on the text but have in fact proven its amazing accuracy as a whole. Also the footnotes in the NKJV never just say “some manuscripts” but note without bias which branch of manuscripts. I too very much dislike the “some manuscripts” type of footnotes found in some translations like the ESV. It’s far to vague.

[@CodyBuchanan700]

​@@txsilentknightthey don't leave anything out

[@Yesica1993]

@@CodyBuchanan700 I always love when they say they're leaving verses out but then it's right there in the notes. It's almost like... they didn't even read it. LOL!

[@jjstuartonwriting8150]

I was so pleased to hear your comment at 12:12 about the hardening of Pharaoh's heart and the plagues in Egypt being judgements on the "gods" of egypt, showing that our Lord is supreme over all of them. So many bible scholars completely gloss over that cultural meaning. Great review by the way.

[@kstan2236]

Thank you for your reply. I follow you and truly enjoy your content. Much appreciated!

[@fernandojrapodaca]

Thank you i never used the NKJV because of fear of contaminating my KJVonism LOL until I reallized its all about JESUS free gift and not the TRANSLATIONs .Praise GOD for wisdom to spread the TRUTH.

[@csec8740]

Couldn’t agree more, moved to a small town for school/Uni, the first church (Non-denom) I went to, got hit by “Oh! We’re KJV only.” I had an NIV bible at the time. For 4 years I arduously carried and read through a KJV bible. At times not understanding the archaic English I was reading. No need to hold on to KJV puritanism. It is the Lord’s inspired word, looking at getting this NKJV bible.

[@michaelmcgee335]

Just keep away from the NIV

[@fernandojrapodaca]

@@michaelmcgee335 why? Let me take a guess you claim the NIV is part of Codex Gigas ( the section of Ars Medicinae) or something of sort. To really understand, and search for God this makes more sense to get as many translations as possible and study all them,instead of just a “lazy comment “, if you need any other proper education look up the video “ Dan Wallace top 5 bible translation “, and get right with God.

[@flowerlass]

As always, an excellent review! I was interested in your thoughts on the NKJV the most. Thanks.

[@gobirds19]

I think the TR gets a really bad wrap among modern critics and many still feel uneasy of certain passages that modern critics suggest we should remove from our Bibles such as: the longer ending of mark and the woman caught in adultery. I've heard strong arguments on both sides of these disagreements for a couple years now and it has left me uncertain of what is authentic. That included listening to Mark Ward and James White extensively (those who tear the KJV and TR to shreds on a daily basis). Even after all that, I still lean more toward the TR out of caution because of the writings of Irenaeus. Him being such an early church father and one who studied the text deeply, I can put a lot of weight on his thoughts due to his closeness to the original writings. His writings we're so early. It's hard to know for sure either way. But I trust in God to preserve his Word. He's the one who will determine which text goes forward. This is why I believe the KJV and NKJV are still so popular today... Due to this uncertainty and out of general caution. That and the pure beauty of the KJV text. Thanks for a great review. I appreciate your detailed focus on theology.

[@DiscipleDojo]

I'm not a James White fan, but if you watched my discussion with Mark Ward, he is accepting of the TR and even preaches from it when asked. He just doesn't think it is inerrant. Personally I think either tradition preserves the saving Gospel. I usually come down more with text-critics like Metzger because, having had to do text-criticism myself I've found most of the points regarding the major additions (the longer ending of Mark, the woman caught in adultery, and the "trinity" in 1John) to be less plausible when the manuscripts are considered. But if someone looks at the evidence and concludes that the TR preserved the correcr reading, I will disagree but not think less of them...unless they make it a point of dogma and start claiming that it is Inspired in ways that all others are not. At that point, they've stepped out of bounds, IMO.

[@gobirds19]

@@DiscipleDojo Yes they both retain the gospel which is all that matters! I will say I agree with him entirely on his points that the KJV can be incredibly misleading. And I would never give a new believer a KJV... Or even mention manuscripts for that matter. That being said. I do like to read it often and find more motivation to memorize it than any other translation. This is after five years of reading the Bible and starting out in modern translations. I'm not super strong for the TR, but I do think the majority text and TR position make some good points. Thanks for the kind response. I've subscribed and I'll check out your video with him for sure! God bless.

[@valdotc8559]

The thing is, God inspired the writing of tge Bible, it was breathed by God. Would God then just abandon the preservation of His living Word purely under human capacity, without any intervention? If the woman caught in adultery wasnt canon, God wouldnt let it be preserved in the Bible. We know Jesus changed the law in the New Testament (see hebrews about the change of law, also Matthew 5). Also: "To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law." (1 corinthians 9.20,21). Jesus has brought the commandments to perfection. In the Old Testament God wrote the commandments in stone with His finger. Moses gave the law to the people. Moses said God would send a prophet like him. Thats Jesus, who, like Moses, had a special connection with God, made extraordinary miracles and delivered the law. When the pharisees came to Jesus to kill the woman (obeying the law), Jesus didnt obey the Old Testament law (which ORDERED to kill those caught in adultery). We dont kill these people anymore because Jesus brought the law to perfection in the NT. So, Jesus, inside the temple, writes on the ground. The floor of the temple was made from stone. Jesus (God) writes the law in stone with His finger. Thats the thing with this passage breathed by God in the Holy Scriptures, Jesus giving the new law, no more spanking slaves, no more slavery, no more swearing in Gods name, no more burning or stoning sinners, no more keeping the shabbath, no more animal sacrifices. Not only not commit adultery, dont commit in the minds. No more toleration of polygamy. Love even the enemy. Etc.

[@ghostl1124]

@@DiscipleDojo The longer ending of Mark is okay to have for reference, but when I heard John MacArthur explain it in a message, I realized that the way Mark wrote is the reason that the longer ending of Mark doesn't fit the rest of the writing, in both style and theme. When considering the way that each of the four gospels were written, I am glad that Mark 16 ends with verse 8. The rest of the writings are neither Mark's theme, style, nor writing sense of the gospel. Besides, I think that the 'questionable' extra verses are 'questionable' for several good reasons. Some of them are quite weird. I and most throughout history are much better off without them. That's my take on it anyway.

[@KalliBella1]

My thoughts: Great review. And it's really good and helpful to know the technical reasons why some available manuscripts are considered better than others. However, the KJV will continue to hold a unique spot in English literature. It is a beautiful language, in my opinion. I love to read my annual reading plan in various translations, including the KJV. But this study Bible sounds to me like one a new believer would enjoy.

[@JessicaB1982]

I have it, but not the full color edition. My only hang up is I don't know where to start. I've been looking at different Bible studies to go along with, can you recommend something?

[@KalliBella1]

@@JessicaB1982 Hi! I don't feel I can recommend anything in particular, only to perhaps use this particular study Bible and pick a book to read and study. If you already have it, I think it may be a good resource to have and to study with/from.

[@christianchavez4086]

Overall, great review. Thank you for taking the time to do this. I just have a couple of points regarding your brief critique of the textual basis of the NKJV. 1. The textual basis for the KJV and the NKJV is NOT the Majority text. It is the Textus Receptus, which was essentially the critical text of its day. These two should not be equated. 2. Modern critical scholarship tends to prioritize older manuscripts even when they disagree with the vast majority of evidence we have available to us today. Scholars such as Maurice Robinson disagree with this approach. The Majority text position is distinguished from a TR only view and has a very reasonable philosophy behind it. Matthew Everhard has a great video arguing for the Majority Text position.

[@DiscipleDojo]

Yes, Mark Ward and I discussed this a bit during the episode with him as a guest here in the Dojo. I can appreciate a thoughtful argument for preferring the Majority text, though I do not find it persuasive in the end and things like the longer ending of Mark or the "trinity" passage in 1John are, in my opinion, pretty obvious later additions that should be rejected. But this would be a more technical discussion than a review video lends itself to for sure (and more in the wheelhouse of NT text-critical specialists, as my focus is more Hebrew Bible admittedly).

[@christianchavez4086]

@@DiscipleDojo Yeah, I hear you. The Trinity reference in 1 John 5:7-8 is not in the majority text so I’m with you on that one. I’ll check out your video with Mark Ward. I tend to appreciate his content and approach as well. Thanks for your time.

[@rosieds4996]

I have this Bible and really like it. I actually agree with the commentary about Romans 7 talking about his current saved condition of dealing with his 2 natures. To imply he’s only talking about when he was not a Christian yet is to read into the text from a Lordship salvation slant which I personally believe is unbiblical

[@Agben35]

Great stuff. I enjoy the “nerdy” sites of which you mentioned , but love the meat that your review entails. Liked it a lot. New follower.

[@AmericanShia786]

Now that I've discovered your channel, I've been binge-watching your videos. I usually only do this with history or Jazz and Classical music videos, but I like the nerdiness. 🙂 Previously, other videos on the NKJV Study Bible had led me not to consider purchasing this study bible. However, you went into more detail on the contents. The NKJV translation isn't personal favorite modern translation just because I grew up on both the KJV and the Douay-Rheims translations, but because the apparatus gives Majority Text, LXX, CR, Vulgate, and etc. alternate readings. I love the Textus Receptus, but its not the most accurate text. I prefer the Majority and Critical Texts to the Textus Receptus. I'm no more than an advanced beginner with Joins Greek, but my personal opinion is to go mostly with CR readings, but sometimes with the Majority Text meaning. So, I use the NKJV and the ESV when I do my Bible study. But, I digress ... You just sold me on the KJV study bible. Like you, I don't agree some of those points you also didn't agree with in you video, but since I use an NKJV reference bible anyway, along with two study bibles that use the ESV, why not upgrade to the NKJV Study Bible? Sorry about writing a "tract" rather than a short comment. I probably won't write many more comments for a while. Lastly, you like super hero action figures as much as I like Star Trek ship models. 🙂 God bless!

[@VitoriaCortesYT]

Eu li tudo rsrs gostei muito.

[@911Glokk]

The NKJV is NOT based on the Majority Text. It’s based on the Textus Receptus which is a translation made from the KJV. Why I love the NKJV is because it’s textual notes tell you where the manuscripts differ.

[@smjmartialarts1438]

Great video thank you for sharing this invaluable information!!

[@deeman524]

I love The Nelson complete: Have used 3 times, it is my #1

[@Foffs_Musings]

Great video - How long does it take you on average to look through all that content in the study bibles for these reviews? Nice shout out to Mark Ward, his channel is awesome.

[@DiscipleDojo]

Usually about a week, give or take and depending on what other projects I'm working on.

[@fishmanloveslinux7978]

I am a new suscriber to this channel and I love your style of presenting a study Bible. The binding and stuff of that nature isn't what I want to know either. I am a content nut. :) At any rate, I really can't afford one but love the NKJV translation. Keep up the great work! God bless you.

[@DiscipleDojo]

Welcome to the Dojo!

[@fishmanloveslinux7978]

@@DiscipleDojo Thank you

[@sandracoombs2255]

Is it right to say that in the NKJV where it differs from more accurate/modern translations, it will highlight the older text in parentheses or otherwise draw attention to the fact that other more up-to-date translations do not contain certain words, sentences, etc?

[@DiscipleDojo]

From what I've seen it doesn't really acknowledge other translations' decisions one way or the other.

[@MAMoreno]

It carefully documents the differences between the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament and the Textus Receptus in its footnotes. (It also includes the comparatively few differences between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus.) You'll typically find them at the bottom of the page, noted as NU (as in Nestle/UBS, since the United Bible Society editions use the exact same Greek text as the the Nestle-Aland editions).

[@sandracoombs2255]

@@MAMoreno Thank you so much for clarifying. Appreciate your reply. 😊👍

[@sandracoombs2255]

@@DiscipleDojo 😊

[@SoldouttotheTruth]

Carlos. Your library expands. Enjoyed the review. Stay strong in the word. Your brother in the way Yedayah.

[@lyramelissaguma4001]

I have that NKJV Study BIble burgundy bonded leather version

[@ghostl1124]

For serious study, most folk in the West (English language) will benefit by comparing and studying both the NKJV and the CSB (or another newer English translation) That way most can get a balance of translations, and the Holy Spirit can guide the reader to understand what God's word teaches.

[@halos.1]

This is my plan. Been reading the CSB for a few months and absolutely love it for how easy it is to understand, but wanted a NKJV to memorize and get more of the traditional english scripture.

[@ArleneAdkinsZell]

Thank you for a detailed and wonderful review. I have an Abide NKJV, not because I chose it but because they shipped the wrong thing (I ordered what would have been my first ESV). It was kind of a happy mistake, I actually enjoy what they sent.

[@jakeham4017]

If you read the NKJV with the marginal textual notes i think it's fine version

[@DavidRodriguez-hg6kq]

I have the second edition full color personal size bible. I enjoy it but the print is rather small since it's not a full-size bible.

[@alicemeyer307]

I have this Bible and I love it.Received it as a gift from my nephew It was printed in large print because I have really bad vision. Beautiful Bible

[@stephengilbreath840]

I've been on the fence about getting this Bible, since I have the KJV study bible. I love the NKJV though

[@tonyb408]

The KJV translators DID NOT use the majority text. They used, primarily, Beza’s 1598 Greek text to revise the Bishop’s Bible. Beza’s text is part of the texts commonly called true Textus Receptus. The Majority Text is a different text altogether printed by Thomas Nelson and produced by Hodges & Farstad. it is similar to Robinson’s Byzantine Textform. The NA28 is a philosophical text with almost no empirical data for its departures from the TR or general majority readings. Fundamentally the Greek text of the KJV/NKJV is that of the Greek Orthodox Church; which was in existence before the TR, Majority, or Westcott/Hort/NU texts. great review though.

[@911Glokk]

It’s interesting that Arthur Farstad was the general editor of the NKJV but he was a Majority Text advocate.

[@thanatoskatakrima5864]

I have it in digital which really enhances everything when I use my iPad which has a bunch of other cool Study Bibles 👍

[@hassanmirza2392]

Is ESV Study Bible the best one in market? What will you say? I think Reformation Study Bible is also quite good.

[@DiscipleDojo]

I have reviewed the ESV Study Bible here on the channel. I like it, but it's not my top choice. I'm not Reformed, so I wouldn't recommend the Reformation Study Bible as one's primary study Bible; maybe as a shelf resource however.

[@hassanmirza2392]

@@DiscipleDojo thanks.

[@Samy-sx6kn]

@@DiscipleDojo The ESV Study Bible seems also be a reformed to me. For it is the very best

[@jsharp3165]

NKJV Study Bible (Nelson - as shown here - not Holman) is definitely my go to. For one, it's a great translation and really helps me bridge the gap with my elderly class members who know the KJV by heart. It sounds much the same when read. And the notes are good without being overdone. I have always loved the textual footnotes in the NKJV. They let you know when there are variants but don't pass judgment either way.

[@Yesica1993]

Aw, I love that bit about your elderly class members! As to the paper, he said it's thin. In your opinion, is it thin like magazines or like shopping catalogues? And is it shiny like the photos seem to be? I hate to be so picky, but my eyes are really getting bad and these things make a huge difference. I hate that my Christian bookstore closed years ago. For so long I took it for granted that I could go and look through a zillion different kinds of Bibles!

[@marlo8456]

Please could you please review the Cambridge annotated NRSV study apocrypha? I want to buy this and the Thomas Nelson bible but want to make sure they're fit for purpose

[@DiscipleDojo]

I'm happy to review any Bible viewers send me.

[@joseenriqueagutaya131]

I am glad i came across this video because i was surprised to find that footnote in Genesis 1:2 which seem to indicate support the gap theory which similar to the note in the same verse in the Scofield Reference Bible 1917 edition which i bought from a used books non christian bookstore.I used to believe the gap theory which got from R.B.Thieme book Creation,Chaos and Restoration during the early years of my christian life and left it through influence of Answers in Genesis.

[@PastorKThroop]

Technically speaking, the New King James is not a Majority Text translation. The NKJV is a Textus Recpetus translation. To be sure, the Textus Teceptus agrees a great deal with the majority text, but it is not the same. This is why the textual notes in the NKJV shows differences in the underlying Greek text not only between it and the Nestle-Aland/UBS text, but also between it and the Majority Text.

[@DiscipleDojo]

@@PastorKThroop to my knowledge the NKJV retains all the textual decisions of the majority text, does it not? Are there places where it goes against it and follows any older texts? Not footnotes, but in the actual text itself? It has always read like a slightly modernized KJV, which is why Fee and Stuart say that it's actually a downgrade from the KJV--it's basically the TR/Majority without the beautiful language. I've never seen anything that makes ms disagree with that assessment...but I'm admittedly not a NT text critical expert or KJV history buff.

[@PastorKThroop]

@@DiscipleDojo “Are there places where it goes against it and follows any older texts? Not footnotes, but in the actual text itself?” Well, I won't get into discussing whether the Majority Text (M) or the Textus Receptus (TR) actually do, at points, reflect “older texts,” and that wasn't the point of my comment. The point of my comment was that the M and the TR are not the same text, although they have a lot of agreement (more agreement between the two, for example, than either have with the Nestle-Aland/UBS Text (NU). As for examples of disagreement between the M and the TR reflected in the NKJV, you actually highlighted a few yourself in your review of the Orthodox Study Bible when you showed a page from the end of Rev. 13 and the beginning of Rev.14. There you can see that, in 13:14, the M disagrees with the TR when it says that the Beast deceives “my own people” who dwell on the earth rather than “those” who dwell on the earth. Another example from that page would be found in 14:1, where the TR reads “having His fathers' name written” but the textual note informs us that both the “NU-Text and M-Text add 'His name and.' ”

[@PastorKThroop]

@@DiscipleDojo For a couple more examples where the TR behind the NKJV and the Majority text disagree, as indicated in the NKJV textual notes, see 1 John 5:7-8, where the notes indicate that the both "NU, M omit the words from 'in heaven' (v. 7) through 'on earth' (v. 8). Only 4 or 5 very late mss. contain these words in Greek." Or see Rev. 22:19, which refers to "the Book of Life" in the underlying TR, and thus in the NKJV, but the textual note correctly indicates that both the NU and M disagree and read "tree of life." There are numerous other examples, but these should suffice to make the point. I am really glad that the editors of the NKJV added such notes.

[@PastorKThroop]

By the way, I thought I should let you know that I really enjoy your reviews. They are excellent, and I have found them very helpful. I also could not agree more with you in your aversion to study Bibles named after celebrity preachers or scholars. 👍

[@wenceslausraymond4521]

Dear brother What is Egalatarian view & Complemetarian view? Are there any other views? Please explain brother

[@DiscipleDojo]

See my interview with Dr. Carmen Imes on women teaching the Bible in the interviews playlist here on the channel.

[@wenceslausraymond4521]

​@@DiscipleDojo Thank you brother

[@TataySol]

You completely missed a key point about the NKJV: EVERY SINGLE TIME that the Majority Text disagrees with the 2 most commonly used critical texts the translators placed those differences in the notes. Love your channel, and am Very surprised you failed to speak to this…

[@d.c.sodyssey4783]

great Bible but it seems most contributers are along Baptistic seminaries, I dont see any P & R contributers , so I'm not sure if all the contributors are from all over the place. Do you know if the study notes state other views on other doctrinal particularities ?

[@DiscipleDojo]

P & R contributors?

[@d.c.sodyssey4783]

@@DiscipleDojo presbyterian and reformed contributors

[@DiscipleDojo]

if anything I think it leans more Reformed Baptist. But not heavily.

[@kaltech04]

I’m also glad to know I’m not the only one with action figures all over his shelves. And no, they are not little idols, haha.

[@edwinalvarez1619]

I used to have a pocket NKJV bible, I loved that bible and I enjoyed reading it but I gave it away. I probably like it more than the ESV. I wish it used the latest greek manuscripts instead of just updating the KJV. Something to think about Thomas Nelson *wink wink.

[@MAMoreno]

Eh, between the NRSV, ESV, and NASB, we already have sufficient updates of the KJV with modern New Testament textual scholarship. Let the NKJV stick with the Reformation-era Greek text, especially since it identifies the differences in its footnotes.

[@Paladin1776-v6e]

“Older is more reliable” is a charged statement. A lot of people don’t agree with this textual theory

[@Jodie_M]

You said that the NKJV isn't the first translation that you would reach for. So, what is the first translation that you reach for? What study Bible do you recommend?

[@DiscipleDojo]

Here are my thoughts on translations: kzbin.info/www/bejne/iZ6xqHyujceYnKc (I don't have a favorite one; there are a number of good ones out there) And here is what I recommend in terms of study Bibles: kzbin.info/www/bejne/gXmmq41mnc-Md7c (It depends on what a person is looking for)

[@JosephAlanMeador]

I LOVE the NKJV, it's one of my favorite to read. But as for a study bible this doesn't sound like the one for me.

[@jasonkerrigan5879]

14:31 Was thinking of buying this for someone until this point. Paul wasn’t describing his experience in Christ.

[@garbaaudu5586]

Please how can I get this copy of this KJV?

[@DiscipleDojo]

Link is in the description

[@BenjaminSanders-v9x]

I have the kjv of the study bible and it’s the best bible out there.

[@DrGero15]

15:08 What is the other view on Romans 7? Like are you pointing toward entire sanctification?

[@DiscipleDojo]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/rH7PfmqarNhna8k

[@naiman4535]

Another interesting detail about the OLD King James Version is that it still retains a phrase originally used by Luke when he writes the first account of Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus in the ninth chapter of Acts: "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." This line was taken directly from Euripides' play, "The Bacchae" and is comparing the risen Christ to the old Greco-Roman savior deity, Bacchus / Dionysus - in other words, it is totally futile for Paul to resist the risen Christ, because he is divine, and Paul is just a mortal. Even though this phrase "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks", was in Luke's original, every version /translation of the Bible except KJV and one other (according to Bile Gateway) have entirely dropped this phrase because it carries too much pagan baggage. But if one studies the origins of the Christian religion in more depth, it becomes apparent that Christianity also has deep roots in the old Hellenistic mystery religions - perhaps the clearest evidence of these hidden Greek or Hellenistic roots are the monumental differences that Christianity has with its ostensible parent religion of Judaism in its doctrines and theology. In other words, Christianity isn't exactly what it appears to be, and has a huge hidden side. Case closed, end of story, as they say...

[@joshuaspeer6155]

Thanks for video!

[@RevDavidReyes]

just my 2cents on that final point. I've done my research and trust our scholars and believe that the new manuscripts [which are actually older] are more reliable. That being said, literally every translation [that i've checked out anyway] puts that the longer readings in the margins. Why not just leave it in the text and braket it or put it in italics.. i don't know, find another way different way than just removing it. When I first came to this problem I almost gosh darn lost my faith thinking certain translations removed verses.

[@JJFrance]

Most important reason why the NKJV is a must have ... its the only modern English version that uses the Majority Text. If you don't include it then the Majority Text is not represesented.

[@DiscipleDojo]

Yes, if someone wants to compare the Majority Text, it can be helpful to have.

[@miarfesoya953]

Great review sir. Really love this new NKJV study bible. Praise the Lord! May I ask if anybody have an old or used leather NKJV/NIV bible? Can I buy it for cheaper price it's quite expensive here 🥺 I really love to have a new bible, like a leather one, it's my dream 🙏

[@zgennaro]

They take that view of Romans 7 because it’s the majority view and I think they are correct. However, some doubt is there because I don’t think God wanted it to be abused by antinomians for license to sin.

[@DiscipleDojo]

It is not the majority view outside of Reformed circles.

[@brotherarn]

God gap theory that you're talking about? Have you heard what Michael heisler has to say about that? Specifically about the angels period, he has a video called the unseen realm. If you look it up, you'll find it. I think it's fascinating.

[@DiscipleDojo]

Carmen Imes and I discuss Heiser's work in a video here on the channel in the Interviews playlist.

[@jacobkatta]

What modern translation study bible you would say is the best if you would have to buy ? Please suggest me best study Bible. Your video and explanation is amazing!

[@DiscipleDojo]

See the video here on the channel "My Top 7 recommended study Bibles"

[@paulaboisvert105]

Thin paper is customary for Bible's

[@Learnerofthings]

I love my Nelson NKJV SB.

[@kstan2236]

Several people with platforms such as yours, have said the NKJV, as opposed to the KJV, utilizes the Byzantine and the Alexandrian text in its translation. Is this not the case?

[@DiscipleDojo]

To my knowledge, the NKJV sticks with the texts used by the KJV. Perhaps they note some alternative readings in their footnotes. But honestly it's not an area I've focused on in my studies and as an OT guy primarily, I must confess that have little interest in the arguments over Greek NT minutiae that so many other youtubers focus on.

[@deeman524]

Mine is not full color, but the NKJV study bible is my #1

[@richardvoogd705]

Likewise the copy I have, which seems to be lacking some of the background information.

[@LandSolutions-gr9qf]

Does this has a study plan?

[@JessicaB1982]

In the back it has something similar

[@paulaboisvert105]

The Evidence Study Bible is a great Bible

[@DiscipleDojo]

I am not a fan, as it only presents a Young Earth Creationist interpretation.

[@Terrylb285]

@@DiscipleDojo animal death before the fall of Adam and Eve is a stumbling block for the YEC .I know now why they say you can’t go outside of Genesis for any text referring to creation,because they help support and OLd Earth View. I think psalm 104 :29-30 is a good verse for animal death before the fall

[@photonjohnny]

Martial arts or no, you did a marvelous job as usual with this review. If not you would be on the ground........

[@johnneufeld6019]

Is rome giving you more manuscripts 😅

[@cybrough]

The NIV Foundations study Bible uses the same study notes as the NKJV study Bible fyi

[@DiscipleDojo]

I'm not familiar with that one, but good to know!

[@cybrough]

@@DiscipleDojo it’s interesting that they left out verse Gen 1:2 in FSB but others are word for word

[@richardvoogd705]

I have a copy of the NKJV Foundation Study Bible. The notes I have checked agree with those in the copy of the NIV Starting Place Bible, which apparently has notes adapted from the NIV version of the Foundation Study Bible.

[@BitesOfFaith]

I heard that Deepak Chokra wrote some things for this Bible. I wish I could find it because this guy is definitely New Age. I'm looking at the digital edition and the forward contributors are not listed!

[@DiscipleDojo]

That is not true. I'm not sure where you heard that.

[@BitesOfFaith]

@@DiscipleDojo - I read an Amazon review. I wish I could find the forward with a list of contributors, but I can't find it anywhere in a Google search or on an Amazon description.

[@angelamc2923]

The New Thomas Nelson Full Color NKJV Study Bible 2nd and 3rd edition, a review from an equality perspective, to supplement yours I can see why people raved about this Bible, but the page design, print quality and layout of the latest edition is far inferior to my Holman Study Bible. However, I recently found out that a previous edition has essentially the same content but a better layout, so I hunted one down. The cross references are not really usable in the new 3rd edition, but the older one has them in a center column. Mainly I wanted to see if Nelson's notes would be better or worse than others.’ From what I have read the notes aren't significantly different from what they have been for the last 3 editions, they just added color and photos in recent years. While not without warts, these notes are much more respectful of women and favorable toward women in ministry than Holman’s offerings. Gen 3:16 Bad start with “The word desire can also mean 'an attempt to usurp or control' as in 4:7. 'You will now have a tendency to dominate your husband, and he will have the tendency to act as a tyrant over you.' “ “The antidote is in the restoration of mutual respect and dignity through Jesus Christ (see Eph 5:21-33)” I will forgive because of that last sentence. Note the reference to Eph 5:21.:8. It is a wicked thing so many interpreters do, to add this idea of domination to a single word that means longing or turning. Wives ever since have longed for close loving relationship with their husbands, not to control them: while history shows that fallen men tend to keep their women in chattel slavery, when they aren’t actively abusing, raping, or killing them. The fact that true Christianity always elevates women and other down-trodden groups proves that subjugating half the human race was never God’s will. At least these notes do not try to justify male rule. Miriam: Note at Ex 15:20 saying she was a prophetess and listing others like Deborah and Huldah, and saying she spoke authoritatively from God. Also says women led this first worship service. In Num 13 discusses Miriam and Aaron’s sin frankly while deliberately emphasizing everyone’s high regard for her, and referenced Mic 6:4. Deborah: Notes call her and Jael heroines, and say Deborah is shown in the best light of all the judges, and reiterates that she was a prophetess and many “sought out her decisions.” Huldah: “This woman was an authoritative agent for the transmission of the word of God to the highest authorities in the land.” Wonderful article about female prophets which is almost embarrassingly fulsome in praise of Huldah and specifically refutes the idea that “God only uses women for ministry when no men are available,” pointing out how many male prophets were around at the time. Esther: The book intro mentions that Esther is a type of Christ. I’ve never heard anyone directly say that. The notes do not comment on Vashti’s refusal at all. Note at 2:8 says we can’t know if Esther went “willingly or reluctantly to the king’s palace.” When a king orders beautiful women to be gathered into custody for his harem, this is sex slavery. In the absence of anything to the contrary, the text saying Esther was “taken” to the palace should not be whitewashed. No mention of the Jewish tradition that Esther hid for years but was captured anyway. Matt 20:25/23:8 While paying lip service to “servant leadership,” ignores Jesus forbidding them from exercising authority over others or using honorific titles. Insists that titles and hierarchy are ok based on some references to other scriptures, none of which back up their assertion. The fact that we all have human fathers justifies a religious title of “Father” or anything else? Um, no! The fact that there are elders mean that we have “hierarchies of authority?” Not if the elders are servants working themselves out of a job. Anyway, references in the epistles need to be interpreted in light of what Jesus said, instead of ignoring Jesus based on traditions that are read back into the New Testament. Mark 10:42-44 Points out that it is not just that Gentile rulers “lord it over others” but even seeking to exercise authority is wrong. Jesus wants us to be servants. (Flatly contradicts the person who did the Matthew notes. But wonderfully correct!) Luke 22:25 Excellent note about how “leadership in the church does not exalt: it serves.” And that leaders should respect others the way a young person respects their elders, and labor for others the way a servant does. “The Lord’s view of greatness is the exact opposite of the world’s view.” Amen! (More proof that general editors don’t make sure the notes don’t contradict each other!) Act 18:26 Long notes on Apollos, but zero mention of Priscilla and Aquila. Huh? Act 21:9 Phillip’s daughters mentioned as a fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy quoted in Acts 2. Review continued in a reply

[@angelamc2923]

Rom 16 Mentions that one third of the people greeted are women. Suggests Phoebe was a deacon and patron and carried the Roman letter. Says Junia and Andronicus probably weren't apostles because they aren't mentioned in Acts. So what! Acts is not an exhaustive account of the early church. I like that the NKJV doesn’t have any footnotes suggesting Junia is a man, which was an invention of the Middle Ages.) 1 Cor 11 “Head primarily means 'authority' when used of human relationships. But the Greek word for head can also mean 'source' or 'origin' in some cases.” Proceeds to comment on the whole passage in terms of authority and submission. Says women are equal but subordinate with a different role. Never defines what that role is, of course. It does say men and women are equal just as Jesus and the Father are equal. Emphasizes women's right to prophesy, but talks about a 'symbol of authority' on her head - no mention of the fact that “symbol of” is added to the text. Says that symbol could signify the woman’s right to prophesy, or the man’s authority over her. Again, “symbol of” in not in scripture. No sidebar explaining why women don't need to wear head coverings today. “Women were obviously allowed to pray and prophesy in the Christian assembly because it would be meaningless for Paul to give instructions for something they were not permitted to do.” But they don’t engage with Paul saying the women have authority over their own head, or that the churches have “no such custom” of requiring head coverings because her hair is enough. This passage makes much more sense if we assume Paul first quotes the Corinthians’ question about head coverings, and then he answers them in the 2nd half which is all for no restrictions. 1 Cor 14:34 “Paul's command” is a subject of much debate since it seems to contradict chapter 11. Views quickly mentioned - was this a specific problem addressed in Corinth about disruptive women? Or were they being prohibited from interpreting prophecy, judging the prophets, or speaking in tongues? No mention of the likely fact that Paul was quoting the Corinthians and then contradicting them, so this wasn’t “Paul’s command” at all. Eph 5 Usual dumb heading between vs 21 and 22. “Marriage -Christ and the Church.” Says the Greek word for submit means voluntarily placing oneself under the authority of another. No mention of mutual submission for the church or in marriage. Again, says wives are equal but have different roles. Says that Paul does not emphasize husband's authority (yeah, he doesn't mention it at all! So why do you?), but calls for him to love self-sacrificially. The word “role” was never used this way until complementarians popularized their lingo in the last few decades. Col 3:18 “The word submit is a military term meaning to 'arrange oneself under another' and indicates a voluntary submission, not an unthinking obedience.” (What about the fact that every military service requires total obedience?) Says Eph 5:21 “may” speak of mutual submission. Um, it CLEARLY does. And why didn't you mention that in Ephesians? “The husband is commanded to love his wife. In his headship he is to seek her highest good, not his own welfare. He is to honor her and not to be bitter or harsh.” Submit has a large range of meaning in Greek and does not have a military connotation when used in non-military situations. It means cooperation. 1 Tim 2:11-15 A very mixed bag. Unlike the other places above, these verses have a LOT of notes and more nuanced discussion. Just before this passage, there is a good article and note about life in Ephesus and pagan worship, and correct interpretation of modesty as being about extravagant and ostentatious dress. Says letting women learn is a command and he was urging Timothy to make that happen- she should do it in submission, as should all believers. “Paul was not saying that a woman could not speak in the local assembly.” Says teachers in the church were under oversight, so women can teach or exercise other gifts under the oversight of men. Mentions some scholars think Paul was addressing false teaching but can't be bothered to say it was probably the idea that Eve was formed first and was the one to bring enlightenment to men. Also, no mention of authentien - indeed, the notes never mention any actual Greek word. About “saved in childbearing” it says “most likely, Paul is referring to being delivered from the desire to dominate by recognizing one's appropriate place in God's creation order.” Barf. Titus 2:5 The unfortunate translation “obedient to their own husbands” (the word for obey is not used here, it is the word “submit” as elsewhere) leads to notes that the Greek word is a military term for submission to one in authority. No notice of scholarship on the OTHER uses of this word where it can mean be supportive or attached to. Or of the fact that all believers are told to submit to each other, even though we don’t have authority over one another. Heb 13:17 just says leaders will have to give an account to Christ. 1 Pet 3:1-7 Extensive notes here, mostly awful. Wives are to submit like “citizens” and “employees” do in the previous verses, these notes' coy euphemisms for “conquered people” and “slaves.” If that wasn't horrific enough, let's get explicit: “Wives are commanded to place themselves willingly under the guidance and control of their husbands.” Is this Federal Marriage? How does “place self willingly” work with “are commanded to,” I wonder? “Chaste conduct” is defined as “without moral defect or blemish!” “A godly wife does not preach to her husband with words but with the Christ-like beauty of her daily life.” Men are to be unselfish, intimately aware of their wives’ needs, strengths, weaknesses, goals and desires, and “give honor to her because she deserves honor.“ “Weaker vessel” means physically weaker, and the husband's relationship with God will be affected by how he treats his wife. There is a little sidebar word study on “joint-heirs” where it says nice things about having an equal share and joint participation in the Kingdom, but in another section it said Men were the first-born of creation and so get a greater portion like a firstborn. Which is it, guys? And do these Bible study editors never check for blatant contradictions like these?

[@angelamc2923]

@sydney.g.sloangammagee8181 not at all my intention. I love Disciple Dojo. I simply thought that since he has some of the best Bible reviews on KZbin that already talk about how study Bible notes deal with complementarian vs egalitarian issues, that people might welcome more information/more in depth looks at the notes in the passages that are most often used about women. No one is forced to read my analysis if they'd rather not. I simply began reviewing study Bibles this way because I didn't know anybody else offering this information. Besides, mine and JD's very minor disagreement is about a translation (the NKJV) and not even about study notes...🥰

[@cloudx4541]

Why do you assume the critical texts are closer to the original considering how much they disagree with each other and the majority text? They were unused by the church which is why they didn’t wear out like the other manuscripts that the church was actually using. I also question why the British museum refuses to carbon date Codex Sinaiticus. A few years ago there is a video of them handling and flipping through it like a book and the pages were pretty white for a codex they claim to be so old based only on hand writing analysis. Clearly they have something to hide.

[@DiscipleDojo]

Critical texts take into account *all* variant readings and thus are able to get closer to the original text by comparing them. See the session of our Bible for the Rest of Us course called "mistaken manuscripts" for more on this: www.discipledojo.org/bible

[@Miroslaw-rs8ip]

Dude, the Greek Orthodox Church included the NKJV NT into their English Bible so what do you say about that? I’m no fan of the Critical Text, if you’re telling me that the CT is superior to the BT then I disagree! Anyone who’s going to say that the longer version of Mark’s Gospel is incorrect is in error, scholars or others. I was a Missionary and experienced what Jesus said in the longer version of Mark myself, I also went to seminary and believe in the Byzantine Version as superior to the Critical Text that came out of Egypt and most likely was doctored by Gnostics. I’ll stick with my NKJV NT over anything else on the market right now. 😊

[@deeman524]

I totally disagree with you about the NKJV: I believe the total opposite about the texts. I believe textual Criticism was done and complete through the KJV translators, the critical text came later causing controversy

[@DiscipleDojo]

That's a belief that lacks evidential warrant, I'm afraid.

[@deeman524]

​@DiscipleDojo and that is the same exact thought I have about modern day translations. There is no proof that for 3 decades nothing but the KJV and its relatives kept us in error? and then all of a sudden modern translating proved that error? That's impossible

[@박병구-v4l]

How prise it?

[@catharsis77]

Your guest, brother Ward, has a parellel comparison of the TR and the CT online and is quick to point out how little difference there is between the two. Is he just blowing smoke to pacify people who favor the KJV? I really don't think so. So why do some people make such a big deal about how 'superior' the CT is? How exactly is it superior? How many revivals have been inspired by versions translated from them, for example? I am going to have to quit listening to your reviews, you have cost me a lot of money now. lol. I must have picked up at least 4 that you have reviewed and some you haven't. Got a few at Goodwill today in almost miraculous fashion that were like a dime on a dollar. That works for me!

[@angelamc2923]

This is the first review of yours that I have disagreed with. I'm a majority text gal, and you make zero mention of any arguments for TODAY'S majority text apologetics, (which take all the new manuscript evidence into account, but disagree that older manuscript =more reliable), or for the fact that the NKJV is the only major version that has text critical notes telling you exactly what the differences are between the old Textus Receptus, the critical text, and the modern Majority Text. Also you don't have annoying things like brackets around certain pericopes that have plenty of evidence and apologetics for their inclusion, but that it's become fashionable to question. And yes there are definitely some scribal error intrusions (which even the modern majority texts would reject) but they mostly don't affect anything, and are noted in footnotes. This all was more important before the internet to be printed in your Bible, but if you use a paper Bible at all, its super nice to have, and the feature I love the most about NKJV. Its very due for an update though. I do like this study Bible also, but also I discovered that the previous full color version has all the same features in a much more usable layout (center columnn cross references.) I found the cross references in the latest 3rd edition to be unusable. The eye just doesn’t pick out individual footnotes well when they are all run together like that. So I sent it back and hunted down a used Full color 2nd edition which has the same content.

[@DiscipleDojo]

We shall have to respectfully differ on the issue of Text-Criticism, as I don't find majority text arguments persuasive.

[@briangleason4435]

KING JAMES BIBLE compared to NEW KING JAMES VERSION The big selling point for the NKJV is that all it does is take out the thees and thous, as well as other outdated words, and make it easier to understand. But is this really true, or has the meaning of verses also been corrupted like in all the rest of the modern versions? Let’s compare some verses: Genesis 22:17 KJB That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and THY SEED shall possess the gate OF HIS enemies; Genesis 22:17 NKJV blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and YOUR DESCENDANTS shall possess the gate OF THEIR enemies This change distorts the prophecy of Jesus Christ. Galatians 3:16 “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to THY SEED, which is Christ.” Numbers 11:25 KJB And the LORD came down in a cloud, and spake unto him, and took of the spirit that was upon him, and gave it unto the seventy elders: and it came to pass, that, when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, AND DID NOT CEASE. Numbers 11:25 NKJV Then the LORD came down in the cloud, and spoke to him, and took of the Spirit that was upon him, and placed the same upon the seventy elders; and it happened, when the Spirit rested upon them, that they prophesied, ALTHOUGH THEY NEVER DID AGAIN This change makes it say the complete opposite. 2 Samuel 5:21 KJB And there they left their images, and David AND HIS MEN BURNED THEM 2 Samuel 5:21 NKJV And they left their images there, and David AND HIS MEN CARRIED THEM AWAY And again. 2 Samuel 14:14 KJB For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; NEITHER DOTH GOD REPECT ANY PERSON: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him. 2 Samuel 14:14 NKJV For we will surely die and become like water spilled on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again. YET GOD DOES NOT TAKE AWAY A LIFE; but He devises means, so that His banished ones are not expelled from Him. The meaning of the sentence is completely changed. 2 Kings 23:29 KJB In his days Pharaoh-nechoh king of Egypt WENT UP AGAINST the king of Assyria… 2 Kings 23:29 NKJV In his days Pharaoh Necho king of Egypt WENT TO THE AID of the king of Assyria… Totally opposite. Psalm 4:4 KJB STAND IN AWE, and sin not:… Psalm 4:4 NKJV BE ANGRY, and do not sin… Psalm 10:4-5 KJB The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts. HIS WAYS ARE ALWAYS GRIEVOUS; Psalm 10:4-5 NKJV The wicked in his proud countenance does not seek God; God is in none of his thoughts. HIS WAYS ARE ALWAYS PROSPERING; Proverbs 25:23 KJB The north wind DRIVETH AWAY RAIN: Proverbs 25:23 NKJV The north wind BRINGS FORTH RAIN Isaiah 9:3 KJB Thou hast multiplied the nation, AND NOT INCREASED THE JOY Isaiah 9:3 NKJV You have multiplied the nation AND INCREASED ITS JOY; Amos 4:4 KJB Come to Beth-el, and transgress; at Gilgal multiply transgression; and bring your sacrifices every morning, AND YOUR TITHES AFTER THREE YEARS: Amos 4:4 NKJV “Come to Bethel and transgress, At Gilgal multiply transgression; Bring your sacrifices every morning, YOUR TITHES EVERY THREE DAYS Zechariah 13:6 KJB And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds IN THINE HANDS? Zechariah 13:6 NKJV And one will say to him, ‘What are these wounds BETWEEN YOUR ARMS? Matthew 7:14 KJB Because strait is the gate, and NARROW IS THE WAY, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it Matthew 7:14 NKJV Because narrow is the gate and DIFFICULT IS THE WAY which leads to life, and there are few who find it The way is not difficult. The way is Jesus Christ. John 8:35 KJB And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but THE SON ABIDETH FOREVER John 8:35 NKJV And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but A SON ABIDES FOREVER Acts 8:9 KJB But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and BEWITCHED THE PEOPLE of Samaria Acts 8:9 NKJV But there was a certain man called Simon, who previously practiced sorcery in the city and ASTONISHED THE PEOPLE of Samaria 1 Corinthians 1:18 KJB For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us WHICH ARE SAVED it is the power of God 1 Corinthians 1:18 NKJV For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us WHO ARE BEING SAVED it is the power of God 2 Corinthians 2:15 KJB For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them THAT ARE SAVED, and in them that perish 2 Corinthians 2:15 NKJV For we are to God the fragrance of Christ among those WHO ARE BEING SAVED and among those who are perishing Are we saved by the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, or are we being saved? Luke 19:10 For THE SON OF MAN IS COME TO SEEK AND TO SAVE that which was lost. John 19:23-30 After this, JESUS KNOWING THAT ALL THINGS WERE NOW ACCOMPLISHED, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst. Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, IT IS FINISHED: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. 2 Corinthians 2:17 KJB For we are not as many, WHICH CORRUPT THE WORD OF GOD 2 Corinthians 2:17 NKJV For we are not, as so many, PEDDLING THE WORD OF GOD All the modern perversions like to change this one to hide the very fact that what they are indeed doing is CORRUPTING THE WORD OF GOD. And “peddling the Word of God” (for profit) is exactly what their motive is in bringing forth yet ANOTHER version of God’s Word. Ephesians 5:1 KJB Be ye therefore FOLLOWERS OF GOD, as dear children; Ephesians 5:1 NKJV Therefore be IMITATORS OF GOD as dear children 1 Timothy 6:10 KJB For the love of MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL: 1 Timothy 6:10 NKJV For the love of MONEY IS A ROOT OF ALL KINDS OF EVIL 2 Timothy 2:15 KJB STUDY TO SHOW THYSELF approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15 NKJV BE DILIGENT TO PRESENT YOURSELF approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. One has to STUDY GOD’S WORD in order to be able to rightly divide the word of truth. 1 John 3:16 KJB Hereby perceive we THE LOVE OF GOD, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. 1 John 3:16 NKJV By this we know LOVE, because He laid down His life for us. And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. The second part of the verse says “...he laid down his life for us…” In the KJB, the “he” is talking about “God” - God laid down his life for us. Modern versions, however, do not have the phrase “the love of God” and once again, the deity of Christ is removed.

[@DiscipleDojo]

Please don't copy and paste KJVOnly talking points here. Nothing has been "taken out" of the Bible. Rather, the nonbiblical, man-made additions to Scripture which were never part of the Inspired Word have been removed or relegated to footnotes.

[@JessicaB1982]

There are older versions of the Bible than the KJV ya know.......

[@briangleason4435]

@@JessicaB1982 Yes I am aware that faithful men of God did English Translations prior to the King James Bible and at least one of them was martyred for his efforts (William Tyndale). And these translations were referenced during the SEVEN YEARS the SIXTY MEN spent diligently bringing forth the King James Bible. The KJB obviously has God's stamp of approval since it became the most widely circulated English Bible in the world and has stood the test of time for over 400 YEARS. The fact that it is ALWAYS the King James Bible that every other translation gets compared to, and is the one that is always being attacked, should tell a guy something. As with anything else, there is, and can only be, one that is genuine and everything else is not. And what was the motivating factor behind those 60 men that gave all that time to such a noble cause? One certainly cannot accuse them of doing it for the potential royalties they would receive, unlike all the modern copyrighted re-wrote versions that have to be different than any of the others ever written. A guy can get rich after all if he can come up with a new widely accepted version of the best-selling book of all time.

[@slinkybandinky2775]

Do you ever wonder why God allowed the KJV to be translated without the “older” manuscripts, and if it’s so important, does it discount the Great awakenings?

[@DiscipleDojo]

God never promised perfectly accurate Scripture transmission. See our friend Mark Ward's recent podcast "The Textual Confidence Collective" for great in-depth discussion on the trustworthiness of Scripture despite manuscript variants throughout history. In no way is the Great Awakening or any other revivalist movement affected, as none of them were about any of the variations in manuscript families (none of which affect any actual doctrine of the faith).

[@slinkybandinky2775]

@@DiscipleDojo right. So He preserved His Word in the KJV, as well as other versions. Since we don’t have the original manuscripts, we don’t know which manuscripts are best, we only know which are older. That may or may not mean better. I am not KJV only, but I do not discount its manuscripts used either.

[@1apart517]

Man, how old are you?

[@DiscipleDojo]

Why? Are you lookinh to get me a birthday present? That's so sweet of you.

[@naiman4535]

My absolute favorite translation of the Bible is the OLD King James Version, Why? Matthew 6:22: Wherefore, if thine eye be SINGLE, thy whole body shall be full of light. - KJV. The Third Eye is the SINGLE spiritual eye in the middle of the forehead; anyone who has ever meditated by gazing into the Third Eye inwardly knows the KJV translation of this passage to be true. All the other versions of the Bible, probably even including the New King James Version, substitute other words, like "healthy" or "whole" for that crucial word, SINGLE - in other words, they are all "Third Eye Blind". Case closed, end of story!

[@DiscipleDojo]

The problem is...that is *not at all* what the Greek text means.

[@naiman4535]

@@DiscipleDojo So - what is the original Greek word, and what is its exact, literal translation? You fail to explain or elaborate. I can go within and experience the truth of what the Old King James Version of this passage said; unless you can give me a better or more satisfactory explanation, I'm sticking with the OLD KJV.

[@virgilioblanco]

The most profitable BUSINESS OF THE GOSPEL, 179 years AFTER ALL THE HOLY SCRIPTURES HAVE BEEN FULFILLED, meaning more feeding the gullible with OBSOLETE doctrines. When willful ignorance is quite handsomely rewarded.

[@KevC1111]

Bought one and am really hoping it's not full of calvinist garbage. Edit: It's not. It's a great study bible. Highly recommend.

[@Williamb612]

The issue is not whether He rose, but rather did He return. The bible devotes about 3 pages of His return in almost non recognizable form to some of His apostles. In my opinion that piece should have been detailed and truly emphasized, it was not, almost as if it was an after thought. Also, when he said “it is done” and the veil in the Temple supposedly ripped from side to side…that did not happen…first of all the apostles where not there to know that, and secondly the Jewish Priests completely denied that it ever happened in the Temple. Why the apostles chose to embellish toward the end obviously is a strategy to get jews and gentiles completely convinced. Folks, IT DOES NOT MATTER….Jesus came, he was filled with the Holy Spirit, he conducted miracles, he was tried by Herod and Caesar, and He did die in the Cross, and His tomb was empty 3 days later. He also fulfilled the old testament progression and lineage, and since, millions of people have been born again, from being in the world, to being in the world but not of it. Stop the nonsense…he rose, but we have no idea whether he returned, or whether the veil of the temple ripped from side to side…frankly I doubt those two things happened.

[@kandywestmoreland5164]

Please tell me

[@Creatio.Ex-Nihilo1]

I'm post wrath

[@shellimccormack]

I highly, but respectfully disagree that the Majority text is not an accurate translation. The "older" texts that you speak of, have numerous discrepancies and the people that are most used for translating (Westcott & Hort) are not even believers. In fact, they mock the Bible and don't really believe any of it. I understand this is just your opinion, but I think it would better suit people to direct them to research for themselves which manuscripts or basis for a translation they want to follow rather than lead them away from something just because of an opinion. There is an excellent video from Chuck Missler that goes into great detail on How We Got Our Bible. kzbin.info/www/bejne/a4vWi396jLyNg9U

[@DiscipleDojo]

Using *any* single manuscript family is a bad idea. All manuscript evidence should be weighed and judged on a case-by-case basis by competent Textual Critics. See our episode "Mistaken Manuscripts" at www.discipledojo.org/bible for more on this concept.

[@duranbailiff5337]

Brother, I would guess that you didn't have the time to read the NKJV in its entirety. If you want to know how the NKJV differs from the Greek texts used by the Authorized (KJV) translators, look no further than the KJVOnlyists. There are several places where the New King reads differently from the 1611, and that is because the translators referenced the manuscripts that have become available later. Yes, you are quoting from the authors of this particular study Bible, but others have taken different views. I trust that many of the study comments were not shared by the people who produced the the NKJV. The KJV onlyists excoriate the New King, precisely because it is rendered differently than the Old King. In my John MacArthur NKJV study Bible, it deals with the veracity of the Comma Johanneum in 1 John, chpt 5: 7-8, the Pericope Adulterae (Johanneum) the woman caught in adultery, John 7:53-8:11, and other places, such as Mark 16:9-20.

[@maxxiong]

Most KJV onlyists either attack the footnotes or the translation decisions (eg. hades/hell, 2nd person pronouns, every form/appearance of evil, etc.) To my knowledge there are indeed a few textual differences between the KJV and NKJV, but the only meaningful ones I've heard of are in the OT. I actually lean more towards the TR, but I still wonder if I would recommend NKJV to some people. A particular concern is the outdated verbiage in 1 Cor 6:9 that has become unnecessarily controversial.

[@colinmccann7123]

The more times you changed the Bible the worse it gets. And Satan loves people who misrepresent what said in the first place

[@DiscipleDojo]

Unless you are reading the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, you are reading an imperfect translation. There is no way around this.

[@richardvoogd705]

I tip my hat to those who have studied Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and have weighed the evidence for themselves in the hope of keeping us informed and making sure we have a translation into our own language. I don't shy away from having multiple translations or different study notes available.

[@RandyReneau]

The Bible is full of errors, contradictions, bad translations, how can it be holy?

[@DiscipleDojo]

How can the Bible "be full of...bad translations"? What are you actually saying?

[@johnneufeld6019]

The new king James has over 12000 words missing 😅

[@DiscipleDojo]

That is incorrect.

[@marksimpson4215]

I will never use a bible that has removed Jehovah's name altogether. You silly people only know his titles, afraid to name your own Gods.

[@CodyBuchanan700]

Shut up

[@whoavadis1984]

Lol someone else who has to apologize for Paul. Christianity would be well respected if it weren't for the confusion caused by his teachings. Interesting. May your eyes be opened.

[@DiscipleDojo]

That's a silly comment.

[@c4mailmanpb]

Man your videos and podcasts and lectures are great. I listen most of the time at work. I know you are very busy but if you have time I would love to here your recommendations for a good study library for average students or Sunday school/small group leaders or just a good library for basic bible study.

[@DiscipleDojo]

Man...I'd have to whittle down a lot because there are SO many! Haha

[@c4mailmanpb]

@@DiscipleDojo I understand. I have watched a few videos on beginning a basic bible study library. My problem is whether the person suggesting the books are Calvinist or not. You are about the only Arminian tradition guy on KZbin that I know is Arminian. I am a Nazarene. I know a basic library should include dictionary, concordance etc. But when selecting a systematic theology or theological dictionary or a basic entry level commentary it gets a little fuzzy.

[@LandSolutions-gr9qf]

Does this has a study plan?