you know, its very easy to confirm the NKJV is based on the TR when you can open up Logos NKJV Reverse Interlinear and see the English Words corresponding to the Greek TR words…
“Keep lying yourself” “They’re gone faster than interested parties on marketplace” I just wanted to say your humor makes these “nerdy” videos so enjoyable! This is by far my favorite RUclips channel, and I thank you for your time and expertise. 🙏🏼
If the NKJV translators say it’s based on the TR, then it is. Unless there is any evidence that they are lying, then their character is falsely being impugned. To do so, is a sin.
Since the KJV is regarded to be based on the TR despite the fact that it does not follow the TR reading in a few places, then the NKJV should be afforded the same.
You know Mark, In my life I have found if you wait long enough the satanic spirit will come forth. FYI you can't be a good Christian and a good democrat..I'm referring to your political comments..Now I know you cannot be trusted.A great disappointment. Shame on you for hiding behind The Cross to make a political hit piece on Donald Trump..Toni's husband
@@tonimccoy9778 Other devout Christians would insist that you can't be a good Christian and a good Republican. The fact of the matter is that both parties are fundamentally flawed and misaligned with Christian values, and the continued unhealthy support of Donald Trump in particular is a strong sign of that.
For the past month, every night I have been reading a chapter in these translations in this order. NLT, NET, NIV, NRSV, ESV, NASB 95 and lastly the KJV. Reading the KJV after the first six is a joy. I've learned much from you Mark, keep up the good work. Thank you.
It's important to also recognize that Arthur Farstad and Zane Hodges (principle editors of the NKJV) had also edited the "Greek new testament according to the Majority Text". They rejected the methodologies used in the then current text critical practices and paved the way into Majority text research. These were not 'critical text guys'.
Once a year? I watch your channel every time a video is posted. I love your humility and how you present the KJV debate with love. Keep doing what you’re doing. I’ve passed your book around to KJV folks with good success.
As a Byzantine prioritist, I prefer the KJV/NKJV, but also consult the WEB,NET, BSB & CSB. Thanks for your hard work concerning the NKJV. Biblical numerology draws our attention away from Christ to unprofitable contention. Jesus surely did not employ it. Blessings!🙏📖
@@tjmaverick1765 I have a hardcopy of the MEV, but have not used it much. Some of its translations are not the best: e.g. Psalm 97:11 Modern English Version: "Light goes out for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart." "Light goes out" at first reading sounds like the light is extinguished. The KJV/NKJV /WEB/NASB/LSB "Light is sown " Others: "Light dawns for" or "Light shines on" John 1:18 Modern English Version: "No one has seen God at any time. The only Son, who is at the Father’s side, has made Him known." KJV/NKJV/YLT/Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition "only begotten son" TRUE CONFESSION: I have not read the MEV all the way through. But the KJV/NKJV together have served me well so far. I might consider the MEV 2024 if it has references and cites textual variants.
Unfortunately, there will be those who watch this video, see your concessions to minor variations that Brandenburg found, and say "AHA! See, the NKJV is poisoned by the CT. A little leaven leavens the whole lump." More and more when I talk to KJVOnlyists, I find myself thinking about 1 Timothy 6:4. We never discuss weighty matters, but instead end up quarreling over words and end up producing dissension, slander, evil suspicion, and constant friction. I'm grateful for the work you're doing, brother. It is making a difference.
You hit the nail on the head . Many have their minds already made up before you even talk with them. I usually see them in my minds eye, typing a rebuttal as im still speaking 😂
@@markwardonwords I am very thankful for you and your work. No one, that I’m aware of, is doing what you’re doing. I’ve watched “a lot” of your content. Especially as it concerns the NKJV (or best bible translations). You have managed to calm my fears in the differences in word choices, sentence structure, and even so called omitted words. However, there’s still one area that is even more concerning, contradictions. I plead with you. Help me with contradictions! I can use the NKJV without fear/reluctance if I can overcome this last barrier. I linked a video that explains contractions. I’m not asking you to create a video to refute this video. Just a comment to this message or a link to some of your previous work/blog that may address some of the verses from this video. Like… Heb 3:16; 2 King 23:29; and 2 Cor 35:20. Please help me understand how to have confidence in my Bible when some verses are outright opposite. ruclips.net/video/-t436qRhXtk/видео.htmlsi=gEYXDrIZHhc26qSw
@@robertrayford8708 I listened to this video just now. I have touched on some of those passages in other videos. Would you mind me turning the question back to you just a bit? Go through my two videos answering Albert Hembd and tell me which passages Gene Kim brought up that I didn't? Would you be willing to do that for me? If so, I think I can make a video on the remaining passages. ruclips.net/video/_2T5B4JRwe8/видео.html ruclips.net/video/E-iDeztybRA/видео.html
@@robertrayford8708 Regarding Hebrews 3.16, the NKJV is correct in its wording. The similar sentence structure found in verses 17-18 indicates that verse 16 should also be phrased as a rhetorical question. The audience of the letter would know that Joshua and Caleb were the obvious exceptions. (Gene Kim actually misreads the NKJV in that video. It's saying that "all who came out of Egypt" rebelled after hearing God's voice at Sinai, not that all who came out made it to the Promised Land.) In 2 Kings 23.29, the NKJV may be interpreting the text more than necessary. The ESV, by contrast, keeps the text ambiguous: "Pharaoh Neco king of Egypt went up to the king of Assyria." That being said, the historical records suggest that the NKJV is correct about the alliance between Egypt and Assyria: they were both facing off against Babylon at Carchemish (which is a place, not a person, Gene). You should also compare Jeremiah 46.2, which mentions this battle. The NKJV seems to be allowing Zechariah 9.17 to refer either to the day of God's salvation or to the rescued people themselves (which were just compared to a crown and a banner) or possibly even to the land that produces grain and wine, though it does say "Lit. His" in the footnote to indicate the possibility of the KJV's interpretation. Really, the Hebrew text itself doesn't require pronouns to be used in the translation. Thus, the CSB simply says, "How lovely and beautiful!" In Proverbs 11.16, what Gene Kim omits is the fact that the KJV translators frequently translate the word in question as "terrible" (in the older sense of "terrifying"). So what exactly did they have in mind when they said "strong men" in this verse? Were they possibly in agreement with the NKJV's "ruthless" interpretation, even if their actual word choice seems a little more ambiguous? Herein lies the problem with being so dismissive of scholars: it's just an excuse to not put forth effort to research things properly yourself. In Hebrews 2.16, the words "the nature of" are marked by the KJV translators as words that they added. But they were not fully sure of this interpretation, and they offered the following marginal note: "Gr. hee taketh not hold of Angels, but of the seede of Abraham he taketh hold." The NKJV translators understood "take hold" as "help" rather than "become like." Compare the KJV's own translation of this same Greek term in Ecclesiasticus 4.11: "Wisedome exalteth her children, and layeth hold of them that seeke her." (In this case, "lay hold" clearly means "help.")
The NKJV was for me the gateway to the KJV. I grew up only knowing the KJV and the Living Bible, but switched to the NIV in Junior High School, because it was easy to read. However, when I started studying Greek in college, I switched to NKJV because I could see it was far more accurate, and the textual footnotes in the NKJV led me to the conviction that the Traditional Text of the New Testament was more reliable. Eventually, I rediscovered the KJV. There are places where I think the KJV is superior to the NKJV, but the reverse is also true. I like the style and beauty of the KJV, but the NKJV is a generally good reliable translation. I raised my kids reading the KJV, but when I give a Bible to someone at my parish that needs one, I usually will give them a NKJV, because I know they will more likely read it, if they have not grown up reading the KJV.
"There are places where I think the KJV is superior to the NKJV, but the reverse is also true" Back 30 years ago when a church I attended made the switch they made this point very clearly. So important to understand we are not leaving perfection nor are we moving to perfect.
Thanks, brother Mark, for your steadfast and trustworthy scholarship in rebutting these KJV-only nonsenses. May the Lord continue to bless you in your work for the Kingdom.
I love the humility and forthrightness of the NKJV translators concerning the various weaknesses of its TR basis. It would be refreshing if the ESV and NASB committees would follow suit concerning the various hyper-eclectic passages within their NT pages.
The KJV we use today is rendered from a later edition of the TR too. The 1st and 2nd editions were based on 6 manuscripts, and they weren’t all Byzantine Types. They had similar omissions in comparison to modern versions that utilize footnotes, rather. Early 1st and 2nd TR translations do NOT have 1st John 5:7, which is a trinity doctrinal verse. Some years later, Erasmus was confronted, at some point provided with a single additional Greek Manuscript that disagreed with those he already collected, that did have 1st John 5:7. Evidenced that it was a later addition, Erasmus wrote out footnotes that confirmed this, but considering the fire he was under, he then included it under his latter editions of the TR. Of which are utilized today. Nobody wants to talk about that, though. I am a trinitarian. But this is such a complex issue that has sooo many variables. Translation is not cookie cutter.
Most KJV only people are starting with the assumption that the KJV is flawless perfection. So it follows that it's the perfect translation of the perfect Greek text. The problem is that the KJV follows the Latin readings in a few places and not the Greek TR editions..... In some of those places the New KJV actually follows the TR reading and not the Latin...
@Packhorse-bh8qn I'm not KJV only. I only prefer the broader TR family more than most people. But KJV only people basically just say the KJV is the TR essentially. The KJV was not based on one edition of the TR. IMO this destroys KJVO altogether, because the argument for KJVO is based on the idea that a single, pure version of God's word being available throughout all ages.
I get your point, but they could also have taken manuscripts into consideration instead of just following the printed text of the TR(s). since that's how Erasmus produced the TR initially. Not trying to be argumentative, just pointing out such an early Bible translation didn't have to be strictly from the TR.
@@customstoryteller I think this could stem from a (sort of?) legitimate misunderstanding of the textual footnotes. But no one who teaches at a college should be so ignorant as to be guilty of such a misunderstanding.
@@markwardonwords I agree. And it’s a difficult thing. Because I respect the teacher greatly. I learned much from him. But at the same time I spent years ignoring everything except the KJV. So many of my misunderstandings could have been easily cleared up had I been “allowed” to peak at another translation.
Mark, your extraordinary patience amazes me! I love both the KJV and NKJV. But, I wouldn't be able to maintain my patience with people who insist that the TR is THE ONLY preserved word of God. Seriously?
The opposite happens: the NBLA (a Spanish translation from Lockman) claims to be based on NA27, but in many cases (including 1 Jn 5.7-8) it agrees with the TR against NA27.
0:18 - Honestly, what you were talking about here, I think the church father Irenaeus addressed brilliantly in his book Against Heresies, all the way back towards the end of the 2nd century: "Nor should they seek to prosecute inquiries respecting God by means of numbers, syllables, and letters. For this is an uncertain mode of proceeding, on account of their varied and diverse systems...For system does not spring out of numbers, but numbers from a system; nor does God derive His being from things made, but things made from God. For all things originate from one and the same God." - Against Heresies, Book 2, Chapter 25.1 The "they" that Irenaeus was referencing here were the Gnostics, who looked into hidden meanings and "mystical truths" supposedly found in numbers. We, as Christians, should not associate ourselves with Gnosticism.
Mark, thank you for this one. It has long confounded me as to why KJVO groups/people reject the nkjv. I’ve come to the conclusion that they fear being rejected or called a “liberal” by other kjvo brethren. Keep up the good work, sir.
Thanks Mark. I recently have started listening to you and have you to be breath of fresh air. I am a TR / KJV man. I want to thank you for your work and approach.
I greatly appreciate the NKJV and preach from it most Sundays. Our congregation uses it as our pew Bibles. I was raised on the KJV and memorized from it as a child. It is a beautiful and timeless translation. If one understands what the text is saying (which is why the original languages are important), one would still preach faithfully to the meaning. These assertions about the KJV over and against the NKJV are a false dichotomy presented by those who more than prefer the KJV.
Hey, Mark, have you read Dorothy Sayers' playcycle "The Man Born to Be King"? I think you would be very interested in the background of how it came to be written because. There was quite a bit of controversy when it came out and began to air on BBC Radio (the audio of which is now available on Audible). The controversy was due to that she not only chose to not use KJV English, but she also put slang into the mouths of the disciples. She even received threats because of her writing of it. I'd be very interested if you either got a copy to peruse or got the audio to listen to and then made a video about Sayers use of language in the playcycle because after it began to come out, while the established churches were threatening her, she also constantly received letters from common, everyday people (the ploughboys) thanking her because for the first time in their lives they actually understood the Bible because of her work.
I finally have to comment that in both the Old Testament and New Testament KJV, there is much more dynamic equivalence than people realize. And since the NKJV essentially followed the KJV and updated it, they retained much dynamic equivalence, or thought for thought translation, in parallel with the KJV.
Ha! I wondered if people would notice that. I happened to have one totally free day in which I shot three RUclips videos! I don't usually make enough mistakes to make the clock look crazy, though!
The New King James Version (NKJV) of the Bible was translated by a team of 130 people, including scholars, church leaders, and lay Christians, who worked for seven years to complete the project. Thomas Nelson Publishers commissioned the translation in 1975, with the goal of creating a modern English version that would retain the accuracy, beauty, and poetry of the original King James Version:
I’m really enjoying this, Mark. You are quite direct, and your challenges are incredibly fair. I wish some of these KJVO arguers would just come out and blatantly say the thing that they love to hint at - that everything in a modern translation’s preface by it’s scholarly translators is a lie to deceive the people of God and/or they are deceived and not really saved. Isn’t that where the totality of their points concludes? For example, when an evangelist says at a debate that they believe their opponent to be a brother, but from a pulpit as a guest speaker talk about “corrupted seed.”
Thanks brother Mark. Your work may be exhausting at times, but your hard work is so worth the time you’re spending. You’re doing a great service to our brothers and sisters. It’s truly heart felt the amount of love you take in studying this for us. P.S please pray for my neighbor Calvin, his kidneys are infected continuously. Sorry to ask more of you than your already doing, but James 5:16 is why I ask it of you. Thanks again brother.
Great video, Mark! I once read your English update of the KJV preface to the reader but now I can't find it. Would you be able to please post the link?
@markwardonwords I've been told that the NASB is more word for word than the KJV. I have yet to fully compare the two translations, and maybe there's not much difference, I just love word for word, and was wondering if it were possible to take the NASB out of modern English and reintroduce the thou art, shalt, thine will etc, type of English that was common in the 1600/1700s when the KJV was published.
Do you have a link to the video that starts at 4:46? I am curious if he addressed the MEV also. You cut out before he gets to that point. Thanks for the great work.
@@markwardonwords I've watched his reply concerning the NKJV and MEV. I feel that you sufficiently addressed the idea of whether the NKJV comes from the TR. How do you answer the response that there is no theological problem with modern TR versions, but a practical problem of functionality or simple personal preference. Is it just me or does that feel a bit like gaslighting?
@@schrock4ro I answer with Scripture: edification requires intelligibility (1 Cor 14). I've had to back off of commenting on-or even guessing at-motives. It's a minefield. I just know that the principle stated by Scripture gives him sufficient reason to push past the practical and preferential problems he poses.
I get so tired of people that talk about the "The TR" like it is a singular text, So many times you confuse these people when you ask them, "Which one?".........
@@CC-iu7sq one time I said that Wescott and Hort were Anglicans. Just like all of the translators of the King James Bible..... He replied yes, but all of the translators of the King James Bible were different kind of Anglicans than Westcott and Hort ... 😂
@@kdeh21803 The Translators, like all other Protestant scholars at the time, actually still considered themselves Catholics at the time of the translation. Fun part of reformation history, it wasn’t until a decade after Martin Luther began the movement when the term “Protestant” even surfaced as a label. Early reformers, including the COE who included the KJV Translators, technically referred to themselves as the “True Catholic Church” as it was a reformation, not a separatist movement. The term Protestant was actually an insult label coined by the RCC. This is why in the KJV preface, the translators would only refer to their Catholic Opposition as “Romanists” and not Catholics. It likely would’ve been around a century in passing when Protestants dropped the Catholic label as they moved farther from the RCC. Such a fun time of history to study.
So I shouldn't read the New King James Bible just because Jesus' name appears as the 7th word of the New Testament, and it also appears as the 7th to last word of Revelation? Meaning the NKJV is numerically perfect?..... Now I have to rethink my life.
Mark, I was wondering what your opinion might be of a argument I created that I think kills not only 7th day Adventism but also King James Onlyism. It is the last live stream I did. You can skip the first couple of minutes, hear me just fine at 2.0 speed, and watch up to the 43:00 mark. It covers Daniel 8:14 and Daniel 8:26. In the description I wrote out most of my argument
First; again, a cogent, articulate defense of an issue that really, that shouldn't have to be defended - thank you for what must be sometimes frustrating and tiresome work. Secondly, my Presbytery has many Majority Text advocates - so many, that for the purposes of unity, we choose to use only translations based on that tradition in our official meetings (just like our conscious choice of only singing the canonical Psalms because some of the brethren believe in Exclusive Psalmody). However individual ministers, and their churches are free to use whatever translations (or hymns) that they believe most glorifies God. Furthermore, though some of our oldest members still use KJV, the NKJV is used by most of our Presbyters. So here in the hinterlands of Evangelical Confessional Presbyterianism we do have that balance you recommend; those who are committed to the Majority Text and yet embrace the NKJV. From the "For what it is worth" department.
Regarding the three passages noted that they may come from the critical text, the KJV is not a full-blown translation. The translators were given the bishops Bible and then they made changes to the bishops Bible as they compared it to the TR. In those three verses, does the bishops Bible have The so-called critical text variations. And then the NKJV translators were simply modernizing where needed these three verses and didn't catch the difference.
Mark, when you reference the TR you don't specify which edition you are referencing. I assume your are speaking of Scrivener's 1890s version, but if that is wrong it will be helpful for you to be specific to a particular edition. I don't know but I think the KJV folks may be relying upon the Elzevir 1633 edition or Beza's 1598 Edition. Also, I believe the currently recognized Critical Texts are the N28 and the latest UBS and I assume that they are what you are referring to rather than Westcott and Hort when you mention the CT. However, the KJV folks may be referring to an earlier edition since they don't seem to like Westcott and Hort. I'm not sure what the CT was before Westcott and Hort. Always enjoy your channel.
KJV-Only folks use Scrivener almost always, because it matches the KJV. I do have some videos where I discuss this, but the topic does not predominate on my channel. Here's one: ruclips.net/video/qxkSifAEeL0/видео.html
Not being a calvinist or an arminian, (Calvary Chapel) I'm always on the lookout for non-sectarian primarily historical study bibles. Is the Evangelical study bible a fair one?
It's an update of the Thomas Nelson KJV Study Bible (which was slanted toward dispensationalism), so it is most certainly not "non-sectarian" or "primarily historical." Among NKJV BIbles, the only two I know that are non-sectarian and primarily historical are the Chronological Study Bible and the Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible.
This is an inconsistency that I will and have acknowledged in view. I realized a few years ago that if “the text is the issue” then I needed to live what I claimed to believe. I have been reading the NKJV and MEV along with my KJV for a few years now, and I’ve benefited from it.
Praise God, brother! I have no argument with you. I am fine with those who use the TR! I use it every day! And if you use it exclusively, I still have no argument with you.
Wherever there is division in the body there is illness. Matthew 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. (KJV) He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad. (NKJV) Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. (ESV) Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. (NET) He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters. (NASB) He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters. (LSB) It is not exact word choice, but the scatters that matters. If you truly love The Lord Jesus, The King of Glory, you do not want to be found against Him. Cannot God's Spirit speak to us through various translations? He can and does.
Anyone who isn’t with me opposes me, and anyone who isn’t working with me is actually working against me. (NLT) You left out a version.... I guess it is not the "scattering" that matters.
@@hayfieldhermit9657 This is not a "Formal v. Dynamic" variant. It is a change in meaning of the verse. "Scatter" is not some archaic word, or some word not used in common English today.
Dr. Ward, Bluntly, the truth you present has convinced me to lighten my position on the exclusive use of the King James. I recognize that a plurality of translations is good, generally speaking. I am still wary of less literal translations but that might be my exegetical preacher instincts showing. With that said, I have two things - other than the fact that I just love it and it’s the only Bible I’ve read since conversion in my late teen years - that are keeping me using the KJV the vast majority of the time. 1. While I can’t say that I’ve gathered all the information I need to make a final assessment, I do lean towards a majority text preferred position. I believe it was a conversations that you are your scholarly friends had with a Dr. Robinson (am I remembering that name correctly?) that introduced me to the majority text thought. I understand that the TR stream is not the same as the Majority text stream, but to my knowledge, they are closer than the Majority text and the Critical text are. Without an English translation from the Majority text, again to my knowledge, an English translation from the TR is the closest thing. 2. While I agree that newer translations from the TR, like the NKJV or the MEV, put the Bible in the “vulgar” language of today. To that respect, you are absolutely right. And that is an admirable goal and one of the sparks of the Protestant Reformation, of which we are most thankful. But, if I could hop on a bit of a hobby horse for a little while - I am an Independent Baptist after all - and advocate for the use of the KJV in modern churches still. American evangelicalism is suffering from an identity crisis. We don’t know who we are, frankly. And IFB-ism is definitely guilty of this charge as well. We would do well to moor ourselves to our history. And for us, our Protestant and Baptist history. I don’t want the Bible to be unnecessarily difficult to read and in fact I really don’t think the KjV is quite there. While I understand there could be some language hurdles, false friends and dead words, I think the benefit of reading the KJV outweighs the negatives. I’m rambling, so I’ll try to wrap this up. I understand you don’t advocate for a “never-KJV” position and you still read and love it and see the value in it. We both agree it’s a great translation, accurate and faithful to the underlying text. Let me summarize by asking a question: Do you think that it is a viable position for a church to choose the KJV as it’s preferred (and thus exclusive) version for public preaching and teaching for the sake of tradition and history, while encouraging other translations during private study and devotion?
@@markwardonwords Absolutely. Oh and one more note, I really do love the “thee/thou/ye/you” distinction the KJV makes. It’s a shame more KJV readers don’t understand the T - singular, Y - plural distinction. You have clearly shown the incompetency of most KJVO leaders in reading the very text they hold so dear. Despite those inadequacies, I do still think it’s a important distinction that tips the scales in the KJV direction a little more for me.
Could you do the NLT (New Living Translation) please💁🏾 I’m memorising Psalm 37 in NKJV but I want to memorise the Book of Ephesians from the NLT as that version is more easily understood by me but, I keep getting a “check” in my spirit when I think about it👀🤔🇬🇧
Go for it. I am indeed planning a video on the NLT, but it will be a good while. Memorizing from the NLT and understanding Psalm 37 better are good things. You have liberty in Christ to memorize Scripture from the NLT!
I don't think there's such a critter as a "more responsible" KJOist. By definition, if you are an 'onlyist,' you've lost your claim on being responsible. I do think there are virulent and non-virulent ones, but that's a different outcome than responsibility. In other words, there are KJOists and there are KJOists who aren't angry about it.
I have been listening to several of your videos and this is my absolute favorite. This error needs to be debunked and sadly it is repeated and re-repeated constantly.
I came to; was brought to Christ as a grown man. The NKJV was the first Bible I purchased. In no way did the foot notes or the explanations of differences in translated Texts lower my faith in the Bible being the Word of God. In fact it increased my confidence. The differences are so minor as to have no effect on the overall Scriptural message. With that said, it is important to care and to preserve what we do have...
I had the NKJV ripped away from me over its reading of 2 Tim 2:15 . Unfortunately, those who led me to Christ took away the very bible that was feeding me. I was shown my NKJVs translation of "Be diligent " to the kjvs "Study" and asked, "Does that mean the same thing to you ?" . Then I was told how the NKJV was corrupt and that only the KJV was the right one? I was stuck and hobbled for 8+ years. Even after the Lord brought me out from that frame of mind, it took years to let go. I still, to this day, have a weird attachment to the KJV and always will . It's like there is a little Onlyest on my shoulder that whispers in my ear... "I don't know if you should trust that reading, let's go look at that verse in the ole KJV" 😂 I love the poetic flow but hunger for simple changes that would make it so much better. I would like to see someone keep the old English but replace the archaic words and false friends.
They ripped it away from you because they didn't know how the word "study" was used hundreds of years ago, because they weren't diligent to study it out...... Wow. Very sad.
@markwardonwords It works best on the new babes in Christ . They get you when you have strong hunger for God's word but are not yet wise enough to understand the meaning of things. For me, KJVO was like the Movie Misery, they took the sledgehammer and placed a board between my spiritual feet . Hindered my walk , that's how I see it for so many unfortunate Christians.
Could you help me understand Matthew 6:10? I recently heard someone point out that the KJV states “IN earth, as it is in heaven.” And the NKJV says “ON earth as it is in heaven.” They were pointing out the “in” versus “on” of the two translations, and how they mean different things. I tried to research it myself but couldn’t find much about it and am not sure I was referencing the right material/sources. The interlinear I was looking at showed “in” as the original word. Pardon my naivety.
I would love to see a video on the differences in the NKJV between the translator's usage of the two different Old Testament textual basis. Even if the differences are minor, it could be very useful when dispelling skepticism around the excellent NKJV and instilling confidence in the translation. 15:50
The argument that the NKJV leans toward the CT in key verses isn’t even a good argument. Let’s assume it’s true. There’s over 60 recorded passages where the KJV Translators sided with the Latin Vulgate over the course of the translation of the entire Bible. They used it for far more than 60 instances, but this is the number I’ve found to where they chose the LV OVER the TR / MT due to disagreement or simply phrases that were missing from the TR. (J 10:16) In total, there’s over 2,000 recorded instances where they deviate from the underlying texts. They also consulted with the Geneva and Tyndale translations and they directly transferred roughly 60% of their translational decisions from the Bishop Bible, which according to KJVOists, is an imperfect and corrupt version. (Sam G). Keep the logic consistent and apply it to their own argument.
I should probably have turned this sword the other way, yes. Maybe I'll do so in a future video. But my goal here is not to diminish anyone's trust in the KJV, despite what my detractors think!
@@markwardonwords Not at all! This was my rambling during my listen to the video. I was just point out the lack of logical consistency in their argument.
It seems as if the KJ Only must believe that the predominantly Church of England translators were not at all biased in any of the translation choices they made in the KJV. I tend to feel that a new translation such as the NIV would tend to be less biased due to the translators not being from only one group. I see history being rewritten to support extreme views on Bible translation choices as well as political views. Too few look into the truth of things as you do which is why I find your videos so informative. I was raised on KJV but now prefer the NASB, NKJV and for just daily reading versus study the NIV works well for me.
The critical text = the opposite text. What bizarre framing that must be to someone just coming into this debate, considering how similar they really are on a broad scale.
@@markwardonwords Also, how do the "Big 3" deviations compare to the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Majority text? I checked the World English Bible which is ostensibly based on that and Hodges-Farstad and it looks like the NKJV.
@@socksthemusicalcat There are a few notable differences. The World English Bible places Luke 17.36, Acts 8.37, and Acts 15.34 in the footnotes. It transposes Romans 16.25-27 to the ending of Romans 14 (in agreement with the Byzantine text against the Alexandrian text, Textus Receptus, and Vulgate). It also omits the three heavenly witnesses from 1 John 5.7, and it doesn't follow the notable TR readings in Revelation (1.8, 16.5, and 22.19).
@@MAMoreno Sorry, I might not have been clear. What I meant to suggest was that the NKJV may have been following a Byzantine Majority reading that happens to line up with the Critical Text at the 3 places where Mark noted it matching the Critical Text over the KJV. My reasoning was that the World English Bible, which ostensibly follows some form of Byzantine Priority/Majority Text methodology in the New Testament, matched well with the NKJV at these three spots. However, now that I am off of work, I checked my digital edition of Robinson-Pierpont, and it seems to match exactly with Scrivener's TR in each case. So I guess it really is just a minuscule oversight that ended up influencing WEB.
My NKJV says in the preface, " (1) NU Text: These variations generally represent the Alexandrian or Egyptian text type as found in critical text published in the twenty-sixth edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (N) and the United Bible Societies third edition (U)." At least if they used the Critical Text it is noted. Another question: Is the Critical Text (Alexandrian) truly from the Gnostics? There was a large organization of Gnostics in Alexandria, so older isn't necessarily better. My new NASB 2020 and the NRSV ue both do not list the NU texts or Alexandrian Critical Texts in their prefaces.
You have asked an excellent but complicated question. I strongly encourage you to pick up this short book for the answer: www.amazon.com/dp/1433564092?tag=3755-20
The NRSVue preface says, "For the New Testament, the team based its work on three recent editions of the Greek New Testament: (1) The Greek New Testament, 5th revised edition (United Bible Societies, 2014); (2) The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition (Society of Biblical Literature and Logos Bible Software, 2010); and, (3) for Acts and the Catholic Letters, Novum Testamentum Graecum: Editio Critica Maior (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2013, 2017)." That first one is the "U" in the "NU" of the NKJV's notes. While the NKJV consulted the third edition, the NRSVue used the fifth edition. Meanwhile, the NASB 2020 edition states, "In most instances the 28th edition of the Nestle-Aland NOVUM TESTAMENTUM GRAECE was followed. For Acts and the General Epistles, the Editio Critica Maior (ECM) was followed in most instances." Again, they used a more up-to-date edition of the Nestle-Aland text ("N" in "NU") than the NKJV did. And we see that both of these updated English translations have used the ECM alongside the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies texts, which means that they are making use of the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (an approach that was not yet employed when the NKJV came out).
I suspect most of the "NJKV is a critical text version" comes from misunderstanding. One KJV advocate says it agrees with the "Alexandrian versions" in many places. The next takes that to mean that the NKJV is based on Alexandrian manuscripts.
It is a genuine problem-I've encountered it over and over-that many people (not just KJV defenders) who see that a given modern translation doesn't say exactly what the KJV does simply do not know how to tell the difference between a difference caused by text and one caused by translation choice.
@@markwardonwords In addition to that, Peter Ruckman promoted the idea that "Alexandrian" referred not simply to a group of texts, but to an ancient heretical mindset that was re-introduced by apostate scholars looking to corrupt the Bible. The English versions themselves became "Alexandrian" in every decision they made, whether it was based on a textual issue or an interpretation issue. (And it seems that "Alexandrian" is also equated with "Jesuit" in some circles, as if one big conspiracy theory weren't enough.)
There are plenty of academics and experts who mock the KJV and NKJV for their translations being taken from just 12-15 manuscripts. Although that was all that was available to the KJV translators neither version has kept pace with with manuscripts now available.
Kjvo which TR text is the true one? WHY DID PORTUOBS OF THE 1611 KJV TEXT BRING OCER PASSAFES FROM LATIN VULGATE AND IN SOME PASSAGES STILL UNKNOWN where it came into the translation?
Oh my! I can learn the wonderful words of God in any translation. Woot! Full disclosure, i learned Greek from the guy who translated the book of James for NKJV.
I don't understand why educated people can be so blind. I do know one thing God's word tells us we are supposed to be of one mind and one accord. It's kinda sad if you think about it. So many of our Lords teachings being ignored.I use both Nkjv and KJV when I teach my Bible study class. And explain any difference between the two. But sir like you point out we are brothers and sisters in Christ I think that should be the most important thing. Thank you for your time and God bless.
I like your videos. I'm not sure why in this one you needed to mention Trump's hyperbole, "the Bible Trump is pushing', "Ronald Trump', etc... Have you seen a KJP press conference? My goodness.
@markwardonwords it just happened to be the one i watched today (great video, still) and things are heating up in that arena. :) I certainly am not advocating for or against Trump. I'm a bit like Treebeard on the matter. :)
I once came across a very lengthy piece entitled "The False Witness of G. A. Riplinger's Death Certificate for the New King James Version" several years ago which I think was written by Executive Editor of the NKJV Arthur Farstad (according to what I have, it's a work revised in 1997). I can't find it anywhere online now, but I copied and pasted it into WordPad and still have it on my computer. It is a very detailed reply to Riplinger's false accusations against the NKJV through her dreadful "New Age Bible Versions" book, and makes it abundantly clear what the translators of that version followed, and the reasons they had for making decisions they did when the results differed from the KJV. I've found it extremely informative.
@@TheDoctor394 Right now I can't give it out; I just get too much email! The only way to get me a file right now is this link, which will expire in two days: bit.ly/3YdXMlm. Thank you for sending this!
@@markwardonwords Hi Mark. Sorry, I actually initially replied on the weekend after your response, but only just found out that it didn't appear for some reason. I'm sending the document now. Just to let you know that, due to it being copied and pasted from a website onto WordPad, it's a bit messy, with the occasional sentence unfinished, etc, and the endnotes are pretty untidy. Over time, as I've read through it, I have done some editing to tidy it up a bit (without changing anything actually said, of course). I hope it is helpful though.
One more piece of evidence is that scholars, seminaries, and pastors that embrace the TC do not embrace the NKJV for that same reason. If indeed it leaned toward the TC, then the TC's aficionados would be more accepting of it. Ironic in light of the KJVos' silly accusation that it's too TC-leaning.
Thanks for this, Mark. I have heard that argument against the NKJV, but never knew what to make of it until now. Interestingly, it wasn’t until about two years ago that I had any idea that there was such a thing as KJVonlism. I grew up in a Baptist church where my pastor read from J.B. Phillips and my seminary professors chose the red hardback RSV for our study. I have preached for over 40 years from the GNB, RSV, and primarily the '84 NIV. It seems like the flock is being fed from all of them. KJVonly!!??
@murrydixon5221 Good question, and worthy of an answer. The GNB was the one I used in the '70s, in lieu of the Living Bible when I was in Middle School, High School and College. As a *very* young pastor, I used it for the first several months of my career, before switching to the RSV I used in seminary, and then in about 1991 I went to the NIV. So, I didn't use it long, but I do believe the Lord used it to bless during the time I used it. Blessings! I appreciate you asking!
@murrydixon5221 Well, besides a full set of commentaries, if we are talking about study Bibles, I would say the ESV Study Bible, the Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, the NIV Study Bible, and the NET Bible Full Notes Edition.
In my opinion this is one of your best videos yet brother Mark. My KJV of preference is the Cambridge Concord. It has a great concordance, very good Bible dictionary, and center column references which includes the translator's notes. I noticed that at Rev. 22: 19 in the center column references, the translators have this: 19- out of the book... or, from the tree of life. So apparently the KJV translators knew of the alternate reading- "tree of life" but chose to go with " book of life". Those who are KJV only probably disagree with the translators for even including this in their notes. I have three Bibles sitting on my desk that I use pretty much everyday; the KJV, NKJV, and the ESV. I admit that I'm more familiar with the KJV since that's what I grew up with, but I like and use the NKJV, and I really do like the way the ESV reads and flows with the text, even though it's based on the critical text. Hang in there brother, and don't get discouraged because of those who criticize you. God bless.
The Revelation 22.19 note was added by a later editor of the KJV, not the original translators, but it has appeared in a number of KJV editions over the centuries. For instance, it was present in the Blayney 1769 edition from Oxford.
@@eclipsesonic I've found it in a few Oxford editions before 1769, but I haven't seen it showing up before 1760. It might have been someone at Oxford, or it might have been Dr. Parris at Cambridge. (I can't find a scan of his edition.)
@@MAMoreno You may be right about that, but I also have the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible, edited by David Norton, and, according to the preface, the only margin notes that he retained was the original translator's notes. Rev. 22:19 has the same margin note as my Cambridge Concord, and it's the only margin note in Rev. 22. It simply says, 19- out of the book: or, from the tree of life.
I imagine them at a cathedral doing da vinci code stuff, looking for the holy grail..... nevermind Christ told us how to drink of his cup (apparently 1611 British tea was in it [maybe east india company Indian stock]).
I think a main reason KJV people object to the NKJV is the same root reason they will always reject all other translations......they don't know how to have confidence in God or their own salvation unless they have the 1769 KJV revision in hand.... Because that's what they've been taught.
The NKJV is my primary version of choice. I do not like that the Critical text discounts the Byzantine (majority) text and excessively chooses minority readings through out . I do not like that the Critical text includes 60+ conjectural emendations. Nor do I like how much of a role the ideas and theories of modern scholars play in the constantly updated Critical text. I take a Majority text stance as it is the only position that rules out nearly all subjective bias and until we are given a quality, well supported Majority text translation I will continue to prefer the NKJV with its excellent footnotes. I do use Critical text translations for occasional study reference.
Can someone point me to why this loyalty exists for TR? Is there any legitimate reason why TR is believed to be objectively superior to CT? It sounds like this is bordering on idolatry to be this fanatical about a translation. Especially when you start attacking other believers for using a different translation. In my study I find the differences between TR and CT to be minor and change nothing about God’s plan of salvation. But CT does note verses that simply don’t have a solid basis. Even in these examples, it changes nothing about doctrine.
It's tradition, and tradition isn't necessarily a bad thing. I will observe that almost all (99.999%) of the TR defenders I have met also insist on the exclusive use of the KJV. If they were really and truly TR-Only and not just KJV-Only, I'd expect to see some folks in the TR camp who prefer the NKJV or MEV. But they almost all reject these TR-based options. Why?
@@markwardonwordsmy Pastor is one who is TR preferred but uses the NKJV primarily but will still use the KJV as well. We use the NKJV in our regular services, but the KJV in collaborative efforts with the other fellowshipping churches in our area. This is done because many in my area are still heavily in the KJV camp, not because they are KJVO, but because of traditions with which they are unwilling to part.
*"1611RonaldTrump"* Oh yeah. That's me and my trusty ol’ KJV. What about "Ye strain *_at_* a gnat"? The translator sent "strain *_out_* a gnat" but it was misprinted. So, do we "fix" *_at_* to *_out_* and bump all the numbers off by 1? (Note: The *Cambridge Paragraph Bible* replaced "at" with "out". Gotta love it.)
An asterisk is needed after your comment that "book of life" is not found in any Greek manuscript. EVERY reading of the TR is found in Greek manuscripts, precisely because there are a handful of Greek manuscripts which are themselves handwritten copies of one edition of the printed TR or another. Of course these have no value for textual criticism--other than providing an excellent opportunity to study scribal habits with a known exemplar, and that's nothing to sneeze at--but they do exist, and you could be accused of equivocation for not admitting that. Especially since KJ advocates like to mention them, without, of course, disclosing where they came from.
Yeah, I've noticed that Will Kinney loves to list every "Codex Erasmuscopyus" manuscript out there to back up his statistics. But you are right: they technically exist.
I think I'm still safe. It's clear enough what I mean! But I'm still glad to know this technicality so I don't get surprised with it in a debate or something.
I think you're too charitable to say this (though I believe you suspect it), but I'm not: in almost all cases, TR-onlyism is just a smokescreen for KJV-onlyism. Much as they protest to the contrary, it really isn't about the text. If it were, they'd have to accept different translations as legitimate, and that destroys their fiction of a perfectly-preserved Word. Ruckmanism is the only possible end of KJV-onlyism.
I started out thinking as you do, and God knows the hearts of people: surely there are many people who fit that description. But I have decided to treat the position as honest: my whole point about the NKJV relies on the existence of people who sincerely believe that the text is the issue. I do think this describes many, many dear brothers and sisters.
Regarding the NKJV having “our” instead of “the” common salvation here is what Going Deeper With NT Greek says “The Article Functioning as a Pronoun While the article is not a pronoun as such, as mentioned above, it traces its origin back to the pronoun and in certain situations may function like a pronoun. Specifically, it may function as a (1) personal pronoun, (2) relative pronoun, (3) possessive pronoun, (4) demonstrative pronoun, and (5) alternate pronoun (this use is rare). The following examples will serve to illustrate the range of options. 1. Personal pronoun: οἱ δὲ εἶπαν αὐτῷ (“They told him”; Matt 2:5). 2. Relative pronoun: δοξάσωσιν τὸν πατέρα ὑμῶν τὸν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (“give glory to your Father who is in heaven”; Matt 5:16 ESV). 3. Possessive pronoun: ὁ δὲ διεῖλεν αὐτοῖς τὸν βίον (“And he divided his property between them”; Luke 15:12 ESV). This is a relatively common use of the article in the New Testament. 4. Demonstrative pronoun: οἱ δὲ ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ προσεκύνησαν αὐτῷ (“Then those in the boat worshiped Him”; Matt 14:33). 5. Alternate pronoun: καὶ αὐτὸς ἔδωκεν τοὺς μὲν ἀποστόλους, τοὺς δὲ προφήτας, τοὺς δὲ εὐαγγελιστάς, τοὺς δὲ ποιμένας καὶ διδασκάλους (“And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers”; Eph 4:11 NASB).” Note that translating the article as a possessive pronoun is totally within the accepted translation practices and therefore need not require that the NKJV followed the CT.
@@markwardonwords Not only is there grammatical authority, but there is in fact precedence for such a thing in the KJV itself! I was reading 1 John today in a MEV/KJV parallel, and I noticed that in 1 John 4:17 the KJV translates "ἡ ἀγάπη" as "our love is made perfect" even though there is no 1st person plural possessive pronoun in Greek, whereas the NKJV translates it as "love has been perfected". This is ironic because that means the KJV is doing the exact same thing with ἡ ἀγάπη as the NKJV did with τῆς κοινῆς σωτηρίας in Jude 1:3; translating the definite article with a possessive pronoun even though there is no explict stated possesive pronoun. If the NKJV translators translating the article in Jude 1:3 as a possessive is a departure from the Textus Receptus, would not just and fair application of standards also demand that the KJV departed from the TR in 1 John 4:17 since they translated the article there as a possessive?
Lies like "The NKJV isn't a TR translation" are horrible. I nearly lost hope in Christianity a few decades ago over similar lies in another area. I wish people would just tell the truth. On another note, do you know if the MEV is going to receive an update? I've heard rumors. It's a nice translation, but it needs one.
@@murrydixon5221 Yes, it is. If you're on the YouVersion app, you may need to update it. If you're on the website, click on the "Learn More About Modern English Version" hyperlink at the bottom of the text block, and it should direct you toward the updated copyright notice. Then click on the "Read MEV" button to access the updated edition.
Keep up the good work, Mark. You are one of the most committed individuals to literacy I have ever encountered. It's important to note that the King James Bible (KJB) is not based on the Textus Receptus (TR) because it is not merely a version or translation; it is a compilation. The translators were instructed to use existing versions and make minimal changes. You surely know this, Mark. I'm puzzled as to why you would reject legitimate statistical and mathematical studies. As someone who has surely studied math and statistics, your stance is surprising. Granted, as Jesus revealed to Thomas, having absolute proof in order to believe is the lesser kind of faith. I taught in the mechanical engineering department at MSU Denver for 15 years, and I believe you have a wake-up call coming. Your steadfast secular and naturalistic perspectives continually amaze me. As a pastor for six years decades ago, I used the New King James Version (NKJV) throughout that period, though I no longer do so today. The KJB (not KJV) is composed of words that are not just ordinary; they are God’s fundamental vehicle of thought, expressed through speaking and writing. We breathe out words just as God did. This is why I prefer the exact order and expression found in the KJB. Best regards, dear friend. I still look forward to an opportunity to hear you speak in the vicinity of Denver, CO in the future.
"deliver my soul from the wicked, which is thy sword: From men which are thy hand, O Lord, from men of the world," "Deliver my life from the wicked with Your sword, With Your hand from men, O Lord, From men of the world" One is clear and one is not. Actually, taken how I read English, one reading might be heretical....
I like NKJV as it was for me fairly easy to follow the Preacher reading with KJV. That's a plus for a modern version for me.
you know, its very easy to confirm the NKJV is based on the TR when you can open up Logos NKJV Reverse Interlinear and see the English Words corresponding to the Greek TR words…
“Keep lying yourself”
“They’re gone faster than interested parties on marketplace”
I just wanted to say your humor makes these “nerdy” videos so enjoyable! This is by far my favorite RUclips channel, and I thank you for your time and expertise. 🙏🏼
Wow! I'm so honored!
I think it's a rather niche pleasure… My wife laughs, but she reminds me that not everyone finds my humor appealing… ;)
If the NKJV translators say it’s based on the TR, then it is. Unless there is any evidence that they are lying, then their character is falsely being impugned. To do so, is a sin.
It never hurts to check.
Since the KJV is regarded to be based on the TR despite the fact that it does not follow the TR reading in a few places, then the NKJV should be afforded the same.
@@Stormageddon571 ' You going for the rhyming "Doveryai no proveryai" (Trust, but verify)?
- Reagan's favorite comment on nuclear disarmament
@@NOXStellans Yeah
They are all dead by now. I don't think they care anymore.
The "yes-huh" killed me. Quite honestly, it is the most calm, logical, and respectful answer one can give to such ignorance.
You know Mark, In my life I have found if you wait long enough the satanic spirit will come forth. FYI you can't be a good Christian and a good democrat..I'm referring to your political comments..Now I know you cannot be trusted.A great disappointment. Shame on you for hiding behind The Cross to make a political hit piece on Donald Trump..Toni's husband
@@tonimccoy9778 Other devout Christians would insist that you can't be a good Christian and a good Republican. The fact of the matter is that both parties are fundamentally flawed and misaligned with Christian values, and the continued unhealthy support of Donald Trump in particular is a strong sign of that.
@@MAMoreno well said. 👍🏻
FWIW, I stood my NKJV on its edge on my desk, and I put a NA28 on the right and a TR on the left. The NKJV did NOT lean toward the NA28. 😁
PROOF! ;)
@@sillyrabbi64 Same for me.
For the past month, every night I have been reading a chapter in these translations in this order. NLT, NET, NIV, NRSV, ESV, NASB 95 and lastly the KJV. Reading the KJV after the first six is a joy. I've learned much from you Mark, keep up the good work. Thank you.
It's important to also recognize that Arthur Farstad and Zane Hodges (principle editors of the NKJV) had also edited the "Greek new testament according to the Majority Text". They rejected the methodologies used in the then current text critical practices and paved the way into Majority text research. These were not 'critical text guys'.
Right!
Thank you!😎👍📖
Once a year? I watch your channel every time a video is posted. I love your humility and how you present the KJV debate with love. Keep doing what you’re doing. I’ve passed your book around to KJV folks with good success.
As a Byzantine prioritist, I prefer the KJV/NKJV, but also consult the WEB,NET, BSB & CSB. Thanks for your hard work concerning the NKJV. Biblical numerology draws our attention away from Christ to unprofitable contention. Jesus surely did not employ it. Blessings!🙏📖
This!!
I'm curious if you would be interested in the 2024 updated MEV?
I am interested, @@tjmaverick1765 .
@@tjmaverick1765 I have a hardcopy of the MEV, but have not used it much. Some of its translations are not the best: e.g. Psalm 97:11
Modern English Version: "Light goes out for the righteous, and gladness for the upright in heart." "Light goes out" at first reading sounds like the light is extinguished. The KJV/NKJV /WEB/NASB/LSB "Light is sown " Others: "Light dawns for" or "Light shines on" John 1:18 Modern English Version: "No one has seen God at any time. The only Son, who is at the Father’s side, has made Him known." KJV/NKJV/YLT/Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition "only begotten son" TRUE CONFESSION: I have not read the MEV all the way through. But the KJV/NKJV together have served me well so far. I might consider the MEV 2024 if it has references and cites textual variants.
Unfortunately, there will be those who watch this video, see your concessions to minor variations that Brandenburg found, and say "AHA! See, the NKJV is poisoned by the CT. A little leaven leavens the whole lump."
More and more when I talk to KJVOnlyists, I find myself thinking about 1 Timothy 6:4. We never discuss weighty matters, but instead end up quarreling over words and end up producing dissension, slander, evil suspicion, and constant friction. I'm grateful for the work you're doing, brother. It is making a difference.
I agree. But I feel I can only tell the truth and hope to thereby win people over.
You hit the nail on the head .
Many have their minds already made up before you even talk with them. I usually see them in my minds eye, typing a rebuttal as im still speaking 😂
@@markwardonwords
I am very thankful for you and your work. No one, that I’m aware of, is doing what you’re doing. I’ve watched “a lot” of your content. Especially as it concerns the NKJV (or best bible translations). You have managed to calm my fears in the differences in word choices, sentence structure, and even so called omitted words. However, there’s still one area that is even more concerning, contradictions. I plead with you. Help me with contradictions! I can use the NKJV without fear/reluctance if I can overcome this last barrier. I linked a video that explains contractions. I’m not asking you to create a video to refute this video. Just a comment to this message or a link to some of your previous work/blog that may address some of the verses from this video. Like… Heb 3:16; 2 King 23:29; and 2 Cor 35:20. Please help me understand how to have confidence in my Bible when some verses are outright opposite.
ruclips.net/video/-t436qRhXtk/видео.htmlsi=gEYXDrIZHhc26qSw
@@robertrayford8708 I listened to this video just now. I have touched on some of those passages in other videos. Would you mind me turning the question back to you just a bit? Go through my two videos answering Albert Hembd and tell me which passages Gene Kim brought up that I didn't? Would you be willing to do that for me? If so, I think I can make a video on the remaining passages.
ruclips.net/video/_2T5B4JRwe8/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/E-iDeztybRA/видео.html
@@robertrayford8708 Regarding Hebrews 3.16, the NKJV is correct in its wording. The similar sentence structure found in verses 17-18 indicates that verse 16 should also be phrased as a rhetorical question. The audience of the letter would know that Joshua and Caleb were the obvious exceptions. (Gene Kim actually misreads the NKJV in that video. It's saying that "all who came out of Egypt" rebelled after hearing God's voice at Sinai, not that all who came out made it to the Promised Land.)
In 2 Kings 23.29, the NKJV may be interpreting the text more than necessary. The ESV, by contrast, keeps the text ambiguous: "Pharaoh Neco king of Egypt went up to the king of Assyria." That being said, the historical records suggest that the NKJV is correct about the alliance between Egypt and Assyria: they were both facing off against Babylon at Carchemish (which is a place, not a person, Gene). You should also compare Jeremiah 46.2, which mentions this battle.
The NKJV seems to be allowing Zechariah 9.17 to refer either to the day of God's salvation or to the rescued people themselves (which were just compared to a crown and a banner) or possibly even to the land that produces grain and wine, though it does say "Lit. His" in the footnote to indicate the possibility of the KJV's interpretation. Really, the Hebrew text itself doesn't require pronouns to be used in the translation. Thus, the CSB simply says, "How lovely and beautiful!"
In Proverbs 11.16, what Gene Kim omits is the fact that the KJV translators frequently translate the word in question as "terrible" (in the older sense of "terrifying"). So what exactly did they have in mind when they said "strong men" in this verse? Were they possibly in agreement with the NKJV's "ruthless" interpretation, even if their actual word choice seems a little more ambiguous? Herein lies the problem with being so dismissive of scholars: it's just an excuse to not put forth effort to research things properly yourself.
In Hebrews 2.16, the words "the nature of" are marked by the KJV translators as words that they added. But they were not fully sure of this interpretation, and they offered the following marginal note: "Gr. hee taketh not hold of Angels, but of the seede of Abraham he taketh hold." The NKJV translators understood "take hold" as "help" rather than "become like." Compare the KJV's own translation of this same Greek term in Ecclesiasticus 4.11: "Wisedome exalteth her children, and layeth hold of them that seeke her." (In this case, "lay hold" clearly means "help.")
The NKJV was for me the gateway to the KJV. I grew up only knowing the KJV and the Living Bible, but switched to the NIV in Junior High School, because it was easy to read. However, when I started studying Greek in college, I switched to NKJV because I could see it was far more accurate, and the textual footnotes in the NKJV led me to the conviction that the Traditional Text of the New Testament was more reliable. Eventually, I rediscovered the KJV. There are places where I think the KJV is superior to the NKJV, but the reverse is also true. I like the style and beauty of the KJV, but the NKJV is a generally good reliable translation. I raised my kids reading the KJV, but when I give a Bible to someone at my parish that needs one, I usually will give them a NKJV, because I know they will more likely read it, if they have not grown up reading the KJV.
I knew it was a gateway Bible! ;) Don't tell the KJV-Onlyists that it was a gateway the other direction!
Completely agreed. 💯
"There are places where I think the KJV is superior to the NKJV, but the reverse is also true" Back 30 years ago when a church I attended made the switch they made this point very clearly. So important to understand we are not leaving perfection nor are we moving to perfect.
Thanks for sharing Mark and for including your well-chosen arguments supporting the TR as the textual basis for the NKJV.
Thanks, brother Mark, for your steadfast and trustworthy scholarship in rebutting these KJV-only nonsenses. May the Lord continue to bless you in your work for the Kingdom.
Thank you kindly!
I love the humility and forthrightness of the NKJV translators concerning the various weaknesses of its TR basis. It would be refreshing if the ESV and NASB committees would follow suit concerning the various hyper-eclectic passages within their NT pages.
If they can't verify the NKJV is from the TR how can they verify the KJV is?
The KJV we use today is rendered from a later edition of the TR too.
The 1st and 2nd editions were based on 6 manuscripts, and they weren’t all Byzantine Types. They had similar omissions in comparison to modern versions that utilize footnotes, rather.
Early 1st and 2nd TR translations do NOT have 1st John 5:7, which is a trinity doctrinal verse. Some years later, Erasmus was confronted, at some point provided with a single additional Greek Manuscript that disagreed with those he already collected, that did have 1st John 5:7. Evidenced that it was a later addition, Erasmus wrote out footnotes that confirmed this, but considering the fire he was under, he then included it under his latter editions of the TR. Of which are utilized today.
Nobody wants to talk about that, though.
I am a trinitarian. But this is such a complex issue that has sooo many variables. Translation is not cookie cutter.
Cuz there was only the TR back then lol
Most KJV only people are starting with the assumption that the KJV is flawless perfection. So it follows that it's the perfect translation of the perfect Greek text. The problem is that the KJV follows the Latin readings in a few places and not the Greek TR editions..... In some of those places the New KJV actually follows the TR reading and not the Latin...
@Packhorse-bh8qn I'm not KJV only. I only prefer the broader TR family more than most people.
But KJV only people basically just say the KJV is the TR essentially. The KJV was not based on one edition of the TR. IMO this destroys KJVO altogether, because the argument for KJVO is based on the idea that a single, pure version of God's word being available throughout all ages.
I get your point, but they could also have taken manuscripts into consideration instead of just following the printed text of the TR(s). since that's how Erasmus produced the TR initially. Not trying to be argumentative, just pointing out such an early Bible translation didn't have to be strictly from the TR.
Thank you so very much for your intelligent, incisive, and charitable video. I find all your videos to be incredibly helpful. God bless.
You're very welcome!
Beautifully done. Much appreciated.
Not gonna lie. I am irritated that I was taught in college that the NKJV is not TR. I wish I could have used it then. I use it every day now.
Do you have notes detailing what you were told?
@@markwardonwords Not anymore. It’s been years. But it was basically that the. NKJV was based on the TR but heavily influenced by the CT.
@@markwardonwords My daily Bible reading currently consists of the NKJV and the LSB. Best of both worlds. 😁
@@customstoryteller I think this could stem from a (sort of?) legitimate misunderstanding of the textual footnotes. But no one who teaches at a college should be so ignorant as to be guilty of such a misunderstanding.
@@markwardonwords I agree. And it’s a difficult thing. Because I respect the teacher greatly. I learned much from him. But at the same time I spent years ignoring everything except the KJV. So many of my misunderstandings could have been easily cleared up had I been “allowed” to peak at another translation.
Brother,I watch every time you post
Many thanks!
Excellent work! Definitely sharing this.
It's now out for a few weeks!
Mark, your extraordinary patience amazes me! I love both the KJV and NKJV. But, I wouldn't be able to maintain my patience with people who insist that the TR is THE ONLY preserved word of God. Seriously?
The opposite happens: the NBLA (a Spanish translation from Lockman) claims to be based on NA27, but in many cases (including 1 Jn 5.7-8) it agrees with the TR against NA27.
Dude, this is your best work yet! GREAT video.
Thank you, Tim!
0:18 - Honestly, what you were talking about here, I think the church father Irenaeus addressed brilliantly in his book Against Heresies, all the way back towards the end of the 2nd century:
"Nor should they seek to prosecute inquiries respecting God by means of numbers, syllables, and letters. For this is an uncertain mode of proceeding, on account of their varied and diverse systems...For system does not spring out of numbers, but numbers from a system; nor does God derive His being from things made, but things made from God. For all things originate from one and the same God." - Against Heresies, Book 2, Chapter 25.1
The "they" that Irenaeus was referencing here were the Gnostics, who looked into hidden meanings and "mystical truths" supposedly found in numbers. We, as Christians, should not associate ourselves with Gnosticism.
Very good. Saving this.
Mark, thank you for this one. It has long confounded me as to why KJVO groups/people reject the nkjv. I’ve come to the conclusion that they fear being rejected or called a “liberal” by other kjvo brethren. Keep up the good work, sir.
Many thanks! Pray for me!
Thanks Mark. I recently have started listening to you and have you to be breath of fresh air. I am a TR / KJV man. I want to thank you for your work and approach.
Wonderful!
Thank you, Brother Mark 🌹⭐🌹☮️
You are so welcome!
I greatly appreciate the NKJV and preach from it most Sundays.
Our congregation uses it as our pew Bibles.
I was raised on the KJV and memorized from it as a child. It is a beautiful and timeless translation.
If one understands what the text is saying (which is why the original languages are important), one would still preach faithfully to the meaning. These assertions about the KJV over and against the NKJV are a false dichotomy presented by those who more than prefer the KJV.
I agree with you in everything you say. Excellent.
Hey, Mark, have you read Dorothy Sayers' playcycle "The Man Born to Be King"? I think you would be very interested in the background of how it came to be written because. There was quite a bit of controversy when it came out and began to air on BBC Radio (the audio of which is now available on Audible). The controversy was due to that she not only chose to not use KJV English, but she also put slang into the mouths of the disciples. She even received threats because of her writing of it. I'd be very interested if you either got a copy to peruse or got the audio to listen to and then made a video about Sayers use of language in the playcycle because after it began to come out, while the established churches were threatening her, she also constantly received letters from common, everyday people (the ploughboys) thanking her because for the first time in their lives they actually understood the Bible because of her work.
I've heard of it but never read it. I need to!
I finally have to comment that in both the Old Testament and New Testament KJV, there is much more dynamic equivalence than people realize. And since the NKJV essentially followed the KJV and updated it, they retained much dynamic equivalence, or thought for thought translation, in parallel with the KJV.
Tell the truth, Mark Ward! This video took hours to produce and you continually readjusted that clock behind you between takes! :)
Ha! I wondered if people would notice that. I happened to have one totally free day in which I shot three RUclips videos! I don't usually make enough mistakes to make the clock look crazy, though!
The New King James Version (NKJV) of the Bible was translated by a team of 130 people, including scholars, church leaders, and lay Christians, who worked for seven years to complete the project. Thomas Nelson Publishers commissioned the translation in 1975, with the goal of creating a modern English version that would retain the accuracy, beauty, and poetry of the original King James Version:
I’m really enjoying this, Mark. You are quite direct, and your challenges are incredibly fair. I wish some of these KJVO arguers would just come out and blatantly say the thing that they love to hint at - that everything in a modern translation’s preface by it’s scholarly translators is a lie to deceive the people of God and/or they are deceived and not really saved. Isn’t that where the totality of their points concludes? For example, when an evangelist says at a debate that they believe their opponent to be a brother, but from a pulpit as a guest speaker talk about “corrupted seed.”
Thanks brother Mark. Your work may be exhausting at times, but your hard work is so worth the time you’re spending. You’re doing a great service to our brothers and sisters. It’s truly heart felt the amount of love you take in studying this for us. P.S please pray for my neighbor Calvin, his kidneys are infected continuously. Sorry to ask more of you than your already doing, but James 5:16 is why I ask it of you. Thanks again brother.
I appreciate that. And I am praying right now for Calvin! May the Lord bring him healing as James 5:16 says he is willing to do!
@@markwardonwords thanks brother Mark
Great video, Mark! I once read your English update of the KJV preface to the reader but now I can't find it. Would you be able to please post the link?
ruclips.net/video/ipfJGU5YYXM/видео.html
@@markwardonwords Thank you!
Excellent work sir. Thank you.
You are welcome!
Mark, is it possible to get the NASB but in the same English language format as the king james?
Not sure I follow!
@markwardonwords I've been told that the NASB is more word for word than the KJV.
I have yet to fully compare the two translations, and maybe there's not much difference, I just love word for word, and was wondering if it were possible to take the NASB out of modern English and reintroduce the thou art, shalt, thine will etc, type of English that was common in the 1600/1700s when the KJV was published.
The 1901 ASV is something like this.
@@markwardonwords Thank you
Do you have a link to the video that starts at 4:46? I am curious if he addressed the MEV also. You cut out before he gets to that point. Thanks for the great work.
It was on Facebook. Will try later to find it. Issues Podcast maybe a month ago?
Issues Podcast live episode from 3/25/24. The video is on their Facebook page.
@@CalebRichardson Thank you. Found it. Starts at about the 32 minute mark of their video
@@markwardonwords I've watched his reply concerning the NKJV and MEV. I feel that you sufficiently addressed the idea of whether the NKJV comes from the TR. How do you answer the response that there is no theological problem with modern TR versions, but a practical problem of functionality or simple personal preference. Is it just me or does that feel a bit like gaslighting?
@@schrock4ro I answer with Scripture: edification requires intelligibility (1 Cor 14). I've had to back off of commenting on-or even guessing at-motives. It's a minefield. I just know that the principle stated by Scripture gives him sufficient reason to push past the practical and preferential problems he poses.
I get so tired of people that talk about the "The TR" like it is a singular text, So many times you confuse these people when you ask them, "Which one?".........
Wait until you tell them the guy who constructed the TR was a Roman Catholic Priest that opposed the reformation.
lul
@@CC-iu7sq one time I said that Wescott and Hort were Anglicans. Just like all of the translators of the King James Bible..... He replied yes, but all of the translators of the King James Bible were different kind of Anglicans than Westcott and Hort ... 😂
@@kdeh21803 The Translators, like all other Protestant scholars at the time, actually still considered themselves Catholics at the time of the translation.
Fun part of reformation history, it wasn’t until a decade after Martin Luther began the movement when the term “Protestant” even surfaced as a label. Early reformers, including the COE who included the KJV Translators, technically referred to themselves as the “True Catholic Church” as it was a reformation, not a separatist movement. The term Protestant was actually an insult label coined by the RCC.
This is why in the KJV preface, the translators would only refer to their Catholic Opposition as “Romanists” and not Catholics.
It likely would’ve been around a century in passing when Protestants dropped the Catholic label as they moved farther from the RCC.
Such a fun time of history to study.
And the part where Erasmus dedicated his New Testament to the pope......
I have the giggles watching this video. Dr. Ward, you have so much patience in your replies to the rude comments to you.
I feel sorry for people who sin like that, I really do.
Way more than I ever will, that's for sure! (Until I get to Glory.)
So I shouldn't read the New King James Bible just because Jesus' name appears as the 7th word of the New Testament, and it also appears as the 7th to last word of Revelation? Meaning the NKJV is numerically perfect?..... Now I have to rethink my life.
Is the verse in Colossians an example of the Granville Sharp rule?
Good question! Don't have time to look it up at the moment! You do it and tell me, brother! ;)
Mark, I was wondering what your opinion might be of a argument I created that I think kills not only 7th day Adventism but also King James Onlyism. It is the last live stream I did. You can skip the first couple of minutes, hear me just fine at 2.0 speed, and watch up to the 43:00 mark.
It covers Daniel 8:14 and Daniel 8:26.
In the description I wrote out most of my argument
NKJV stands alongside the ESV as my favorite translation. Not sure which one I would take if someone put a gun to my head.
Both are great! And very similar!
Let me help - take the NKJV.
Take the Gideon ESV!
@ianholloway3778 the little well-known version of the ESV with TR verses from the KJV/NKJV. 👍🏻
First; again, a cogent, articulate defense of an issue that really, that shouldn't have to be defended - thank you for what must be sometimes frustrating and tiresome work. Secondly, my Presbytery has many Majority Text advocates - so many, that for the purposes of unity, we choose to use only translations based on that tradition in our official meetings (just like our conscious choice of only singing the canonical Psalms because some of the brethren believe in Exclusive Psalmody). However individual ministers, and their churches are free to use whatever translations (or hymns) that they believe most glorifies God. Furthermore, though some of our oldest members still use KJV, the NKJV is used by most of our Presbyters. So here in the hinterlands of Evangelical Confessional Presbyterianism we do have that balance you recommend; those who are committed to the Majority Text and yet embrace the NKJV. From the "For what it is worth" department.
Regarding the three passages noted that they may come from the critical text, the KJV is not a full-blown translation. The translators were given the bishops Bible and then they made changes to the bishops Bible as they compared it to the TR. In those three verses, does the bishops Bible have The so-called critical text variations. And then the NKJV translators were simply modernizing where needed these three verses and didn't catch the difference.
Mark, when you reference the TR you don't specify which edition you are referencing. I assume your are speaking of Scrivener's 1890s version, but if that is wrong it will be helpful for you to be specific to a particular edition. I don't know but I think the KJV folks may be relying upon the Elzevir 1633 edition or Beza's 1598 Edition. Also, I believe the currently recognized Critical Texts are the N28 and the latest UBS and I assume that they are what you are referring to rather than Westcott and Hort when you mention the CT. However, the KJV folks may be referring to an earlier edition since they don't seem to like Westcott and Hort. I'm not sure what the CT was before Westcott and Hort. Always enjoy your channel.
KJV-Only folks use Scrivener almost always, because it matches the KJV. I do have some videos where I discuss this, but the topic does not predominate on my channel. Here's one: ruclips.net/video/qxkSifAEeL0/видео.html
concerning Col 3:17. Kai is contained in the RP Byzantine text. However, BEZA omit's it in his 1598 edition.
Not being a calvinist or an arminian, (Calvary Chapel) I'm always on the lookout for non-sectarian primarily historical study bibles. Is the Evangelical study bible a fair one?
It's an update of the Thomas Nelson KJV Study Bible (which was slanted toward dispensationalism), so it is most certainly not "non-sectarian" or "primarily historical."
Among NKJV BIbles, the only two I know that are non-sectarian and primarily historical are the Chronological Study Bible and the Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible.
This is an inconsistency that I will and have acknowledged in view. I realized a few years ago that if “the text is the issue” then I needed to live what I claimed to believe.
I have been reading the NKJV and MEV along with my KJV for a few years now, and I’ve benefited from it.
Praise God, brother! I have no argument with you. I am fine with those who use the TR! I use it every day! And if you use it exclusively, I still have no argument with you.
Wherever there is division in the body there is illness.
Matthew 12:30
He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
(KJV)
He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad. (NKJV)
Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.
(ESV)
Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.
(NET)
He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters.
(NASB)
He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters.
(LSB)
It is not exact word choice, but the scatters that matters.
If you truly love The Lord Jesus, The King of Glory, you do not want to be found against Him.
Cannot God's Spirit speak to us through various translations?
He can and does.
Anyone who isn’t with me opposes me, and anyone who isn’t working with me is actually working against me. (NLT)
You left out a version.... I guess it is not the "scattering" that matters.
@@casey1167 NLT is dynamic. Michael was citing formal equivalent translations.
@@hayfieldhermit9657 This is not a "Formal v. Dynamic" variant. It is a change in meaning of the verse. "Scatter" is not some archaic word, or some word not used in common English today.
@@casey1167 I don't use the NLT. I was just pointing out that the NLT isn't in the same translation philosophy category.
@@hayfieldhermit9657 My point is the translation philosophy should not change the meaning to a verse in English.
Dr. Ward,
Bluntly, the truth you present has convinced me to lighten my position on the exclusive use of the King James. I recognize that a plurality of translations is good, generally speaking. I am still wary of less literal translations but that might be my exegetical preacher instincts showing.
With that said, I have two things - other than the fact that I just love it and it’s the only Bible I’ve read since conversion in my late teen years - that are keeping me using the KJV the vast majority of the time.
1. While I can’t say that I’ve gathered all the information I need to make a final assessment, I do lean towards a majority text preferred position. I believe it was a conversations that you are your scholarly friends had with a Dr. Robinson (am I remembering that name correctly?) that introduced me to the majority text thought. I understand that the TR stream is not the same as the Majority text stream, but to my knowledge, they are closer than the Majority text and the Critical text are. Without an English translation from the Majority text, again to my knowledge, an English translation from the TR is the closest thing.
2. While I agree that newer translations from the TR, like the NKJV or the MEV, put the Bible in the “vulgar” language of today. To that respect, you are absolutely right. And that is an admirable goal and one of the sparks of the Protestant Reformation, of which we are most thankful.
But, if I could hop on a bit of a hobby horse for a little while - I am an Independent Baptist after all - and advocate for the use of the KJV in modern churches still. American evangelicalism is suffering from an identity crisis. We don’t know who we are, frankly. And IFB-ism is definitely guilty of this charge as well. We would do well to moor ourselves to our history. And for us, our Protestant and Baptist history. I don’t want the Bible to be unnecessarily difficult to read and in fact I really don’t think the KjV is quite there. While I understand there could be some language hurdles, false friends and dead words, I think the benefit of reading the KJV outweighs the negatives. I’m rambling, so I’ll try to wrap this up. I understand you don’t advocate for a “never-KJV” position and you still read and love it and see the value in it. We both agree it’s a great translation, accurate and faithful to the underlying text.
Let me summarize by asking a question:
Do you think that it is a viable position for a church to choose the KJV as it’s preferred (and thus exclusive) version for public preaching and teaching for the sake of tradition and history, while encouraging other translations during private study and devotion?
This is an EXCELLENT and very fair question. I beg for a little time to answer!
@@markwardonwords Absolutely. Oh and one more note, I really do love the “thee/thou/ye/you” distinction the KJV makes. It’s a shame more KJV readers don’t understand the T - singular, Y - plural distinction. You have clearly shown the incompetency of most KJVO leaders in reading the very text they hold so dear. Despite those inadequacies, I do still think it’s a important distinction that tips the scales in the KJV direction a little more for me.
Could you do the NLT (New Living Translation) please💁🏾 I’m memorising Psalm 37 in NKJV but I want to memorise the Book of Ephesians from the NLT as that version is more easily understood by me but, I keep getting a “check” in my spirit when I think about it👀🤔🇬🇧
Go for it. I am indeed planning a video on the NLT, but it will be a good while.
Memorizing from the NLT and understanding Psalm 37 better are good things. You have liberty in Christ to memorize Scripture from the NLT!
I don't think there's such a critter as a "more responsible" KJOist. By definition, if you are an 'onlyist,' you've lost your claim on being responsible. I do think there are virulent and non-virulent ones, but that's a different outcome than responsibility. In other words, there are KJOists and there are KJOists who aren't angry about it.
I have been listening to several of your videos and this is my absolute favorite. This error needs to be debunked and sadly it is repeated and re-repeated constantly.
This is greatly appreciated, Scott!
I came to; was brought to Christ as a grown man. The NKJV was the first Bible I purchased. In no way did the foot notes or the explanations of differences in translated Texts lower my faith in the Bible being the Word of God. In fact it increased my confidence. The differences are so minor as to have no effect on the overall Scriptural message. With that said, it is important to care and to preserve what we do have...
Excellent comment. Love this.
Yes huh. 😂😂😂
Perfect response.
I had the NKJV ripped away from me over its reading of 2 Tim 2:15 . Unfortunately, those who led me to Christ took away the very bible that was feeding me. I was shown my NKJVs translation of "Be diligent " to the kjvs "Study" and asked, "Does that mean the same thing to you ?" .
Then I was told how the NKJV was corrupt and that only the KJV was the right one?
I was stuck and hobbled for 8+ years. Even after the Lord brought me out from that frame of mind, it took years to let go.
I still, to this day, have a weird attachment to the KJV and always will . It's like there is a little Onlyest on my shoulder that whispers in my ear...
"I don't know if you should trust that reading, let's go look at that verse in the ole KJV" 😂
I love the poetic flow but hunger for simple changes that would make it so much better.
I would like to see someone keep the old English but replace the archaic words and false friends.
And the terrible irony is that "study" in 1611 meant what "be diligent" means today. =(
Nothing wrong with 2 or 3 versions for study to clarify meanings. Also a Greek Interlinear may help too. 😇
They ripped it away from you because they didn't know how the word "study" was used hundreds of years ago, because they weren't diligent to study it out...... Wow. Very sad.
@markwardonwords It works best on the new babes in Christ . They get you when you have strong hunger for God's word but are not yet wise enough to understand the meaning of things.
For me, KJVO was like the Movie Misery, they took the sledgehammer and placed a board between my spiritual feet .
Hindered my walk , that's how I see it for so many unfortunate Christians.
Could you help me understand Matthew 6:10? I recently heard someone point out that the KJV states “IN earth, as it is in heaven.” And the NKJV says “ON earth as it is in heaven.” They were pointing out the “in” versus “on” of the two translations, and how they mean different things. I tried to research it myself but couldn’t find much about it and am not sure I was referencing the right material/sources. The interlinear I was looking at showed “in” as the original word. Pardon my naivety.
This is a good question. Check out my video on The Mark of the Beast for an answer: ruclips.net/video/eoeHbmaY2gw/видео.html
Thank you very much!
This is a case where English usage has changed. We hardly ever say that someone is "in earth" anymore.
I would love to see a video on the differences in the NKJV between the translator's usage of the two different Old Testament textual basis. Even if the differences are minor, it could be very useful when dispelling skepticism around the excellent NKJV and instilling confidence in the translation. 15:50
The argument that the NKJV leans toward the CT in key verses isn’t even a good argument.
Let’s assume it’s true.
There’s over 60 recorded passages where the KJV Translators sided with the Latin Vulgate over the course of the translation of the entire Bible. They used it for far more than 60 instances, but this is the number I’ve found to where they chose the LV OVER the TR / MT due to disagreement or simply phrases that were missing from the TR. (J 10:16)
In total, there’s over 2,000 recorded instances where they deviate from the underlying texts.
They also consulted with the Geneva and Tyndale translations and they directly transferred roughly 60% of their translational decisions from the Bishop Bible, which according to KJVOists, is an imperfect and corrupt version. (Sam G).
Keep the logic consistent and apply it to their own argument.
I should probably have turned this sword the other way, yes. Maybe I'll do so in a future video. But my goal here is not to diminish anyone's trust in the KJV, despite what my detractors think!
@@markwardonwords Not at all! This was my rambling during my listen to the video.
I was just point out the lack of logical consistency in their argument.
Thank you, Mark. The NKJV is my favourite TR translation.
It's a good choice!
It seems as if the KJ Only must believe that the predominantly Church of England translators were not at all biased in any of the translation choices they made in the KJV. I tend to feel that a new translation such as the NIV would tend to be less biased due to the translators not being from only one group. I see history being rewritten to support extreme views on Bible translation choices as well as political views. Too few look into the truth of things as you do which is why I find your videos so informative. I was raised on KJV but now prefer the NASB, NKJV and for just daily reading versus study the NIV works well for me.
RIGHT!
My go-to translation.
It's a good choice!
I’m a recent subscriber, love your videos! So informative!
Man are you in for a treat! Mark is great.
The critical text = the opposite text. What bizarre framing that must be to someone just coming into this debate, considering how similar they really are on a broad scale.
RIGHT!
@@markwardonwords Also, how do the "Big 3" deviations compare to the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Majority text? I checked the World English Bible which is ostensibly based on that and Hodges-Farstad and it looks like the NKJV.
@@socksthemusicalcat There are a few notable differences. The World English Bible places Luke 17.36, Acts 8.37, and Acts 15.34 in the footnotes. It transposes Romans 16.25-27 to the ending of Romans 14 (in agreement with the Byzantine text against the Alexandrian text, Textus Receptus, and Vulgate). It also omits the three heavenly witnesses from 1 John 5.7, and it doesn't follow the notable TR readings in Revelation (1.8, 16.5, and 22.19).
@@MAMoreno Sorry, I might not have been clear. What I meant to suggest was that the NKJV may have been following a Byzantine Majority reading that happens to line up with the Critical Text at the 3 places where Mark noted it matching the Critical Text over the KJV. My reasoning was that the World English Bible, which ostensibly follows some form of Byzantine Priority/Majority Text methodology in the New Testament, matched well with the NKJV at these three spots. However, now that I am off of work, I checked my digital edition of Robinson-Pierpont, and it seems to match exactly with Scrivener's TR in each case. So I guess it really is just a minuscule oversight that ended up influencing WEB.
I will save my thoughts for our meeting this evening. I am looking forward to meeting with you.
It was great to chat with you, Brett! May the Lord comfort you in this time of loss.
@markwardonwords
Always a pleasure to meet with you Mark.
My NKJV says in the preface, " (1) NU Text: These variations generally represent the Alexandrian or Egyptian text type as found in critical text published in the twenty-sixth edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (N) and the United Bible Societies third edition (U)." At least if they used the Critical Text it is noted. Another question: Is the Critical Text (Alexandrian) truly from the Gnostics? There was a large organization of Gnostics in Alexandria, so older isn't necessarily better. My new NASB 2020 and the NRSV ue both do not list the NU texts or Alexandrian Critical Texts in their prefaces.
You have asked an excellent but complicated question. I strongly encourage you to pick up this short book for the answer: www.amazon.com/dp/1433564092?tag=3755-20
The NRSVue preface says, "For the New Testament, the team based its work on three recent editions of the Greek New Testament: (1) The Greek New Testament, 5th revised edition (United Bible Societies, 2014); (2) The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition (Society of Biblical Literature and Logos Bible Software, 2010); and, (3) for Acts and the Catholic Letters, Novum Testamentum Graecum: Editio Critica Maior (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2013, 2017)."
That first one is the "U" in the "NU" of the NKJV's notes. While the NKJV consulted the third edition, the NRSVue used the fifth edition.
Meanwhile, the NASB 2020 edition states, "In most instances the 28th edition of the Nestle-Aland NOVUM TESTAMENTUM GRAECE was followed. For Acts and the General Epistles, the Editio Critica Maior (ECM) was followed in most instances."
Again, they used a more up-to-date edition of the Nestle-Aland text ("N" in "NU") than the NKJV did. And we see that both of these updated English translations have used the ECM alongside the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies texts, which means that they are making use of the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method (an approach that was not yet employed when the NKJV came out).
I suspect most of the "NJKV is a critical text version" comes from misunderstanding. One KJV advocate says it agrees with the "Alexandrian versions" in many places. The next takes that to mean that the NKJV is based on Alexandrian manuscripts.
It is a genuine problem-I've encountered it over and over-that many people (not just KJV defenders) who see that a given modern translation doesn't say exactly what the KJV does simply do not know how to tell the difference between a difference caused by text and one caused by translation choice.
@@markwardonwords In addition to that, Peter Ruckman promoted the idea that "Alexandrian" referred not simply to a group of texts, but to an ancient heretical mindset that was re-introduced by apostate scholars looking to corrupt the Bible. The English versions themselves became "Alexandrian" in every decision they made, whether it was based on a textual issue or an interpretation issue.
(And it seems that "Alexandrian" is also equated with "Jesuit" in some circles, as if one big conspiracy theory weren't enough.)
There are plenty of academics and experts who mock the KJV and NKJV for their translations being taken from just 12-15 manuscripts. Although that was all that was available to the KJV translators neither version has kept pace with with manuscripts now available.
Just ordered a nkjv compact bible yesterday, luckily...it has 10.5 font... So I shouldn't have to squint.
Kjvo which TR text is the true one? WHY DID PORTUOBS OF THE 1611 KJV TEXT BRING OCER PASSAFES FROM LATIN VULGATE AND IN SOME PASSAGES STILL UNKNOWN where it came into the translation?
Oh my! I can learn the wonderful words of God in any translation. Woot! Full disclosure, i learned Greek from the guy who translated the book of James for NKJV.
Nice!
whats wrong with using both the critical and the tr? i mean did satan write the critical text or something?
I don't understand why educated people can be so blind. I do know one thing God's word tells us we are supposed to be of one mind and one accord. It's kinda sad if you think about it. So many of our Lords teachings being ignored.I use both Nkjv and KJV when I teach my Bible study class. And explain any difference between the two. But sir like you point out we are brothers and sisters in Christ I think that should be the most important thing. Thank you for your time and God bless.
My pastor jokes about the NKJV and ask “is it a new Jesus?” He says he’s not KJVO but in practice he is. You know him….
I like your videos. I'm not sure why in this one you needed to mention Trump's hyperbole, "the Bible Trump is pushing', "Ronald Trump', etc...
Have you seen a KJP press conference? My goodness.
Point taken, my friend! I believe this is the one video where I used current political illustrations!
@markwardonwords it just happened to be the one i watched today (great video, still) and things are heating up in that arena. :) I certainly am not advocating for or against Trump. I'm a bit like Treebeard on the matter. :)
@@Railroader_KS ✔
I once came across a very lengthy piece entitled "The False Witness of G. A. Riplinger's Death Certificate for the New King James Version" several years ago which I think was written by Executive Editor of the NKJV Arthur Farstad (according to what I have, it's a work revised in 1997). I can't find it anywhere online now, but I copied and pasted it into WordPad and still have it on my computer.
It is a very detailed reply to Riplinger's false accusations against the NKJV through her dreadful "New Age Bible Versions" book, and makes it abundantly clear what the translators of that version followed, and the reasons they had for making decisions they did when the results differed from the KJV. I've found it extremely informative.
Care to share?
@@markwardonwords Sure! Do you have an email address I could send it to?
@@markwardonwords Sure! Do you have an email address?
@@TheDoctor394 Right now I can't give it out; I just get too much email! The only way to get me a file right now is this link, which will expire in two days: bit.ly/3YdXMlm.
Thank you for sending this!
@@markwardonwords Hi Mark. Sorry, I actually initially replied on the weekend after your response, but only just found out that it didn't appear for some reason.
I'm sending the document now. Just to let you know that, due to it being copied and pasted from a website onto WordPad, it's a bit messy, with the occasional sentence unfinished, etc, and the endnotes are pretty untidy. Over time, as I've read through it, I have done some editing to tidy it up a bit (without changing anything actually said, of course).
I hope it is helpful though.
One more piece of evidence is that scholars, seminaries, and pastors that embrace the TC do not embrace the NKJV for that same reason. If indeed it leaned toward the TC, then the TC's aficionados would be more accepting of it. Ironic in light of the KJVos' silly accusation that it's too TC-leaning.
Thanks for this, Mark. I have heard that argument against the NKJV, but never knew what to make of it until now.
Interestingly, it wasn’t until about two years ago that I had any idea that there was such a thing as KJVonlism. I grew up in a Baptist church where my pastor read from J.B. Phillips and my seminary professors chose the red hardback RSV for our study. I have preached for over 40 years from the GNB, RSV, and primarily the '84 NIV. It seems like the flock is being fed from all of them.
KJVonly!!??
@@murrydixon5221 All of them are a mixture of both.
@murrydixon5221 Good question, and worthy of an answer.
The GNB was the one I used in the '70s, in lieu of the Living Bible when I was in Middle School, High School and College. As a *very* young pastor, I used it for the first several months of my career, before switching to the RSV I used in seminary, and then in about 1991 I went to the NIV.
So, I didn't use it long, but I do believe the Lord used it to bless during the time I used it.
Blessings! I appreciate you asking!
@@murrydixon5221 Ah, yes! I have that exact same Bible sitting on my shelf. Had it since 1977.
@murrydixon5221 Well, besides a full set of commentaries, if we are talking about study Bibles, I would say the ESV Study Bible, the Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, the NIV Study Bible, and the NET Bible Full Notes Edition.
@@murrydixon5221 You are very welcome. May your studies be fruitful!
In my opinion this is one of your best videos yet brother Mark. My KJV of preference is the Cambridge Concord. It has a great concordance, very good Bible dictionary, and center column references which includes the translator's notes. I noticed that at Rev. 22: 19 in the center column references, the translators have this: 19- out of the book... or, from the tree of life. So apparently the KJV translators knew of the alternate reading- "tree of life" but chose to go with " book of life". Those who are KJV only probably disagree with the translators for even including this in their notes. I have three Bibles sitting on my desk that I use pretty much everyday; the KJV, NKJV, and the ESV. I admit that I'm more familiar with the KJV since that's what I grew up with, but I like and use the NKJV, and I really do like the way the ESV reads and flows with the text, even though it's based on the critical text. Hang in there brother, and don't get discouraged because of those who criticize you. God bless.
The Revelation 22.19 note was added by a later editor of the KJV, not the original translators, but it has appeared in a number of KJV editions over the centuries. For instance, it was present in the Blayney 1769 edition from Oxford.
@@MAMoreno Yes, very good observation. Perhaps it was Dr. Blayney himself who was the first to add that note, although I could be wrong.
@@eclipsesonic I've found it in a few Oxford editions before 1769, but I haven't seen it showing up before 1760. It might have been someone at Oxford, or it might have been Dr. Parris at Cambridge. (I can't find a scan of his edition.)
@@MAMoreno Interesting. Thanks for the info. 👍
@@MAMoreno You may be right about that, but I also have the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible, edited by David Norton, and, according to the preface, the only margin notes that he retained was the original translator's notes. Rev. 22:19 has the same margin note as my Cambridge Concord, and it's the only margin note in Rev. 22. It simply says, 19- out of the book: or, from the tree of life.
16EleEn RonAld tRUmp. Haha. Thanks for the laugh, Mark. Nothing like the KJV version of the Bible Code. ;)
Glad to bring some levity to this sad world. ;)
I imagine them at a cathedral doing da vinci code stuff, looking for the holy grail..... nevermind Christ told us how to drink of his cup (apparently 1611 British tea was in it [maybe east india company Indian stock]).
I prefer the KJV, and it is what I read daily, but to say that NKJV and MEV are not based on the TR is only childish.
I think a main reason KJV people object to the NKJV is the same root reason they will always reject all other translations......they don't know how to have confidence in God or their own salvation unless they have the 1769 KJV revision in hand.... Because that's what they've been taught.
@@murrydixon5221 I should have said, "KJV Only People". I know a lot of people use it, that are not against using another translation.
@@murrydixon5221 I agree. What are the odds that KJV only people could come to an agreement together for what exactly a new revision should be?
Let’s Goooooooo!!!!! (as the youth say)
The NKJV is my primary version of choice. I do not like that the Critical text discounts the Byzantine (majority) text and excessively chooses minority readings through out . I do not like that the Critical text includes 60+ conjectural emendations. Nor do I like how much of a role the ideas and theories of modern scholars play in the constantly updated Critical text. I take a Majority text stance as it is the only position that rules out nearly all subjective bias and until we are given a quality, well supported Majority text translation I will continue to prefer the NKJV with its excellent footnotes. I do use Critical text translations for occasional study reference.
Can someone point me to why this loyalty exists for TR? Is there any legitimate reason why TR is believed to be objectively superior to CT? It sounds like this is bordering on idolatry to be this fanatical about a translation. Especially when you start attacking other believers for using a different translation. In my study I find the differences between TR and CT to be minor and change nothing about God’s plan of salvation. But CT does note verses that simply don’t have a solid basis. Even in these examples, it changes nothing about doctrine.
It's tradition, and tradition isn't necessarily a bad thing.
I will observe that almost all (99.999%) of the TR defenders I have met also insist on the exclusive use of the KJV. If they were really and truly TR-Only and not just KJV-Only, I'd expect to see some folks in the TR camp who prefer the NKJV or MEV. But they almost all reject these TR-based options. Why?
@@markwardonwordsmy Pastor is one who is TR preferred but uses the NKJV primarily but will still use the KJV as well. We use the NKJV in our regular services, but the KJV in collaborative efforts with the other fellowshipping churches in our area. This is done because many in my area are still heavily in the KJV camp, not because they are KJVO, but because of traditions with which they are unwilling to part.
@bradchymist5766 ✔ I’m glad to hear this. It’s a compromise I’d like to see more pastors make.
I feel like textual absolutists will still have an issue lol
They usually manage to do so, yes! ;)
The First Bible I received was a NKJv, it was really enjoyable(got it from Bible Club).
I love the NKJV. It's easy to follow.
Amen!
*"1611RonaldTrump"*
Oh yeah. That's me and my trusty ol’ KJV.
What about "Ye strain *_at_* a gnat"? The translator sent "strain *_out_* a gnat" but it was misprinted. So, do we "fix" *_at_* to *_out_* and bump all the numbers off by 1? (Note: The *Cambridge Paragraph Bible* replaced "at" with "out". Gotta love it.)
An asterisk is needed after your comment that "book of life" is not found in any Greek manuscript. EVERY reading of the TR is found in Greek manuscripts, precisely because there are a handful of Greek manuscripts which are themselves handwritten copies of one edition of the printed TR or another. Of course these have no value for textual criticism--other than providing an excellent opportunity to study scribal habits with a known exemplar, and that's nothing to sneeze at--but they do exist, and you could be accused of equivocation for not admitting that. Especially since KJ advocates like to mention them, without, of course, disclosing where they came from.
Yeah, I've noticed that Will Kinney loves to list every "Codex Erasmuscopyus" manuscript out there to back up his statistics. But you are right: they technically exist.
I think I'm still safe. It's clear enough what I mean! But I'm still glad to know this technicality so I don't get surprised with it in a debate or something.
I think you're too charitable to say this (though I believe you suspect it), but I'm not: in almost all cases, TR-onlyism is just a smokescreen for KJV-onlyism. Much as they protest to the contrary, it really isn't about the text. If it were, they'd have to accept different translations as legitimate, and that destroys their fiction of a perfectly-preserved Word. Ruckmanism is the only possible end of KJV-onlyism.
I started out thinking as you do, and God knows the hearts of people: surely there are many people who fit that description. But I have decided to treat the position as honest: my whole point about the NKJV relies on the existence of people who sincerely believe that the text is the issue. I do think this describes many, many dear brothers and sisters.
1611 Ronald Trump. It's close enough how could it be a coincidence😂
😂😂
Who is Ronald Trump?
Donald's long lost brother?
@@markwardonwords
Maybe his alter ego.
Regarding the NKJV having “our” instead of “the” common salvation here is what Going Deeper With NT Greek says “The Article Functioning as a Pronoun
While the article is not a pronoun as such, as mentioned above, it traces its origin back to the pronoun and in certain situations may function like a pronoun. Specifically, it may function as a (1) personal pronoun, (2) relative pronoun, (3) possessive pronoun, (4) demonstrative pronoun, and (5) alternate pronoun (this use is rare). The following examples will serve to illustrate the range of options.
1. Personal pronoun: οἱ δὲ εἶπαν αὐτῷ (“They told him”; Matt 2:5).
2. Relative pronoun: δοξάσωσιν τὸν πατέρα ὑμῶν τὸν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (“give glory to your Father who is in heaven”; Matt 5:16 ESV).
3. Possessive pronoun: ὁ δὲ διεῖλεν αὐτοῖς τὸν βίον (“And he divided his property between them”; Luke 15:12 ESV). This is a relatively common use of the article in the New Testament.
4. Demonstrative pronoun: οἱ δὲ ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ προσεκύνησαν αὐτῷ (“Then those in the boat worshiped Him”; Matt 14:33).
5. Alternate pronoun: καὶ αὐτὸς ἔδωκεν τοὺς μὲν ἀποστόλους, τοὺς δὲ προφήτας, τοὺς δὲ εὐαγγελιστάς, τοὺς δὲ ποιμένας καὶ διδασκάλους (“And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers”; Eph 4:11 NASB).”
Note that translating the article as a possessive pronoun is totally within the accepted translation practices and therefore need not require that the NKJV followed the CT.
Right. VERY good. I should have brought in a grammatical authority like you did. I appealed to precedent instead.
@@markwardonwords Not only is there grammatical authority, but there is in fact precedence for such a thing in the KJV itself!
I was reading 1 John today in a MEV/KJV parallel, and I noticed that in 1 John 4:17 the KJV translates "ἡ ἀγάπη" as "our love is made perfect" even though there is no 1st person plural possessive pronoun in Greek, whereas the NKJV translates it as "love has been perfected".
This is ironic because that means the KJV is doing the exact same thing with ἡ ἀγάπη as the NKJV did with τῆς κοινῆς σωτηρίας in Jude 1:3; translating the definite article with a possessive pronoun even though there is no explict stated possesive pronoun.
If the NKJV translators translating the article in Jude 1:3 as a possessive is a departure from the Textus Receptus, would not just and fair application of standards also demand that the KJV departed from the TR in 1 John 4:17 since they translated the article there as a possessive?
@@HebrewGreekKnowledge RIGHT! Just weights! Well done.
Lies like "The NKJV isn't a TR translation" are horrible. I nearly lost hope in Christianity a few decades ago over similar lies in another area. I wish people would just tell the truth.
On another note, do you know if the MEV is going to receive an update? I've heard rumors. It's a nice translation, but it needs one.
It finally got that update! It's now updated in YouVersion!
@@markwardonwords Thanks
@@murrydixon5221 Yes, it is. If you're on the YouVersion app, you may need to update it. If you're on the website, click on the "Learn More About Modern English Version" hyperlink at the bottom of the text block, and it should direct you toward the updated copyright notice. Then click on the "Read MEV" button to access the updated edition.
Thanks!
Thank you!
Keep up the good work, Mark. You are one of the most committed individuals to literacy I have ever encountered. It's important to note that the King James Bible (KJB) is not based on the Textus Receptus (TR) because it is not merely a version or translation; it is a compilation. The translators were instructed to use existing versions and make minimal changes. You surely know this, Mark. I'm puzzled as to why you would reject legitimate statistical and mathematical studies. As someone who has surely studied math and statistics, your stance is surprising. Granted, as Jesus revealed to Thomas, having absolute proof in order to believe is the lesser kind of faith. I taught in the mechanical engineering department at MSU Denver for 15 years, and I believe you have a wake-up call coming. Your steadfast secular and naturalistic perspectives continually amaze me. As a pastor for six years decades ago, I used the New King James Version (NKJV) throughout that period, though I no longer do so today. The KJB (not KJV) is composed of words that are not just ordinary; they are God’s fundamental vehicle of thought, expressed through speaking and writing. We breathe out words just as God did. This is why I prefer the exact order and expression found in the KJB. Best regards, dear friend. I still look forward to an opportunity to hear you speak in the vicinity of Denver, CO in the future.
"deliver my soul from the wicked, which is thy sword:
From men which are thy hand, O Lord, from men of the world,"
"Deliver my life from the wicked with Your sword,
With Your hand from men, O Lord,
From men of the world"
One is clear and one is not. Actually, taken how I read English, one reading might be heretical....