Why Do Textus Receptus Defenders Reject the NKJV? Part 1

In which I work to take seriously the objections of the very best KJV and TR defenders to the New King James Version.
Albert Hembd's "Examination of the NKJV":
Part 1: cdn.ymaws.com/...
Part 2:
cdn.ymaws.com/...
🎁 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

[@ABBreeder]

I really appreciate the clarity and intelligibility with which Mark teaches. God bless you!

[@markwardonwords]

Many thanks!

[@AustinReddBDL]

I grew up and still attend the Church of the Nazarene. For the longest time the KJV and NKJV were all I had around me. When I joined the teen group we used the NIV and or ESV (depending on what you liked). We loved using different translations during study because it got us to think more rather than just read. We briefly left the church and attended a small non-denominational church and it was all KJV. I even got a KJV Bible for graduation. I remember attending one of my first men’s Bible studies around the age of 17 and brought my NKJV with me and got some rather questionable looks or if I was asked to read scripture I was never met with the same energy and enthusiasm as someone who sat next to me and read from the KJV. Your videos have been something I’ve been looking for because if my desire to understand and appreciate translations and get others to know the importance of them. Thankfully today I attend my home Nazarene church and we all use a variety of Bibles. I personally use my RSV for study and KJV for when the pastor preaches. Great videos!

[@lonnieclemens8028]

Thank you for sharing Austin. Your approach shows that you want to know God's message.

[@yeshuaislord3058]

i really do love this channel and it is a blessing my brother!

[@SteffonGreatness]

I really want to thank you for your scholarship and you sensitivity to this matter.

[@markwardonwords]

Thank you for watching-and for the kind word!

[@mkshffr4936]

Very useful. I have not personally looked at NKJV as I haven't had a real need for it but I think it is likely going to be an increasingly important work.

[@markwardonwords]

✔

[@losthylian]

Having watched a lot of your stuff recently, I greatly appreciate your charity. You contend for an important issue, yet remain peaceable in the face of I'm certain many frustrations. I also thoroughly enjoy your humor! Often dry, subtle, it just gets me so often! I've always had an NKJV, and have regularly checked the notes included. When I started comparing other translations, I did so using Blue Letter Bible, so the text notes were always available. Then I heard about the NET with it's own translation explanations, and I started using that at times. It's only in a few of your recent videos that I learned most other translations don't have those notes! Here I am with an embarrassment of riches and did not even realize! Thanks for what you do! "Almost you persuade me to become a greek scholar."

[@markwardonwords]

Ha! I love this. Thank you for the kind words-and good thoughts on the NKJV and NET.

[@lizzyumoh]

You see no problem in casting doubt about the woman in Matt 15's motives? This passage clearly teaches that she was a gentile who had faith in Jesus and Jesus uses the interaction He has with her to start introducing the concept of "Israel' including people from all backgrounds who accept Him by faith. In fact Jesus says to her "O woman, great is thy faith". Or are we to believe that there is a possibility she duped Jesus!?

[@mombythesea2426]

Here's my question: if God separated people by language at Babel, and then gave the gift of tongues (different languages) so that the disciples could preach at Pentecost to everyone in their own language, and then sent out the apostles with the mandate to take the gospel to the ends of the earth, why would God then decide in 1611 that only English was appropriate and that it could no longer be heard in any other language? Sounds more like Islam than Christianity.

[@apachewraith]

It's more culturally decided, being that English replaced Latin as the universal language.

[@mombythesea2426]

@@apachewraith But that doesn’t give any credibility to the idea that only the KJV is the true Bible

[@apachewraith]

@@mombythesea2426 I wasn't eluding to that, just explaining it.

[@troyellis4242]

Must've been one of those "myths about the KJV" these Anti KJV are spreading to get you away from the real reason why we hold to the KJV. we hold to that the KJV is the preserved word for the English-speaking world. Many of our missionaries have gone out to remote places where they have no Bible, some have no written language, they use the manuscripts to translate the Bible into the language, they don't translate from English into the language, they use the Majority of Manuscripts that support the King James Bible (99% of all manuscripts) and translate from Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic into the needed language.

[@mombythesea2426]

@@troyellis4242 So if we can translate from those documents today into other languages, then we can translate from those documents today into an updated English version. That would be more readable and accessible to new believers and believers in general.

[@BramptonAnglican]

I enjoy your videos. They are always so well articulated.

[@markwardonwords]

Many thanks!

[@BramptonAnglican]

@@markwardonwords you’re welcome 🙏🏿

[@sethplace]

Over the last year I finally started studying my bible for the first time in my adult life. I can honestly say that reading multiple translations has done nothing but help me. Now I have a shelf full and I rarely study without two or three open.

[@markwardonwords]

Nice! Care to share a specific recent insight derived from this practice?

[@sethplace]

@@markwardonwords yes sir. This past spring I decided to use my time on the tractor to my advantage. I used audio on you version to read the Bible. The NIV was the audio I used the most because frankly it was the easiest to follow. I tried to use the kjv some too but the Old Testament simply did not come alive like it did with modern English. As I spent this past year studying multiple versions it was clear to me that there are differences, but the Gospel is alive and well in critical text bibles. Thank you for all your dedication to this cause.

[@litespeed03]

@@markwardonwords I'm reading through the comments here and have had the same experience that Seth had in the Old Testament when reading other translations as well, especially the New Living. The modern English is simply easier to understand. Compare also Gal 4:21-31 in the NKJV with the NLT.

[@justwest871]

“And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” King James Version (KJV)

[@sethplace]

@@justwest871 good one.

[@stephenhagen234]

Excellent presentation and indepth explanation of the so-called inferior NKJV translation and objections to its legitimacy as a reliable translation. Thank you Mark!

[@markwardonwords]

Glad it was helpful!

[@Twiceborn_by_grace]

I showed my NKJV to a KJVO guy at church one Sunday and immediately he turned to Revelation 13:18 and basically dismissed me because it said 666. I was thinking, “Well I’m sorry that it doesn’t say six hundred threescore and six.”

[@markwardonwords]

That's divisiveness. It's also silly. =| Christians have no justification dividing from one another and condemning one another over something this minor-in fact, truly meaningless. There is no difference (as you know) between "666" and "six hundred threescore and six."

[@Twiceborn_by_grace]

@@markwardonwords When he did this, my excitement about my first premium bible was quickly decreased. Yet, I still love him. In fact, I entered a giveaway for a premium KJV, fully having the idea to give it to him if I won (but I didn’t).

[@SaneNoMore]

As a former Independent Fundamental Baptist and KJVO student and teacher I can sadly say that is unlikely to be the last time you are treated that way unless you follow their standards exactly. I moved on to the Conservative Baptists and while my doctrine is the same I’ve better learned to differentiate between Bible doctrine and indivually interpreted standards. I’ve also learned to show grace in secondary issues. Two things that were very uncommon in the IFB.

[@RobertG3567]

@@SaneNoMore is KJVO a doctrine or do you mean that besides your KJVO stance, your doctrine is the same?

[@SaneNoMore]

@@RobertG3567 While I no longer hold the to the KJVO doctrine (they do teach it as doctrine), I have found the other doctrinal positions taught to me in the IFB Church (under Harold B. Sightler) to be consistent with biblical teachings. Therefore I have found nothing outside of the KJVO issue and some of the individual ‘standards’ (not doctrines) to have changed in my understanding these 30 years later.

[@benanderson4118]

"English has changed over time." -Mark Ward. It is that truth, and nothing to do with texts, that caused me to move to translations written in our English.

[@markwardonwords]

Amen!

[@mjazzguitar]

I had no idea what the difference was between the KJV and the NKJV, and this clarified it. Thank you.

[@markwardonwords]

They really aren't that different! They're very similar; the NKJV is just translated into contemporary English.

[@justwest871]

“And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” King James Version (KJV)

[@gregb6469]

@@justwest871 -- 'and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.' Rev 22:19 NKJV. Hmm, looks the same to me.

[@PureBloodWNC]

Both are wrong. 😢 God is a title at best. A pagan deity at worst. God is literally taking Elohim’s name in vain. Where in ANY translation are we given permission to change our creators name? Let alone change it to pagan representations. 😢 Why does 1 John 5:7 have an entire sentence added in the KJV and NKJV? It’s NOT in the original Greek.

[@mjazzguitar]

@@markwardonwords I couldn't understand why the KJV only crowd rejected the NKJV if all they were doing is updating the words. I thought maybe they were using different manuscripts.

[@fnjesusfreak]

I feel like Hembd went into his review with bad faith, specifically with the goal of tearing the NKJV down, rather than any intention of objectivity.

[@curtthegamer934]

Unfortunately, I notice that with a lot of KJV-Only advocates. Many of them go into their reviews with the preconceived mindset that what they're reviewing has diabolical intentions behind it, and they'll view the work through that lens, usually not even attempting to give even a slight sliver of a benefit of a doubt.

[@randysandford4033]

Have enjoyed your articles and commentaries over the years. Always fair, reasonable, scholarly, and judicious and never overbearing or extreme. I use NKJV primarily in my Logos studies and will probably continue to do so. Switch to the Compare Versions tool when I feel it necessary. Thanks again for helping to clarify issues on this seemingly endless controversial topic.

[@markwardonwords]

My great pleasure!

[@fr.johnwhiteford6194]

My first Bible was the KJV, because that was practically the only Bible in use when I was a kid. I began reading the NIV as a teen, because it became popular in the denomination I was raised in. When I began studying Greek and Hebrew, I switched the New King James (because the flaws of the NIV became obvious), and I still use the NKJV to some degree. It was actually the New King James that inspired me to begin reading the King James again.

[@fr.johnwhiteford6194]

@The Pilgrim I have not suggested that the KJV is perfect. I have an article on translations, which if you Google my name along with "translations" you should be able to find. There I talk about the merits of various translations. I use a number of KJV editions, and have a reproduction of the 1611 edition.

[@justwest871]

“And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” King James Version (KJV)

[@jasonconklin8172]

The new kjv is not as accurate and misleading and it forgets , a thou thee a god vs TheGod shall must the definite of kjv are much better deffination than nkjv , so I continue with kjv most accurate as I see it .

[@michealferrell1677]

That was well done brother Mark !

[@markwardonwords]

Thank you!

[@justwest871]

“And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” King James Version (KJV)

[@michealferrell1677]

@@justwest871 and how exactly does that refer to a 17 century English translation?

[@keithbryner40]

I like the NKJV. Over the years I have collected many different versions of the Bible and I always keep coming back to the NKJV. I really appreciate the footnotes and even though I try to replace it with the ESV, NASB, KJV, CSB, etc., the NKJV just keeps popping up in the mix. Whether it was by my side as I read my KJV along with a Strong's Concordance or as it rested patiently on the shelf as I read my NASB '95, it's always been there as a faithful friend. Does it has it's quirks? Yes, it has its quirks, but honestly most translations do (except for the KJV of course *wink, wink*). But like a fine wine, it just keeps getting better as it stands the test of time. Haters of the NKJV will come and go, but the NKJV will still be here, holding true to the Word of God as a witness of the goodness and faithfulness of the Father shown through Jesus, by the blessed Holy Spirit. Whether it's my main reader or by my side like a faithful sheep dog, it will probably stay at the ready in my arsenal. It's the version I'm most familar with and is more than adequate for correcting, rebuking, and encouraging the flock of God. So as the debate rages on, I'm going to sit down with a nice cup of coffee and read my Single Column Reference NKJV and thank My God and Savior, Jesus Christ for His great sacrifice for me as I read and cherish His Word. 😊

[@casey1167]

So, when you are sitting down with your nice cup of coffee, and you are reading through Genesis 3, which version of 3:16 do you enjoy the most? NKJV - Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.” ESV - Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you. CSB - Your desire will be for your husband, yet he will rule over you. NLT - And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you ISV - since your trust is turning toward your husband, and he will dominate you.

[@keithbryner40]

@@casey1167 LOL! I love you, brother!

[@justwest871]

“And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” King James Version (KJV)

[@casey1167]

@@justwest871 Oh, see you don't understand. You need first of all tone it down... maybe use the CEV: "If you take anything away from these prophecies, God will not let you have part in the life-giving tree and in the holy city described in this book." Got to get the words "word" and "book" out of that verse. And not sure what this "book of life" is, how about "life-giving tree." Oh, much better. You see, the "bible" says what ever I want it too.... I just need to have enough translations at my disposal. And people wonder why I am KJVO....

[@makarov138]

I, for one, treasure my old 1985 printing of my NKJV, that holds high status in my collection of many translations. I have no actual favorite, but this one is right there at the top among just a very few. Great job Mark! Glad I caught this one at the start!

[@justwest871]

“And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” King James Version (KJV)

[@makarov138]

@@justwest871 And your point is? I think I know. But you've missed a very important point concerning that particular verse. It only applies to the Book of Revelation, and not the entirety of the bible. Though no one wants to take away from ANY scripture. You're reading an English translation of the original language texts. Even the ancient texts themselves may slightly differ is some places. Just like the English translations as well. Do not worship the King James Bible. Worship God!

[@makarov138]

@@joseramonperez9609 The NKJV bible is available wherever bibles are sold.

[@colvinator1611]

@@makarov138 So Deuteronomy 4 : 2, 12 : 32, Jeremiah 26 : 2-6, Psalm 12 : 6-7, et al don't count ? You're lost. Meddling with the word of Almighty God.

[@svrsl7819]

@@colvinator1611 guys, just get over the fact that the torah is not talking about the precious -ring- translation of your _king james_ . KIV translators took away every single word from the "book of this prophecy" and replaced them with english words, what a horrible heresy!

[@BloodBoughtMinistries]

Years ago during the King James Onlyist discussion on the John Ankerberg Show, one of the KJVO defenders said that he rejects the NKJV due to to it telling the readers in the footnotes were other manuscripts differ with the TR. To him that would confuse readers and make them not trust the bible. I love these footnotes.

[@markwardonwords]

Agreed!

[@MAMoreno]

Considering the positions on textual criticism held by Art Farstad and other key members of the NKJV committee, I look at those footnotes as an apologetic for the TR (or at least the Byzantine text that acts as the primary basis for the TR), not an attack on it. Contrast the ending of Mark in the NIV with those in the NKJV. The 2011 NIV precedes verse 9 with a statement in brackets: *[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9-20.]* Then it presents the rest of the text in italics! The NKJV inserts no special formatting or breaks in the text, and the footnote favors the long ending: *Vv. 9-20 are bracketed in NU as not in the original text. They are lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, although nearly all other mss. of Mark contain them.* So too with John's Pericope Adulterae. The NIV inserts this bracketed note into the text block itself (not in a footnote): *[The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7: 53-8: 11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7: 36, John 21: 25, Luke 21: 38 or Luke 24: 53.]* The text is italicized and set off with horizontal lines on either side. But the NKJV makes no formatting choices to question the text. Instead, the footnote favors the reading's authenticity: *NU brackets 7: 53 through 8: 11 as not in the original text. They are present in over 900 mss. of John.* But what about Acts 8.37, which is not present in the Byzantine text? The NIV removes the verse from the text and includes this footnote: *Some manuscripts include here Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” The eunuch answered, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”* Okay, fair enough, but does the NKJV do the same? No: it includes the verse in the text with no bracketing, italics, or anything else to challenge its authenticity. Then the footnote gives reason to regard it as potentially authentic: *NU, M omit v. 37. It is found in Western texts, including the Latin tradition.* In other cases (e.g. Luke 17.36 and Acts 15.34), the NKJV notes that the NU and M both omit the verse without further comment. Only in 1 John 5.7 could the footnote really be accused of taking a strong stand against the TR: *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.* Even so, the verse remains in the text with no special formatting. The NIV omits it altogether and says in the footnote: *Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century).*

[@casey1167]

@@MAMoreno Pray tell what is this NU you speak of? and this "Codex Sinaiticus" and this "Codex Vanticanus"? What is "M"? How is the selection of manuscripts your scholars have choses as the Word of God differ from the manuscripts chosen to be copied and used by the scholars responsible for the Majority text? Really what you are saying is people today are smarter in their selection of text than people were in the fourth century.

[@MAMoreno]

@@casey1167 If you've used the NKJV in the past, then you should be familiar with their abbreviations. NU = the Greek New Testament of Nestle-Aland and the United Bible Societies. M = the Greek New Testament of Hodges-Farstad. Nestle and Aland relied heavily on manuscripts and fragments from the fourth century and earlier. Hodges and Farstad relied on the majority of Greek manuscripts available, which tended to result in readings that mostly matched the Kx family of Byzantine manuscripts. (Other Byzantine advocates prefer the Kr family, which is very similar to but more consistent than family Kx.) It's not that modern scholars are smarter. It's that they're usually more objective.

[@casey1167]

@@MAMoreno I have the Nestle-Aland, probably 25th edition, I have not look at it lately. I think the key you are saying is they are objective. That might be a bit subjective.... You have the TR camp, the Majority Text camp, and the Critical Text camp. The problem is not the TR camp, we are all a bunch of wackos... the problem is the Majority Text camp with it come to the critical text. Being in the TR camp I of course have only heard bad of the Critical Text, and heck, I don't know how much of it is true or not. Last time I got into the Critical Text issues was when the NASB was the rage. I will say when it comes to fragments.... I am not really following the justification on giving them any weight. I think the only time the Critical Text come up is moving from the KJV to the NASB1977/1995 or the NKJV. Once you get to the ESV, CSB, NIV, NLT.... that is a completely different issue.

[@HollywoodBigBoss]

I am so happy I looked into other bible translations and am so happy I did. My go to's now are the Orthodox Study Bible, New American Bible 1991, Douay-Rheims & ESV-CE with Apocrypha.

[@ussconductor5433]

I’m grateful you covered this topic. Hopefully when the second edition MEV comes out, people will have the same mindset toward the MEV that you show with the NKJV.

[@justwest871]

“And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” King James Version (KJV)

[@marierejoiceinjesus3846]

@@justwest871 but the KJV took words (and books) out of the 1611 KJV... if you want to use that verse. And that book took words from Greek.

[@claudiabailey5302]

Sorry for my ignorance here. But I need to ask the question when trinitarian bible society are translating the KJV bible into another language. Are they translating into the modern version of another language or in ancient version of the language. If it’s the first how are they squaring that because then they are just doing a modern translation of the KJV it’s just not in English.

[@markwardonwords]

Excellent point.

[@berndtherrenvolk1951]

I've wondered about that for YEARS.

[@BeYeSeparate]

I'm not here to speak for everyone, but I think the problem isn't so much modernization, as it is departures from source materials and substance in the guise of modernization. The R.V. ditched the KJV's source materials pretty much altogether, pulling an actual, factual, tangible, demonstrable, bait-and-switch, in the most literal sense, with everyone following suit. The NKJV, setting out to do what the R.V. was supposed to do, says in their Preface that they left the Received _"text of ben Chayyim...used by the King James translators,"_ and went with a somewhat newly revised (Stuttgart) edition of the older Ben Asher text. Plus, _"The Septuagint (Greek) Version of the Old Testament and the Latin Vulgate also were consulted. In addition to referring to a variety of ancient versions of the Hebrew Scriptures, the New King James Version draws on the resources of relevant manuscripts from the Dead Sea caves."_ (p. xiii.) This, as with the use of transliterated words like _Hades,_ is not a mere "modernization," nor just a correction/revision, but basically a new "Modern KJV-ish" translation from different sources, even if only slightly different. Blessings!

[@alanx4121]

Kjv language has been updated throughout the centuries, try to read the 1611 version. Modern kjv is 5th grade English.

[@honsville]

One thing I started doing lately is looking at the KJV only gospel tracts and the verses they discuss, then cross references those with 1611 margin notes on those verses...much of the time the margin notes says the same thing other versions say. That was pretty eye opening for me.

[@markwardonwords]

Yes, a good point!

[@brendaboykin3281]

Thank you, Brother Mark 🌹🌹🌾🌹🌹

[@brotherarn]

I learned a lot from you. Thank you 😊 💓

[@markwardonwords]

I'm so glad!

[@justwest871]

Mark stop encouraging this homosexuality, “And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” King James Version (KJV)

[@brotherarn]

@@justwest871 perhaps you are ideologically possessed.

[@thanevakarian9762]

I love my NKJV. I love how at least in mine they show the different textual differences and it’s in readable modern English but still flows poetically. I have several bibles and I use a couple other ones regularly for different reasons and the NKJV is my favorite I only wish they had a super giant print version with the apocrypha/deuterocanon in it. I might have to get a custom one made. If anyone knows any large (actually large) print NKJV with the deuterocanon in it please tell me!

[@yeshuaislord3058]

when i study i use the ESV study bible the LSB and the TLV and occasionally the 1977 NASB or the KJV ( because my 15 year old son has loved the KJV since he was 12 or 13 and his favorite bible is his 1611 lol) but using multiple translations seriously helps me too understand and hold on to what scripture says. the ESV is my main bible but its a blessing to have different translations and it has only benefited me as when i tried reading the kjv when i first came to Christ , it was really hard for me and i didn't hold on to what i had read

[@bmorgan595]

at 29:20, discussing "strait," we do have the use of it in the noun "straitjacket." (which i actually find helpful in explaining the KJV word to KJV readers.) Too often, they read "strait" and then explain it as "straight," as in spatial direction, rather than description. Great video!

[@gen_lee_accepted5530]

Great comment. So fascinating how meanings go out of general use but hang around in very specific idioms or industries.

[@markwardonwords]

Right! Good call.

[@seansimpson1133]

Wow I’ve never thought about it like that. That’s good!

[@maxxiong]

The noun "strait" is still used to refer to narrow passages of water anyways Funnily enough the 2nd noun definition Google gives is difficulty, but the word in debate in the NKJV is the other word

[@fireflames3639]

Same here. Straitjacket is exactly what I think of when I see the word "strait" in the KJV.

[@vaksehund2]

This is what is wrong with modern believers of today - the study should not be based on what another professor has said, but to lay the ground work themselves from scripture vs texts that clearly take away sound doctrine by changing words, adding to and taking away from the original texts of the Bible. Being good Bereans mean we search the scriptures daily to see whether what the Apostle Paul had delivered to us is true. Even every word that is profitable for our instruction in truth and righteousness.

[@fishersofmen4727]

Never thought I would say this, but I have started to sympathize with the KJV only crowd after the Lockman Foundation updated the NASB95, I switched to the NKJV because of some of the changes they made. 😂 Don't get me wrong, I still use my NASB95, as well as the KJV from time to time, but I am tired of what I feel are unnecessary updates to some of the most popular and loved translations.

[@markwardonwords]

I, too, believe that modern Bible publishers have not thought carefully enough about how to steward trust in their work.

[@justinjones2160]

The NKJV is an awesome translation! I like its literalness and italicized words for supplied words.

[@nobodyspecial1852]

I like the idea of indicators like NKJV and NASB use, but in practice they're distracting to me. NKJV was about all I used till 37, and after all the different translations and epiphanies, I'm drifting back to it for reference (controlled variable). GW does italics and brackets sparingly and it's the only one that doesn't trip me up with them. Oddly, ESV was a year long eureka for me, but the more I hear people reading it and NKJV together in bible study, they're usually very similar. Almost perfectly word for word till the end of a verse, frequently. Maybe that's just Ezekiel? For now I'll just declare those two the top ranked fighters in the TR vs CT arena, doesn't matter who wins, I just want to be a spectator.

[@justinjones2160]

@Nobody Special Im drifting back towards the nkjv also. I like the esv but it uses many archaic words or words we don't say that often. Such as exult.

[@nobodyspecial1852]

@@justinjones2160 I despise the KJV Shakespearean intentional double negative rhetoric that is stated as interrogative or assertive, not inherently negative sum. "Old English" wording bothers me too but 1900s English I actually like.... spelling bee word salads make it more dynamic and nuanced for me and that's my favorite aspect of the ESV. Where is the line, because I wish I knew. I don't mind popping open a NLT cheater during Kings and Chronicles though, that soap opera/game of thrones drama loses me. Plus 2 Kings 9-11 and Revelation 19:11-16 read best in NLT, afaik. Jehu and Jesus deserve to be plainly stated in the glory of their victory over the Jezebels of the world.

[@justwest871]

“And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” King James Version (KJV)

[@nobodyspecial1852]

@@justwest871 I don't get your point, the source text says that, all translations of that are not the original.

[@keithgale1641]

I found this great and informative. 😮

[@markwardonwords]

Many thanks!

[@ethanrichard4950]

42:30 It's like saying, "We have 1000 evidences to point to a truth" (Loses a potential one through translation) "Oh no! Now we only have 999"

[@stephentaylor2051]

Thank you Brother! Could you suggest a NKJV that uses the best marginal notes on variants that I could use for study?

[@markwardonwords]

I would instead point you toward the NET Bible, which is free online, or the Lexham Textual Notes, which is a very inexpensive resource in Logos. I hope that helps!

[@stephentaylor2051]

I know I have the NET Bible through Logos, and maybe I have the Lexham notes also. Thanks!

[@woobbryant]

I'm a Textus Receptus defender. And I fully embrace the NKJV. So the title of your video makes me feel a little left out! No worries - I'll live.

[@markwardonwords]

You are in a tiny minority group. I have been searching for your tribe for a long time. I’ve only met less than five members.

[@woobbryant]

@@markwardonwords Can you introduce me to the other 5? I'd like to join their Bible study group!!! lol

[@markwardonwords]

;) Joel Ellis, a pastor in Phoenix, is one.

[@woobbryant]

@@markwardonwords Oh really?! I'm actually familiar with him - I've listened to several of his sermons online, and found them very interesting. Didn't realize that regarding his views about Bible versions, but thank you for pointing that out!

[@tony.biondi]

Thank you, Mark. Excellent, as always, and I love the NKJV!

[@markwardonwords]

You are very welcome!

[@justwest871]

“And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” King James Version (KJV)

[@richardvoogd705]

@@justwest871 lol!

[@truthseekernews2.035]

Hi Mark, my reason for choosing NKJV is that it seems to be one of the few translations that honours God by capitalising His pronouns. The ESV explains this omission in their translation by stating that this action does not appear in any of the original Hebrew or Greek documents. No doubt this is true, however, I think this deference to Deity should go without saying. I have purchased a number of translations for study purposes but the NKJV reflects my own use of capital letters for God’s pronouns. Thank you for your excellent video presentation and comparison of the KJV and NKJV Bibles. 🙏🏻

[@Me2Lancer]

Thank you for your post, Mark I grew up with the KJV in the 1950s but there were no restrictions against reading others. These days I read a combination of formal equivalent and dynamic translations. During bible study, I like to compare passages and in doing so, can see clarifications in meanings.

[@markwardonwords]

✔

[@Me2Lancer]

@@markwardonwords I received a flaming comment on my favorable review of the NKJV, apparently from a KJV only proponent: Quote - "The NKJV is not the same bible as the KJV Bible. It is corrupt. It's not from the same manuscripts as the KJB. You'll get wrong doctrine from it."

[@Dwayne_Green]

Great video! Looking forward to part 2.

[@justwest871]

“And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” King James Version (KJV)

[@richardvoogd705]

@@justwest871 lol, if anyone takes away from the "prophecy" of this video! Nicely said! Your repetitive out of context quote helped make my day!

[@photonjohnny]

I enjoy all your insights. Needed to see this as I am thinking the KJV chooses the right translation and I am having difficulty not using it. Love the NKJV but some choices bother me. I cannot win. 😂😂😂

[@Kenneth-nVA]

Great video! Yes; the TR only camp most definitely should receive the NKJV into the TR family. Those who say that they are not KJV only but are TR only and still reject the NKJV and even the Geneva bible, are closet KJV onlyists

[@markwardonwords]

I don’t know what their secret motives are, of course. I’m not even sure they do. Man is a complicated being. But I know they aren’t justified in rejecting the NKJV.

[@chaddonal4331]

@@markwardonwordsSymbolism is always more powerful than rationale. To KJVO, the KJV has transcended biblical authority to become a symbol. It then becomes a non-rational pursuit to discuss the matter coherently.

[@markwardonwords]

@@chaddonal4331That is true for many, many people. Not all, of course!

[@thinktank8286]

Would love to know the links for the two Bible publications used as props in this video. The Black cover, the White cover. :)

[@MAMoreno]

These books are Thomas Nelson's Word Study Bible from 2017. KJV: www.amazon.com/Word-Study-Bible-Hardcover-Letter/dp/071808523X NKJV: www.amazon.com/NKJV-Word-Study-Bible-Hardcover/dp/0718076567 But it should be noted that Thomas Nelson has recently updated both volumes as the Word Study Reference Bible. The original features are carried over, but the volume has been expanded in various places. (Essentially, Thomas Nelson combined their Word Study Bible with their Know the Word Study Bible.) The links for the new editions are available below. KJV: www.christianbook.com/kjv-reference-bible-comfort-print-hardcover/9780785294894/pd/294894 NKJV: www.christianbook.com/nkjv-reference-bible-comfort-print-hardcover/9780785292784/pd/292780

[@glenconverse1327]

Do you have a list of. your false friends? I'd just appreciate a opy, if possible, of these worlds. Thank you!

[@SaneNoMore]

I always found it funny that Dr John R. Rice wrote a questions and answers book where he states the ASV is the most accurate translation at that time. He was a major voice among those who were KJVO. The memory of my IFB professors trying to explain that away without insulting Rice is what lead me to study the issue for myself and eventually rejecting the KJVO position.

[@markwardonwords]

Do you have a source for that quote?

[@SaneNoMore]

@@markwardonwordsI do, though I must apologize as it was actually Dr. John R. Rice (not Dr. Jones) who was the source of the quote, I corrected my initial post. It has been over 30 years since that time in my life and I attended a school in the same city as Bob Jones University. The school I attended was created because "Bob Jones University was too liberal" (because the school allowed the use of some translations other than the KJV) and the constant chatter about Bob Jones at my school confused my memory as to the origin of the quote but I dug back in my library and found the book. Source is from the book "Dr. Rice, Here is my Question" 1962, Page 59, Question 46 Q: "What is your opinion regarding the other various translations of the Bible" A: "... The American Standard Version, translated in 1901, is perhaps the most accurate of all versions. It does not take the place of the King James Version, but in many places it has genuine help. " He goes on to state that the ASV takes advantage of "The three great manuscripts - the Sinaiticus, the Vatican, and the Alexandrian". The book is still in print I believe by from Sword of the Lord Publishers

[@markwardonwords]

@@SaneNoMore Yes, I've run across that quote. And I know what school you're talking about. I've had some interactions with students there over the years, and Jimmy Tuck is a respected friend.

[@ThecrosseyedTexan]

I admire you in your patience sir. I'm just a lay person but I've been watching your videos for a couple years now and some of these arguments the proponents of the KJV muster are just beyond reason. It's not really the textus receptus that they that they regard as genuine because if it was I would think they would honor other translations that reach back to the TR. It is the King James and the King James only even more than the TR itself.

[@markwardonwords]

Thank you for the kind word. Pray for me! I prefer to pose your point as a question: why do such a tiny number of TR advocates accept the NKJV?

[@ThecrosseyedTexan]

@@markwardonwords that seems fair

[@jamesdavidian7717]

Good work. I enjoy the NKJV. Use it in my PHD program even if some professors tremble.

[@markwardonwords]

It's a good choice!

[@healhands5760]

I love different bible versions. I keep switching if i cant grasp what was said in a chapter or verse. It helps more. Because sometimes i need a word that is translated to the simplest form, and prefer it not to be poetic or archaic. As long as the Bible translation all points to Lord Jesus Christ, no problem. 👍

[@markwardonwords]

A lot of wisdom here. The point is understanding what God said.

[@charlesf2804]

I skimmed through on of Mr. Hembd's papers this AM: "Which Bible Version: Does it Really Matter?". He really went after the NIV in that one. I don't use the NIV myself (not literal enough, as I recall), but maybe I'll go back and read more of that paper. But thus far, I'm not getting rid of my NKJV, NASB, CSB, NET or, I will say, my KJVs. Of course all this could be settled to a large degree if we had the original autographs. We don't, so we must study. Mr. Hembd leaves me largely unpersuaded this far.

[@markwardonwords]

Hembd’s judgment as displayed in the piece I evaluated is so poor, so obviously partial, that I do not believe his voice can be trusted on matters of Bible translation. I gave a careful reply to him, and he has been silent. It’s been years: these videos were originally blog posts.

[@mikehopper1674]

I much prefer the TR, but I primarily use NKJV. I'm not afraid of CT translations and regularly check ESV and NIV.

[@markwardonwords]

More power to you, brother!

[@mikehopper1674]

@@markwardonwords maybe you misread my comment? Your comment seems like you think I'm KJVO, which I am not?

[@markwardonwords]

@@mikehopper1674 Not at all! I'm saying that I wish that everyone who preferred the TR would talk and act as you do: willing to use the NKJV and not scared of the ESV and NIV (and indeed eager to check them in Bible study-in principle, this should be fine wherever they don't disagree with the TR).

[@mikehopper1674]

@Mark Ward oh ok. I actually have far more ESV bibles than any other translation, and enjoy it very much. The NKJV holds a very special place in my heart, and we are the same age! 😆

[@curtthegamer934]

​@@mikehopper1674 Someone told me recently that the ESV might possibly come out with an "ESV TR Edition." I haven't looked it up to verify it though. Also of interest, you might want to get hold of one the Gideon ESV New Testaments, as it has about twenty or so TR readings placed into the text. It's still not technically a TR translation, but worth checking out since you seem more open-minded.

[@mnjackson5772]

Interesting that you have O'Brien's Hebrews... Did you get yours before it was pulled? Or did you find it on the gray market, like I did?

[@markwardonwords]

Logos!

[@comingtofull-ageinchrist6736]

I contend the change of the translation of conversation to conduct because I don't think that you can separate the two as a believer! As Paul in Ephesians 4:22 when he writes, put off concerning the former conversation, the old man... Because, as Proverbs 18:21 says, life and death are in the power of the tongue, and they who love it shall eat the fruit thereof. I think there are changes like this that remove discernment. What we say or what we do is what gives power to thoughts, which are dead until either spoken or acted upon. James writes, the person who is able to bridle their tongue is able to control the whole body, much as we control a horse with bridle and reigns. words like manifest or appear are the ones that are able to go in different ways, and something else that the disciple of Jesus Christ should take note of is: the Greek had no punctuation, so things like the thief hanging on the cross, and it is written that Jesus comment to the thief hung beside him could be taken two ways, depending upon the comma that was added. I tell you today, you shall be with me in Paradise, or: I tell you, today you shall be with me in paradise. the King James made it sound like he would be with Jesus that very day in paradise when we know that Jesus had already told his disciples that he would be in the inferior parts of the earth three days as Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days, and in Revelations we see the description give of Jesus with eyes of a flame of fire and feet of fine brass as though they had burned in a fire and held the keys of both hell and of death. Something God gave us along with the KJV is a Strong's Concordance with Hebrew/Chaldean and Greek dictionaries, and I personally do compare translations, but I rely upon God. When I was born again of water and the Spirit and received the Spirit of adoption that bears witness with my spirit that I'm His. Proverbs 3:5 says, lean not to your own understanding, but in all your ways acknowledge God and He will direct your steps. Don't be wise in your own eyes; fear the Lord and depart from evil. Those who are led by the Spirit of God are the ones born of God, and it is the law of life in the Spirit of God and His Christ, who dwells in the believer, that made us free from the law of sin and death sown into the flesh of all mankind by the first man Adam. As it is written, if we live after or according to the flesh we will die, but if we, through the Holy Spirit, put to death the deeds of the body of flesh, the old man who is corrupt according to its deceitful desires, we shall live. for those led by the Spirit of God are the one born of God. and if we walk in the Spirit, we won't carry out the desires of the flesh; for the flesh and Spirit in us are contrary to one another so that we cannot do the things we will, but if we be led by the Spirit of God, we are under no law. We have to see it is the law of life imparted to us by the Spirit of the Lord that gave us liberty from sin and death. as Paul said, if Christ be in us, the body is dead because of sin but our spirit is alive because of righteousness, and only in water baptism, in Jesus name, we put the flesh to death by the miracle God wrought in Christ when He raised Jesus from the dead. the important thing is seeing the Truth that makes us free. as Jesus said I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the father but by me, and again, if we truly are the disciples of Jesus, we will continue in His sayings, and if we do continue in His sayings, we will know the truth and the truth will make us free, but Paul says some are ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge/full-discernment of the truth. the writer of Hebrews says, if we willfully sin after we receive or come to the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sin, and Paul refers to this again in 2Cor. 10:6 saying having a readiness to punish every disobedience when your obedience is filled up or complete. It is the truth, which is in Jesus, that makes us free. As Paul wrote, now the Lord is that Spirit and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty. He just finished speaking of the law, and Paul says the law is sins strength, and it is by the body of Christ we are dead to the law Romans 7:4 and 6 having died to the law that held us prisoners to sin that we should serve God in newness of spirit and not the oldness of the letter, which he says kills in 2Cor 3:6. in Romans 3:20 showing further no flesh can be made righteous by the works or deeds of the law, for by the law is the knowledge of sin, so by the law is the knowledge of sin that holds us prisoners to sin, but by the knowledge of the truth in Christ we are made free from the law that held us in death. One, Paul says in 2Cor. 3 that is the ministration of death and condemnation, while the ministration of Jesus Christ is the ministration of peace and righteousness and of the Spirit and not the letter. Amen

[@mariolis]

7:10 Once again the wisdom of the KJV Translators shines light to the darkness that the KJV-Onlyists promote If they were somehow time-travelled to the present I think they would find it wonderful that we have so many good translations if their own words are to be believed , and I think they would also be delighted at all the manuscripts and all the amazing discoveries in archaeology we have made during the last 400 years And now my brain just imagined a debate with the KJV-translators destroying KJV-Onlyists with facts and logic in Elisabethean accents

[@markwardonwords]

Agreed!

[@myselfpoker88]

My church preachers from the KJV, I use the NKJV and can follow along 100% of the time. When my pastor updates an archaic word in the KJV or says ''this word is more accurately translated as'', my NKJV bible already has those words in the text. I find the NKJV far superior than the KJV

[@markwardonwords]

Got a specific example or two? Especially if you could share a KZbin video?

[@colvinator1611]

So YOU are the judge of the words of Almighty God Alex. I suggest you repent and get saved. Proverbs 13 : 13, Revelation 22 : 18-19 et al ( KJV). You're in a very dangerous place.

[@myselfpoker88]

@@markwardonwords 2 Peter 2:8, Lots soul was vexed in the KJV. The NKJV says tormented which is more precise and accurate. My Pastor said in the sermon a more accurate word is ''tormented'' which my bible already says. Every week this happens. My pastor is no longer KJVO hence he knows I use the NKJV. God bless you Mr Ward.

[@chaddonal4331]

@@colvinator1611Salvation is not based on which translation is read, but on faith in Jesus Christ!

[@americanswan]

My first Bible was an NIV as a teen. I like the Revised Version of 1880s, but it's not in print. I mostly use KJV these days. I have a nice NASB1995 and would like a goatskin NKJV.

[@MAMoreno]

I've spotted a few editions of the 1885 Revised Version, "Reset from the Brevier Text," on eBay. They're a tad oversized, though.

[@charlesratcliff2016]

I work for a Bible book store and I introduced a person to the Spirit Filled Life study Bible. This person told me that if you want a good English Bible get the KJV. Some see the KJV as a better English. But I had a former church member said the NKJV is a translation that church should be using.

[@fnjesusfreak]

The Spirit-Filled Life Study Bible is available in both translations (I have both).

[@calebschaaf1555]

They're both fantastic translations. The NKJV simply has modern English that will help you not to misunderstand things.

[@charlesratcliff2016]

@@fnjesusfreak Awesome

[@hudsontd7778]

@@charlesratcliff2016 the NKJV is the Bridge bible, read book by David W Danial.

[@StrategicGamesEtc]

Is that the old name for the fire Bible? If so, I recently got an ESV of it

[@michealferrell1677]

Yes ! I have wanted to hear from you on this one for some time .

[@lonnieclemens8028]

Thank you Mark. I am enjoying your KZbin Videos. I am currently doing a study by Dr. Erwin Lutzer on '7 Reasons to Trust the Bible'. It is a study on inerrancy and inspiration of scripture. The evidence to defend inerrancy is gathered into 7 areas and is presented to the reader. I find this topic to be fascinating! The creation of the bible from Genesis to Revelation is a miracle.

[@markwardonwords]

Wonderful!

[@fridge3489]

Strictly speaking im not King James Only; Im King James Priority. I utilise other versions but the KJV has final say. On a side note, im a big fan of the distinctions between second person singular and plural. It's so very important, especially for actual study, but even before that. The KJV/21 are the only ones i know of that do that. 👍 peace. 🙏

[@markwardonwords]

Have you seen my KJB Study Project? Kjbstudyproject.com.

[@kirbysmith4135]

On a different topic, what lexicon do you recommend Mark? I have been using Thayer's for 40 years, but I'm thinking there are better ones available now. Thanks!

[@markwardonwords]

You need BDAG! And Louw-Nida. The latter is pretty much free at semanticdictionary.org. I love BDAG. LSJ and BrillDAG are also good to have.

[@kirbysmith4135]

@@markwardonwords Thank you. And such a quick response!

[@Lloyd.B.]

What do you think about the KJVER (Easy Reader) and Simplified KJV?..

[@markwardonwords]

I simply haven't had time to go through them in detail. They look like they were done responsibly.

[@Lloyd.B.]

Ah OK. A while ago I thought about ‘just’ copy and pasting the KJV into a word document and “search and replacing” all the archaic words. But I gave up the idea because I’m in the UK and “the crown” still has a death grip on the copyright so I wouldn't be able to modify it even on a personal digital copy I think. That is kind of what the KJVER and SKJV seem to have done. I saw their list of changed words in the SKJV the other day, and there is no way I would have had the patience to do all that though, I assumed there were far less words that need updating. Web search for “THE SIMPLIFIED KJV REVISION PROCESS” to see the list. I think they may have missed a load actually, because I just checked one, Besom, and that’s not in the list. I would have replaced the second person singular “Ts” - Thou, Thee, Thy and Thine - With Youˢ or Yourˢ (Small S next to it to show it’s singular). And replaced the second person plural “Ys” - Ye, You, Your and Yours - With Youₚ or Yourₚ or Yoursₚ (Small P for Plural) Apparently the KJVER has done the p for plural and left the singular with no p, which works. That is one complaint the KJVO have, that you loose the distinction between plural and singular, and I figure you may as well add that extra information if it’s easy.

[@TheRomanOrthodox]

I am a bit more conservative on language than most. Perhaps (very tentantively), considering that the term 'experience' with the more obsolete meaning more perfectly translates the Greek concept, the translation should have stood with an explanatory footnote. In the alternative, I think I would have adopted "proof of strength" or "proof in trial."

[@markwardonwords]

A worthy option.

[@davidsteinart]

It's so ironic that he would be disturbed by translating a third person masculine singular pronoun as "them" given their firm insistance that it MUST be translated "them" in psalm 12:7.

[@markwardonwords]

An excellent point.

[@mnjackson5772]

Mark, have you heard Daniel Wallace speak of his tenure on the NKJV committee? He says that his job was to corral the translators into not making non-KJV changes, and that he didn't enjoy the job at all. (This is my paraphrase of his comments, and from memory, so forgive me if they aren't perfectly accurate, but I think they are at least the gist of what he said.)

[@markwardonwords]

I have heard rumors about this. Been thinking recently about getting more info.

[@mnjackson5772]

@@markwardonwords Starts at minute 19:00

[@joer5627]

Folks, there are some topics that just aren’t that important. My salvation does not depend on this, so I pass on the arguments.

[@stanjz]

Asking someone new to Bible study to start with a regular KJB is asking too much. We're talking about double column extra small font and three times the amount of words/page as the average book. A study Bible along with a book on hermeneutics would be much much better. They're going to eventually need a Greek and Hebrew word study, exhaustive concordance, and a good Bible dictionary. Obviously people who are weaned on it can handle it better.

[@stephenhagen234]

My understanding is that we interpret the Bible by the Bible. Doctrine is taught from many different approaches in many different places of the Bible to provide the reader an understanding of God's values and desires and character. We are humbly dependent upon His Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth, as He promised He would. Our motive and intent for acquiring this knowledge and understanding are of interest to Him and under His supervision. God reveals (Rhema and Logos) His word to the humble, seeking heart.

[@mistermurtad2831]

Because it is mostly about tradition than accuracy of translation.

[@markwardonwords]

I tend to agree.

[@nerdyyouthpastor8368]

I'll take a stab at answering the title question before I hear your answer: 1. It's not the KJV. 2. It contains textual footnotes. 3. They have been taught to distrust all modern Bible translations.

[@markwardonwords]

I try to take their objections seriously-but yes, this describes some KJV defenders. And no. 2 is universal among them.

[@nerdyyouthpastor8368]

@@markwardonwords Indeed. These are serious objections from their perspective. If you've known and trusted the King James all your life, its perfectly natural to distrust anything that differs from it - especially if you have been taught to mistrust modern versions. I don't think I would have ever learned to trust the NKJV if I hadn't learned to read Greek.

[@casey1167]

@@markwardonwords I used to believe strongly 1 John 5:7&8 did not belong in the Bible based on the footnotes. It was so clear, "Only 4 or 5 very late mss. contain these words in Greek." and the idea Erasmus just plugged it in. Then I bought the book "A History of The Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8" by Michael Maynard, and read a lot of other research on the topic. While I can not say the support is perfect, when I look objectively at this verse the support for it's inclusion is substantially more than I was lead to believe. When I look at the support for some of the readings in the Critical Text, objectively 1 John 5:7&8 has far more and better support. The problem with the NKJV is if you believe it is correct, and is the best scholarship, there is logically no reason to use it when more "advanced" scholarship is available. But Mark knows that.

[@markwardonwords]

@@casey1167 My friend, it is only if you believe that the base text of the NT and OT have to be jot-and-tittle perfect ("Textual Absolutism") that you have to reject translations based on other texts. I believe the differences between the TR and the critical text to be minor. Therefore I am willing to use translations based on either one. And I wholeheartedly believe in the Trinity, so a little extra oomph in its support I don't mind too much!

[@casey1167]

@@nerdyyouthpastor8368 1. "I am not aware of anyone who holds a Ph.D. in Old or New Testament that holds to a King James Only position" Is Waite close enough? Dr. D. A. Waite, received a B.A. in classical Greek and Latin from the University of Michigan in 1948, a Th.M. with high honors, in New Testament Greek Literature and Exegesis from Dallas Theological Seminary in 1952, an M.A. in Speech from Southern Methodist University in 1953, a Th.D. with honors, in Bible Exposition from Dallas Theological Seminary in 1955, and a Ph.D. in Speech from Purdue University in 1961. Or the guys here: kjbrc Trust me, plenty of PhDs in the KJV camp. And I am betting you have never heard the name John Burgon. Might want to look that guy up. If having a PhD from Bob Jones makes you trustworthy.... well Peter Ruckman got his PhD there. 2. "We both must, at some point, defer to those in our own camps who have more expertise than we." Only on the Greek text, my main issue is the derivative copyright law, which is pretty straight forward, and comparative analysis of OT verses between translations which a high schooler could compile. 3. "I am not very familiar with Dr. Gupta" -- Well you should be if you know people that read the NLT. 4. "I don't recommend the NLT as a primary translation" -- Ya, I really don't know what that means. If I tell one of my kids the NLT is a Bible, then it is a Bible and should be trusted. 5. "defer to those in our own camps who have more expertise than we." -- yes, BUT there are things I don't understand about Creation that I have to defer to more educated, but I know based on my limited reasoning Evolutionary methods do not result in complex, organized, functional, and sexually reproduced life forms. We are al smart enough to read the rational behind changes to the Bible and make rational decisions. For example, Gen 3:16, I have made the rational decision based on review of multiple versions and rational by translators the ESV is a change of meaning from all main versions and is not justified. With the OT, we have the Torah, and we can make a rational judgement the Jews probably got the English translation right.

[@rosslewchuk9286]

A very good question! How about another: Why do TR people accept Beza's conjectural emendation of Revelation 16: 5, supposedly based on a now lost manuscript? 🤔📖😊

[@curtthegamer934]

Some of them believe it "re-inspiration," so their arguments would be that God moved Beza's hand to make such a change. Since Beza didn't believe that God inspired him, I wonder where the KJV-Onlyists got this info?

[@WaimakBibleChapel]

We used to be a KJV only Bible Baptist church now we are a TR only elder based instead of pastor only church. We use the KJV,NKJV and Simplified KJV. A review of the Simplified KJV would be great😀

[@markwardonwords]

I intend to at some point!

[@ethanhunt8632]

From what I noticed, most KJVOists like to borrow TR arguments but in reality its just still a defense of the KJV traditon. They can't accept the NKJV despite having the same underlining text because if its any different at all that implies the KJV can be improved..and that is something most of them just will not accept

[@markwardonwords]

I must agree. And though most of them don’t realize it, the TR they are defending is also the KJV.

[@ChancyC]

I want to start with a praise of the hard work you have done here. I may not wholly agree with some of your stances, but I do believe you are doing some really impressive work. The time and effort you put into these videos is something to be admired and appreciated. However, I will say I have a few critiques. My first and honestly most stringent one is the title of the video. While I understand what you mean to convey, I think it does paint a bit of a false picture. There is a very large group of Christians who utilize the NKJV as either their primary Bible or their number one aid in reading the KJV. The main reason they do so is that they defend the TR. So, to title the video “why do TR defenders reject the NKJV” is simply a poor representation, or outright dismissal of that very real group of believers (a group I find myself fairly firmly in). I do openly admit that many KJV only Christians cite their defense of the TR as their reasoning for rejecting the NKJV, but that is not the same thing as saying TR defenders reject the NKJV. It is a small linguistic thing, but it actually makes a very large difference in meaning. To get more into the meat of the video, I think many of your points are valid. I have commented on your videos in the past that your views on updating the language of the KJV are a valid argument to make. You do come at this from a very academic angle though and kind of miss a bit of a more simple straight forward though. For instance, when looking at the argument around changing the word from ‘hell’ to ‘hades.’ Your stance essentially appears to be, that change is valid because you can research into the reasoning behind the translators and read their stances and dig into the ancient languages and all that. Which I understand, but that’s not the issue that is being brought up. The problem is once you start doing that level of analysis, you are no longer just ‘updating dead words and false friends’ in the KJV. A 'KJV only' person will look at changing the very simple and understandable word ‘hell’ to ‘hades’ and say “this wasn’t a dead word, this isn’t a false friend. That means this new Bible and its translators aren’t just updating the KJV to be more readable. They are actively making a new translation and tying it closely to the KJV.” Do I personally think it is actually important that the word ‘hades’ takes the place of ‘hell’? No not really. But when that change is made, it is a big waving red flag that says “hey, this isn’t JUST updating the language of the KJV and getting rid of old dead words, it’s a reexamination and retranslation” and THAT is the problem a large group of KJV only people end up having. Can you do a deep academic dive into the fact that ‘hades’ is an acceptable word there? Sure. But that’s not the issue at hand. The issue is that once you get into that level of decision making, you can no longer claim the NKJV is ONLY an update to the KJV to make it more readable. It is a new translation. This simple hell/hades thing is just the proof of that fact. Once that line is crossed, you will simply lose a bunch of KJV only pastors and churches simply because then the whole discussion essentially becomes nothing more than degrees of change. If you wanted to do an update of the KJV and get 'KJV only' Christians on board, then you really would need to avoid all changes other than the dead words and false friends. Which the NKJV clearly does more than that. Though again, as I said early on, it's a Bible I use extensively and think is a perfectly good translation. I think I have only covered maybe the first 15 minutes of the video in this comment, and its getting quite long so I will stop here. Again, I do appreciate the hard work you do. I enjoy greatly the passion you bring to this conversation. It’s the sign of true deep faith and love. Have a wonderful day.

[@markwardonwords]

I love your comments, brother. They're a model of kind engagement. I do think if you keep going (in this admittedly very long video!) you'll discover that I agree with your key contention: the NKJV was our best chance to have an English-only update of the KJV. I wish it had made that its watchword. And I wish no marketer had ever claimed that the NKJV was merely updating the English. As for the title-I hear you. But I have been searching for people like you for a long time, and I've barely found any. Nearly all TR defenders, in my experience (which is not universal but is extensive), insist on the exclusive use of the KJV and reject the NKJV and MEV. In the absence of a formal study, I have to go with my experience.

[@ChancyC]

@@markwardonwords It really does pain me to hear that you get so much anger and ugliness directed towards you. It actually makes me feel embarrassed honestly. I do think that to a significant group of KJV only Christians, the only way to update the Bible to remove dead words and false friends would be essentially a full copy+paste of KJV and then ONLY replace those instances of dead words or false friends. (Like besom to broom) And then likely there would still be some holdouts, but I feel like there would be fewer. I will say however you may have a slight bit of selection bias. You are kind of in the trenches of this battle, neck deep in the back and forth with people with PhDs and leaders of major institutions. Maybe it is me that has lead an anomalous life and I am blinded by my experiences. I admit that is a possibility. I just know that there is a lot of people who read the NKJV (and the MEV). It is a fairly good selling translation, and the people I talk to about it tend to choose it because its TR based and can be easily read along with a KJV. Does that mean that KJV only churches will change to use the NKJV anytime soon? Likely not, but I think there is a lot of people in the pews who still use the NKJV as a tool. Again I realize there are some places where even the thought of that would be met with great wailing and gnashing of teeth, but I just feel like those places are more few and far between than the common place.

[@casey1167]

As a KJVO guy, I agree with your assessment. Sure, I would love to have some archaic words in the KJV changed, and "false friends" as Mark would label them corrected to reflect on changes in meaning but a wholesale revamp to the KJV is just not in the ball park to what I would accept. You are correct on the Hades/Hell issue, I am not going to say the NKJV is incorrect, but it is not necessary so why do it? I have 400 years of information on "errors" or "issues" with translation decisions in the KJV, and I can read over arguments from both sides till the cows come home and make a decision. I can easily get reference material (King's English dictionary in my Schuyler KJV, or Bible Word list from TBS) and all my issues are solved. I think for the vast majority of KJV pastors and (for lack of a better term) older guys in the pews, the idea of an update to the KJV just sounds like too much work. I can tell someone the KJV is the Bible I think they should use because I have read it, I have spend hundreds of hours researching all the "issues," I have a comfort level. Do I really want to spend countless hours going over every change in a "revised" KJV to see if I agree with the changes? Not really. This is what you see in the NASB community, the NASB1977 was so wonderful, okay 44,000 changes and they got the NASB1995... wonderful I guess... and then comes the NASB2020. Well, now they have issues and thus spawns the Legacy Standard Bible as an alternative to the NASB2020. Then there is the NLT1996, oh how it was the best thing in the world, then the 2004, 2007, 2013, NLT-CE combined to be the NLT2015. The men that told me how great the 1996 was are not longer around to support the 2015. So, my six year olds are memorizing out of the KJV, and although I will have to explain some words they will be able to use it just fine.

[@casey1167]

@@ChancyC Your assessment that many KJVO folks are angry, and ugly in response is true, but I don't know if you have been on our side of the fence. My position on the KJV is considered by Mark in his writing to be one of an "extremist." KJVO people are commonly called "Ruckmanites" and told we believe in "re-inspiration" (which would be heresy). Education? Oh, we are all stupid. We get told by Educated people there are tens of thousand of changes between 1611 and the KJV we use now, King James was involved in micromanaging translation decision, etc., etc., and we spend hours trying to find out the truth only to realize people were blowing smoke at us. So, do some in my camp let it get the best of them? Sure. But walk a mile in their shoes. Also, those that use the NKJV are living in a bit of denial in my opinion. The KJV is TR and an agreed to Hebrew Text, but so is the NKJV to a large extent. The educated class is not Majority Text/TR, and does not agree the Hebrew text is perfectly preserved thus subject to modern scholarship. The NKJV is straddling fence, and is being supported by KJVO people, once the KJV is gone the NKJV will face the same criticism as the KJV.

[@ChancyC]

@@casey1167 I do think there is ugliness on both sides of this conversation. My main point in my earlier comment was that from everything I have seen from Mark Ward he is not adding to that ugliness. I disagree often with him and comment occasionally on his videos, but I have never seen him be ugly or mean spirited and he has always come at this debate with the greatest attempt to be civil and graceful (he stands his ground but without being rude about it). So that was the basis of my comment. That is not to say that there isn’t also ugliness towards KJVO Christians. Just that I don’t believe any is coming from this channel. As to your other comment, this point is one that I have made a number of times. One of the main reasons I have made a bit of an exception and use the NKJV is that if I buy one off the shelf today, I know it is the same words I have read for years. We could have long debats about text types and literal vs paraphrase etc. but even leaving out that entire line of discussion, I do believe that a MASSIVE flaw in the entire modern Bible translation movement right now is just how often they update and revise (often times without even a name change). It is basically impossible for one person to adequately track and understand all of the changes between all the modern translations and have an opinion on them all. So you end up taking other peoples opinons, but as you said, if someone recommended the NASB1977 that doesn’t mean the NASB2020 or Legacy Bible meet those same standards. It becomes basically an impossible game of chasing truth. Or you could stick with a Bible translation that doesn’t change. But that doesn’t leave a whole lot of options does it.

[@FrankRollberg]

I still find myself going back to the NKJV.

[@markwardonwords]

It's a good choice!

[@mnjackson5772]

"The heretics on the English Revised committee..." Was that tongue-in-cheek?

[@WgB5]

Experience. For some reason I can't think of this word as Experimental. To me, this word means stuff I've gone through in my life. For example, I have the experience of mowing a lawn. The words of the Bible are not a pointless experiment.

[@Kenneth-nVA]

I’ve asked KJV only individuals why they are not Geneva Bible only advocates. Since that version is well before the KJV and a TR version. Most are ignorant regarding the Geneva bible and that the KJV is a secondary version…imagine that!

[@alanmorris4121]

A well-known US Southern Baptist YT preacher and staunch KJV only pusher has advised me that all other versions are 'impure' and that also applies to original Hebrew & Greek texts. He is of the view that it is not possible to be 'truly' saved unless one uses KJV only. I asked if that meant that, the thousands of 'native language' bibles I had sent to China, Thailand, Burma, India, Pakistan and Afghanistan were wasted and that the new (non-KJV English speaking Asian) owners could not hope to be 'truly' saved. He was silent on that. I would also assume that the thief on the cross could not have been 'truly' saved and that Jesus was 'truly' deceived to have suggested that he was. I assume also that our KJV only Southern Baptist YT preacher friend also believes that nobody was 'truly' saved prior to 1611. Which means that the holy, infallible, perfectly inspired KJV was interpreted and penned by unsaved scribes. The good news is this, that preacher, and the others like him, will be asked to give an account of their teaching ... to the One who hung on the cross. 888AussieMate

[@Airik1111bibles]

28:47 ... Oh no brother, ya gotta be more careful when speaking with your hands. You just handed Gale Riplinger a whole page or two in her next book "exposing" you as an agent of darkness 😂

[@markwardonwords]

✔

[@masaomorinaga6412]

I think Hembd is confused. And by that, I don't mean that he's confused because of his dislike for the NKJV. It's possible to rationally dislike the NKJV. To me, the rational way to dislike the NKJV is by pointing out that it goes beyond a mere language update of the KJV. And where there are translational differences between the NKJV and the KJV, you can rationally argue the merits of deferring to the wisdom of the KJV translators because of objective factors like the fact the KJV translators relied more on Rabbinical and ecclesiastical theories of word definitions rather than modern scholarship which tends to place more weight on modern methods such as cognate language analyses. Such a preference of the KJV would be consistent with the Pro-TR view that God preserved his text as well as the meaning of the text through usage (through both Jewish and Ecclesiastical usage) rather than through modern discovery. Such a view would at least be epistemologically consistent and worthy of debate (There are pros and cons to preferring "living" definitions of words preserved by historical stakeholders. There is temporal proximity and cultural immersion as a pro, but sectarian/localization bias as a con). The problem with Hembd is that I think he probably subscribes to this view of deferring to the KJV translators' choice of words because of epistemology and ecclesiology (so he's already made up his mind that the KJV words are the best), but he appeals to the basest instinct of KJV-Onlyism by seeing conspiracies and malevolence where they aren't any. It's like in politics where a certain national leader (not naming who) tackling a very crucial national security issue for good reasons (i.e border security), but doing so using rhetoric that could appeal to baser instincts. There is a lot of "appealing to baser instincts" in the TR/KJV Only crowd. And I wish that would stop so that we could rationally discuss the merits and demerits of the various epistemological assumptions underlying both TR/KJV Onlyism (or Reformation scholarship to put it in a more sophisticated-sounding way ;-) ) and modern scholarship. Thanks Mark for the great in-depth analysis video as always!

[@casey1167]

hat tip: break it up in paragraphs so it is more readable.

[@masaomorinaga6412]

@@casey1167 Here's a versified edition: [1] I think Hembd is confused. And by that, I don't mean that he's confused because of his dislike for the NKJV. It's possible to rationally dislike the NKJV. [2] To me, the rational way to dislike the NKJV is by pointing out that it goes beyond a mere language update of the KJV. [3] And where there are translational differences between the NKJV and the KJV, you can rationally argue the merits of deferring to the wisdom of the KJV translators because of objective factors like the fact the KJV translators relied more on Rabbinical and ecclesiastical theories of word definitions rather than modern scholarship which tends to place more weight on modern methods such as cognate language analyses. [4] Such a preference of the KJV would be consistent with the Pro-TR view that God preserved his text as well as the meaning of the text through usage (through both Jewish and Ecclesiastical usage) rather than through modern discovery. [5] Such a view would at least be epistemologically consistent and worthy of debate (There are pros and cons to preferring "living" definitions of words preserved by historical stakeholders. There is temporal proximity and cultural immersion as a pro, but sectarian/localization bias as a con). [6] The problem with Hembd is that I think he probably subscribes to this view of deferring to the KJV translators' choice of words because of epistemology and ecclesiology (so he's already made up his mind that the KJV words are the best), but he appeals to the basest instinct of KJV-Onlyism by seeing conspiracies and malevolence where they aren't any. [7] It's like in politics where a certain national leader (not naming who) tackling a very crucial national security issue for good reasons (i.e border security), but doing so using rhetoric that could appeal to baser instincts. [8] There is a lot of "appealing to baser instincts" in the TR/KJV Only crowd. [9] And I wish that would stop so that we could rationally discuss the merits and demerits of the various epistemological assumptions underlying both TR/KJV Onlyism (or Reformation scholarship to put it in a more sophisticated-sounding way ;-) ) and modern scholarship. [10] Thanks Mark for the great in-depth analysis video as always! Here's a paragraphed readers' edition: I think Hembd is confused. And by that, I don't mean that he's confused because of his dislike for the NKJV. It's possible to rationally dislike the NKJV. To me, the rational way to dislike the NKJV is by pointing out that it goes beyond a mere language update of the KJV. And where there are translational differences between the NKJV and the KJV, you can rationally argue the merits of deferring to the wisdom of the KJV translators because of objective factors like the fact the KJV translators relied more on Rabbinical and ecclesiastical theories of word definitions rather than modern scholarship which tends to place more weight on modern methods such as cognate language analyses. Such a preference of the KJV would be consistent with the Pro-TR view that God preserved his text as well as the meaning of the text through usage (through both Jewish and Ecclesiastical usage) rather than through modern discovery. Such a view would at least be epistemologically consistent and worthy of debate (There are pros and cons to preferring "living" definitions of words preserved by historical stakeholders. There is temporal proximity and cultural immersion as a pro, but sectarian/localization bias as a con). The problem with Hembd is that I think he probably subscribes to this view of deferring to the KJV translators' choice of words because of epistemology and ecclesiology (so he's already made up his mind that the KJV words are the best), but he appeals to the basest instinct of KJV-Onlyism by seeing conspiracies and malevolence where they aren't any. It's like in politics where a certain national leader (not naming who) tackling a very crucial national security issue for good reasons (i.e border security), but doing so using rhetoric that could appeal to baser instincts. There is a lot of "appealing to baser instincts" in the TR/KJV Only crowd. And I wish that would stop so that we could rationally discuss the merits and demerits of the various epistemological assumptions underlying both TR/KJV Onlyism (or Reformation scholarship to put it in a more sophisticated-sounding way ;-) ) and modern scholarship. Thanks Mark for the great in-depth analysis video as always!

[@markwardonwords]

Ha! Nice editions! I'm in basic agreement with you here. I know you weren't saying this, but I want to defend myself against the possible charge that I was nut-picking-that I chose an extremist and ignored the best critics of the NKJV. My answer is that Albert Hembd and Chuck Surrett and Kent Brandenburg (and another guy I'll bring up in a future video) are the very best I could find. And I tried! If someone knows a better critic of the NKJV, I'm all ears!

[@casey1167]

@@markwardonwords Have you tried: Dr. David Brown Dr. Phil Stringer Dr. David Sorenson Dr. Daniel Haifley Dr. Douglas Levesque Dr. Randy King Mark Reno Dr. Steve Zeinner A spirited conversation between you and Dr. Daniel Haifley would be an interesting watch. Also, the King James Bible Research Council is going on right now, it would be interesting if you did a review of those videos when they come out.

[@masaomorinaga6412]

@@markwardonwords I don't think you were nut-picking. You truly are representing the mainstream of TR/KJV Onlyism. And they only have themselves to blame. I think nutty arguments enter into TR/KJV-Only communities because of the inherently paradoxical nature of TR/KJV-Onlyism. TR/KJV-Onlyism is a radical form of Sola Scriptura so by its very nature it is critical and suspicious of High Church authority. But ironically the TR/KJV is a product of High Church scholarship. So to prop up their view, TR/KJV Onlyists cannot appeal to High Church scholarship and tradition, even though this aspect of the TR/KJV is the strongest basis for its grounding in the history of preservation (of both text and meaning). So when you can't use the most cogent argument because your hands are tied due to your theology, you are left with arguments that are anachronistic, ahistorical, ad hoc, emotional, conspiratorial, cheap shots, etc. The problem with most TR/KJV Onlyist arguments is that they exist within a highly political and polemical environment. Being political and polemical per se are not bad. But sound scholarship suffers in such an environment. Political discourse often devolves into appeasing the audience and building unholy alliances, which is what I see with TR/KJV Onlyism's pandering to the baser instincts in order to win some small battles. But this isn't intellectually honest or sustainable.

[@SaneNoMore]

As someone who was trained and taught in the KJV only group and eventually educated my way out, I can say with complete confidence that the reason they hate the NKJV is solely because it is not the KJV. Textual basis is used by the majority of them purely as an excuse to dismiss modern translations (though they do have a few good points), but when something comes out based on the same TR text as the KJV they will without exception find (or make up) reasons to reject it. They are locked in their traditions (more than one) and no amount of reasoning or evidence will change most of their minds. It is very much like a cage-stage Calvinist. To most of them if it is not the KJV, no matter what it it is, it is simply wrong.

[@markwardonwords]

I've decided to take them at their word that the text is the issue for them, but then I've asked repeatedly why the NKJV isn't ok. Sadly, many (most?) KJV-Onlyists don't know that the NKJV is based on the TR, too. And this is the one area where I'm willing to say that their leaders have told lies. It's not that I know somehow that they know that they're stating untruths, it's that they are stating a very clear untruth that is super easy to check up on.

[@SaneNoMore]

@@markwardonwords With the internet today there is little reason they should not be able to investigate these things. Unfortunately back in my day we only had books and the only books we used were those written by authors who shared our teaching (quite the echo chamber). One thing I found common was when they would show what was wrong with another translation they would not even look at the Greek (or Hebrew) but simply quote the KJV and show the other translation was different. Different, meant wrong. They went so far as to teach us to ignore even the footnotes IN the KJV. I also found it strange that the Bibles we used in class did not have the "Translators to the Readers" section. Now I realize it was because that section does not support their viewpoint.

[@markwardonwords]

@@SaneNoMore Yes, this is all very common still-as you know. It's hard to blame laypeople for this, but teachers I do blame.

[@stevekerp1]

I guess my question would be: if guys like Mr. Hembd are so all-fired serious about the purity of the written Word, then why don't they condemn ALL translations and insist we all learn Greek and Hebrew and simply go with the TR Greek and the Masoretic Hebrew texts? Isn't that what the Muslims do? Hembd should insist that the True Believers who are SERIOUS about Christianity should all study their scriptures in the original languages.

[@maxxiong]

I feel like KJV defenders often miss something: even if a word's meaning is still in use, it can develop a new meaning, or a shift in the frequency that certain meanings occur, that makes the meaning of the text ambiguous (for example "I shall not want"). Modern versions sometimes fall into this trap as well. For example, in the ESV, NASB and NIV, 1 Thess 1:5 uses the word "conviction" instead of "assurance" (KJV/NKJV) in the context of the Gospel, which can be taken incorrectly to mean conviction of sin. GNT (which is very dynamic) and Amplified also use "conviction" but adds additional words that prevent this misunderstanding. Another similar point is that sometimes a word is changed from the KJV unnecessarily in their view, but it avoids two different words from becoming the same words. For example, many translations render "longsuffering" in the KJV as "patience", and as a result the word "patience" in the KJV is rendered "endurance" or "perseverance" instead. 1 Cor 13:7 "[charity/love] believeth all things". KJV defenders need to stop accusing other believers of ill intent without evidence. On the topic of the ERV, I actually get uncomfortable talking about it, since while there are obvious problems with some of the people involved, it formed the basis of the Chinese Union Version which is in almost exclusive use by the Chinese-speaking church today, although the translators did opt for the KJV text in some places (eg. long ending of the Lord's Prayer). Interestingly, the CUV is often formatted with TR footnotes in the main text, and there is evidence that some Chinese Christians prefer these TR readings since the new Chinese Standard Bible actually makes the TR reading the primary text in these cases (but other Chinese translations don't do this so don't take my word on this). Regarding "appearance of evil", the Geneva Bible actually have a footnote here saying it meant "whatsoever hath but the very show of evil". When I saw someone quote this in the KJV I immediately suspected something is wrong since it appears (lol) to go against Christian freedom and I think modern translations are right here.

[@ChaplainDaveSparks]

I see people with _”1611 KJV”_ in their user names, and I wonder if they’ve even *READ* that particular version (as opposed to later revisions). And, although most of them are apparently Protestant, they never explain why they reject the *APOCRYPHA,* which was part of the *1611 KJV!*

[@markwardonwords]

Agreed!

[@danwestonappliedword]

Doesn't the word "form" also mean "appearance "? Here's a dictionary definition: "a particular way in which a thing exists or appears; a manifestation." In other words, the form of something is the appearance of something, not just a "type" of something. If that's true, then the words in current English would seem to be interchangeable. I do not know Greek, but just going from English, it would seem to be a word that could be translated either way.

[@johnsavard7583]

My understanding is that they don't care about modernizing the language. Of course the NKJV would be an improvement in this respect. And some of those KJV-only people don't merely feel the Textus Receptus is better, but instead that the KJV was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Of course that's a ludicrous position.

[@socksthemusicalcat]

The argument over Hades leading to annihilationism was shockingly incoherent. If you'd presented that as an out-of-context quote, I'd have guessed it came from something like New Age Bible Versions, not a TBS publication.

[@casey1167]

Or... we are completely misrepresenting "Hell" being replaced by "Hades." Maybe the purpose was not based on some Bibliology or Textural Criticism, but was a change the NKJV translators could make to satisfy the Derivative Copyright Law without making other changes that would not be accepted the KJV folks.

[@socksthemusicalcat]

@@casey1167 Is the "Derivative Copyright Law" actually real? I've heard numbers of words or percentages thrown around of things that need to be changed, but I can never find a legitimate source. I only hear KJVO preachers talking about it. And even if it did exist, since the NKJV was actually translated from scratch (while consulting the KJV wording), does it actually count as a derivative work?

[@curtthegamer934]

@@casey1167 They actually did it to avoid confusion. There are actually two places called Hell. One is Hades (also known as Sheol), the other is Gehenna. In the KJV, both of these places are called Hell and it's not always clear to the reader which of the two places is being referred to. So in the NKJV they chose to only refer to Gehenna as Hell, and refer to Hades as Hades. That way the reader always knows which one is being referred to.

[@casey1167]

@@socksthemusicalcat 1. As of 1947, 17 U.S.C. 103: "The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material." 1a. From legalzoom: "However, there have been numerous court cases interpreting the law, which complicate things and render this definition incomplete. There must be major or substantial new material for a work to be considered copyrightable as a derivative work. The new material must be sufficiently original and creative to be copyrightable by itself." An really, there are no "New" translations from scratch. As far as percent, I have spent hundreds of hours comparing versions, what I see is at least a couple changes in meaning between versions in every chapter of the Bible. As a fun exercise, just pick one OT chapter, go verse by verse in the CSB, ESV, NLT, and NKJV and mark every time it could be argued the meaning of a word is different or the verse is saying something different.

[@casey1167]

@@curtthegamer934 and just out of coincidence, this clarification is copyrightable new authorship. Amazing how many times this happens.

[@KevinDay]

Having grown up in a KJV-superior but not KJV-only tradition, it's really interesting seeing him worry about translators sneaking in works-based salvation. Most of my former pastors would be worried more about them sneaking in easy-believism rather than the true "plan of salvation" of Acts 2:38 😆

[@markwardonwords]

An excellent point!

[@fireflames3639]

Were you a oneness Pentecostal?

[@KevinDay]

@@fireflames3639 Yep

[@JamesSmith-zs8fl]

Seem to be more of interpretive issues than translation issues.

[@markwardonwords]

Right.

[@ChaplainDaveSparks]

But ... but ... but ... _"hell"_ is also a part of Greek mythology! Also, couldn't the same thing apply to the fact that _"Dante's Inferno"_ also used _"hell"?_ Unless they also would claim that that fictional work is also _"inspired"_ using that word could also be _"misleading"!_ What most people think of when they hear _"hell"_ is actually the place of *ETERNAL* torment -- the *lake of fire!* Yet Revelation says that *hell* _(hades)_ will eventually be emptied out into the *Lake of Fire!* So *_hades_* is *NOT* eternal torment. It's only the _"waiting room"_ for the lake of fire!

[@markwardonwords]

Right!

[@joelandries210]

Hades Greek in NT and Sheol in OT are in my opinion ok to use, but are not a translation. I think the Dutch and French translations do a better job, in Dutch they are translated as "😢 dodenrijk" which means realm of the dead. The French use " séjour des morts" means abode of the dead.

[@matthewmencel5978]

without having read the guy and before you read his statement on the NKJV reading of "difficult is the way".. I guessed absolutely correctly that "difficult" was going to be his problem and that the would read it as leading people to salvation by works (difficult work at that). 🤣

[@markwardonwords]

Good catch!

[@andrewsmall3190]

21:26 I’m definitely not a Greek scholar or a scholar of any languages for that matter, but doesn’t it seem more logical that “experience” rather than “character” would produce (lead to, result in, build up) hope? I’m thinking this is perhaps borne out somewhat along the lines of 1 Pet 3:15 and Phil 4:11-13 and 2 Cor 4:7-11.

[@mynameis......23]

12:00 Romans 5:3-5

[@bobdylan1677]

I have been disappointed by the TBS over the years. NKJV is a lovely translation.

[@markwardonwords]

Me too. Both counts.

[@bobdylan1677]

@markwardonwords If TBS updated the KJV it would probably be the same as the NKJV, or very near it. Also when they translate it into foreign languages, surely they don't do it in the 17th century edition of that language??

[@markwardonwords]

@@bobdylan1677 Points I've made repeatedly. 100% agreed.

[@brianmidmore2221]

AH believes that we should be influenced by our theological tradition when translating the Bible.

[@fraukeschmidt8364]

Seems to me like Mr Hembd is a very fearful man. 😢

[@mathmusicstructure]

It is odd to be KJV-only, while also having no interest in, or experience with, the original languages. If I was going to stick to only one text to the exclusion of all others, it would have to be the text of the original languages, rather than any particular translation. I mainly use the NKJV, but hope to get back to reading the OT in Hebrew all the time. I am satisfied with the NKJV and Wuest for the NT.

[@markwardonwords]

First paragraph: RIGHT! Second paragraph: Wow! My Hebrew is for exegesis, not for reading, a fact I've come to regret and may someday get to remedy. My Greek makes reading the GNT possible except in Luke, Acts, and Hebrews, where I get bogged down.

[@mathmusicstructure]

@@markwardonwords I went through a period where I used a JPS interlinear Tanakh as my daily reader for the OT, but I have since fallen out of practice. I love Hebrew. I have degrees in mathematics so I ended up knowing the Greek alphabet, but other than that I have no Greek at all. For the last 30 years whenever I wanted another take on a passage in the NT besides the NKJV I've used the Wuest translation. I've always wanted to ask someone who knew NTG, what do you think of the Wuest?

[@russellchido]

"meeting people half-way" so... moderation

[@markwardonwords]

No; "moderation" in our English means "the avoidance of excess or extremes, especially in one's behavior or political opinions."

[@melonhead122908]

In truth, word for word, the textus receptus matches the critical texts over 90% of the time despite centuries of generational copying. That’s part of what makes the Bible amazing in the first place. Pretty much all the translations are good and you can benefit from reading a variety.

[@markwardonwords]

Right on all counts!

[@RepentNBelieveNJesus]

Something to consider: CT removes Bible verses. Either the verses removed are Scripture, or are not. We can’t both be right. When Jesus resisted the devil, He fought with the written Word of God: “But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’ ”” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭4‬:‭4‬ ‭NKJV‬‬ The first thing the devil did was attack God’s Word. Being confident what you are reading (like the long ending of Mark quoted by Iranaeus before Alexandrian manuscripts) is Scripture is very important.