Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Answering the Best Critic of the NKJV
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 июн 2024
- 🎁 Help Mark Ward bring the Bible to the plow boy in his own English!
✅ / @markwardonwords
✅ / mlward
✅ buymeacoffee.com/mlward
👏 Many, many thanks to the RUclips channel members, Patreon supporters, and other givers who make this work possible!
▶ RUclips:
Andrew Brady, Drew Koske, GypsyFriend1, Sean Zimmermaker, Michael Foust, Matt Stidham, Glen Converse, Russell Edwards, Gregg Bell, Aaron Traw, Terry Basham, II, Applied Word with Dan Weston, David Shockley, wrjsn231, Matthew Mencel, Javier Caballero, Municipal Money Matters, I Make Your Video, SEL 65545, Dale Buchanan, Jeanine Drylie, Larry Castle, Christopher Scaparo, David H, Jesse and Leigh Davenport, Meghan Brown, Justin Bellars, Lynn Hartter, Alan Milnes, Lynn Stewart, Karen Duncan, Gregory Brown, Brad Ullner, David Podesta, Frank Hartmann, Tricia Maddox Behncke, Caleb Richardson, PAClassic87 95, James Duly, Todd Bryant, M.A. Moreno, whubertx, Joel Richardson, Orlando Vergel Jr, OSchrock, Eric Couture, Bryon Self, Average Gun Guy, Brad Dixon, Derek Ralston, Brent Zenthoefer, Reid Ferguson, James Goering, David Saxon, Travis Manhart, Josiah Dennis, I Make Your Video, judy couchman, Kimberly Miller, Jonathan Clemens, Robert Daniels, Tiny Bibles, ThatLittleBrownDog, Robert Gifford, GEN_Lee_Accepted, Lanny Faulkner, Benjamin Randolph
▶ PATREON:
Christopher Scaparo, Tricia Maddox Behncke, Gerald Fuentes, Kienan Maxfield, Mark Jerde, Paul Gibson, gnomax, Jake, Nathan Hall, D. H. Wallenstein, Keith Martin, Beth Benoit, Cody Hughes, Arvid D, Frank Hartmann, Thomas Jacobs, David Stein, Ruth Lammert, Andy B, Deborah Reinhardt, Desert Cross Tortoise Fox, Robert Daniels, Rick Erickson, Lanny M Faulkner, Lucas Key, Dave Thawley, William McAuliff, Razgriz, James Goering, Martyn Chamberlin, Edward Woods, Thomas Balzamo, Brent M Zenthoefer, Tyler Rolfe, Ruth Lammert, Gregory Nelson Chase, Caleb Farris, Jess English, Aaron Spence, John Day, Brent Karding, Steve McDowell, A.A., James Allman, Steven McDougal, Henry Jordan, Nathan Howard, Rich Weatherly, Joshua Witt, M.L., Tim Gresham, Luc + Eileen Shannon, Easy_Peasy , Jeremy Steinhart, Corey Henley, Luke Burgess, Joel, Joshua Bolch, Tyler Harrison, Angela Ruckman, Nathan N, Bryan Wilson, David Peterson, Eric Mossman, Jeremiah Mays, Caleb Dugan, Donna Ward, James D Leeper, Nate Patterson, Dennis Kendall, Michelle Lewis, Lewis Kiger, Dustin Burlet, Michael Butera, Miguel Lopez, CRB, Dean C Brown, MICHAEL L DUNAVANT, Jonathon Clemens, Jess Mainous, Brownfell, Leah Uerkwitz, Joshua Barzon, Benjamin Randolph
▶ BUY ME A COFFEE:
Stephen, Joshua, Cody, Evan, Robert, Joel, Brian, Michael, Stacey, Justin, Jason, Jimmy, Nathan, Kim, Carl, Tom, Zach, Frank, Jenna, DH, Robert, Papa D, Ben, Anirudh, John, Alan, Ben, Phil, Cody, Adam, Kayla, Sarah, Darlene, Caleb, Scott, Matthew, Dan, Jim, Sam, Anonymous (18x)
Note: some links used on this channel are referral links.
I thanketh thee, Mark, for thou exertions.
Verily thou art welcome.
Ahem... it's "thine" :D. I thank thee, Mark, for thine exertions. What's the point of knowing Elizabethan English if I can't be pedantic on the internet?
@@nerdyengineer7943
chuckle
Thank you, Mark for sharing your informed assessment of comparisons between the KJV and NKJV translations. I appreciate that you made every effort to present a balanced representation of each. Like you, I grew up with the KJV but these days, my bible study includes a full range of translations from formal to dynamic as well as from both Textus Receptus and Critical Text manuscripts.
Thank you, Brother Mark,for your graciousness. Always edifying.🌹⭐🌹
Thanks Mark for your always insightful views. I recently made a change from the KJV to NKJV as I found I was often making reference to my ESV, but when reading the NKJV I never have to do that. It is a joy to read. Thanks again.
Wonderful! Thanks for the kind word.
I really appreciate you and your ability to communicate important things so they are easier to understand. Reading and studying newer English translations has allowed me to grow in knowledge and faith! The Lord is glorified in your work. Thank you so much.
Wow, thank you! For the gift of those words, and the gift of that support!
I love the NKJV so much
Wait... what??? What happened? I thought you were settled on the KJV.
Great video... the short examples and your close was fantastic as well.
The early church had to deal with textual variants and various translation issues. There is no sense trying to conceal these from today's believers. God has given the church a kaleidoscope of manuscripts and the power of the Holy Spirit to interpret them. And as David Ross points out, not even God expects verbatim identicality in transmission. And all participants in this KJV/NKJV controversy need a big dose of 1 Corinthians 13 and James 3:17. Thanks for your hard work!😎👍🙏📖
I love your channel. Thank you!
Glad you enjoy it!
Awesome video! I appreciate your graciousness, attention to detail, diligence in study, and integrity in your message and upholding the reputation of others. And most of all I appreciate your work! God bless
Wow, thank you!
Keep up the good work! You look like a theological Ryan Reynolds. I mean that in the best way haha!
I love listening to your videos as well as Jonathan Burris' videos. It has awakened my inner word nerd and further increased my love of God's Word and motivated me to study even harder! Thank you!
Amazing. Thank you for this. I could listen to your sound arguments all day, although not needed since I agree. I feel your same frustrations.
That’s so kind! Thank you!
Great work brother. You always do good work.
Much appreciated!
Don’t sweat the length of your videos, Mark… I tend to watch them at 1.5x speed anyway. 😉 I appreciate your work, even though I’m not a Greek/Hebrew student, nor a pastor. Just a fellow Christian seeking to know God’s word better. I rotate through several different translations in my reading, from both TR and CT, and I find the *differences* are often key in helping me know when I need to dig deeper into why certain choices were made by translators (ie, tachash as Tabernacle covering) or the divergent readings of Proverbs 6:26. Your videos help tremendously, so please keep up the good work. 👍🏼
Yes! That's the right way forward! Love this!
Thank you pastor Ward for giving the NKJV its due as possibly the most transformative bible translation. It is the Swiss army of bible translations. Love to see your take on how good pastor Art Farstad and his brother using bible software transformed the NKJV to modern text of the HCSB ( and not the CSB).
Thy knowledge that thou hath exalted towards thee hath pleased thee and thanketh ye
Very thorough and gracious as always. The first point touched on one of two recent affectations that I'm not a fan of: red letters and pronoun capitalizations for Deity. My four favorite translations are, alphabetically, the BSB, ESV, NASB '95, and NKJV, three of which use these capitalizations. 2 Thes 2:7 in the NKJV capitalizes the pronoun referring to the restrainer, reflecting the dispensational interpretation of its primary scholars Farstad and Hodges, which sees the restrainer as the Holy Spirit who departs at the "rapture". The casual reader likely has no idea that this trait is not supported by the original languages but instead reflects the translators' interpretation. There are, though, things about which one can quibble with any translation, including my favorites, and the NKJV stands as one of the best. Looking forward to the next video. Thanks!
An excellent rendering of עזר כנגדו ("help meet for him;" "helper comparable to him") in contemporary English is "his counterpart," since the Hebrew phrase very literally means "helper over against him."
I, like many others, grew up with the KJV, and I still use it and still love it. I have a NKJV and have used it for daily reading, and study; and I like it. But, to be honest, for my daily reading and in depth study, I actually prefer the ESV. I like the way it reads better than the NKJV. I know that doesn't sit well with many who prefer the traditional text, and I understand. I have three Bibles sitting on my desk and I use all of them pretty much every day; the KJV, the RSV 2nd Catholic edition( I'm not Catholic), and the ESV. But of the three, I use the ESV the most. God bless all who are in Christ Jesus, regardless of which English Bible you prefer. Live the faith!
Helper vs comforter was more due to the copyright issue since the word comforter is one of the words that are a collaboration of words meaning the same thing; I personally like the word "comforter" better but when you think about what the Text is really saying about the holy Spirit you understand that "helper" is a better word
As a Confessional Lutheran who uses the NKJV primarily (and will often juxtapose it against the KJV and ESV), I really appreciate your exposition.
Thank you!
Apparently the update of the MEV is finally finished.
Yes, I heard!
I’d love to see the newest MEV update in Logos.
@@markwardonwords Mark, I have some material from a faithful KJV pastor who has been critical of the MEV. Do you want it? I know you are trying to slow down but thought you might still be interested. Thanks
When???????
Is the MEV available in print anymore? I only see used versions on Amazon at very high prices. I have on my Bible app but would like having in print also. Thank you!
A sterling and fastidious presentation! Awesome!
Glad you enjoyed it!
That's a word that's almost died. I don't think I've heard it used without silver since I was a kid (80s).
Another great video on the NKJV, Mark. Good work. 👍 I'm wondering if you would ever do a response video to Steven Anderson's documentary, New World Order Bible Versions (that was released about 10 years ago) segment on the NKJV? His claims include things like removing words present in the KJV, such as Lord, the blood, testament, etc, as well as using harder words for seemingly easier words that the KJV uses in certain verses. It's at 1:15:23 in his documentary. You can find it on RUclips.
He has addressed these issues in other videos. I find it hardly worth lending any credence to Steven Anderson. He clearly does not bear the fruits of the Spirit.
@@bobbymiller7242 I agree with your assessment of Steven Anderson.
Love your commentaries, but a question arises as to which modern version will not lead a reader to the Good News/salvation, etc.? I had a person ask me this question. Which version(s) trash doctrines? It isn't that simple! Sometimes it seems to be 'splitting hairs' and all that. I find your research fascinating, and actually more of us should question some of these things. What should I say? Today, I was planning on a study with NKJV & NASB2020 just to see if enlightenment happens. Just studying two or more versions together helps me, anyway. By the way, perhaps you know this: The OSB (Orthodox Study Bible) uses the Septuagint in a large portion of the Old Testament. 🤓
Loved the shout out to The Sound of Music!-which, I assume, all right-thinking people of God can agree is an awesome film for the ages.
Great video, I haven't finished it yet but a lot of good points are being raised. I've struggled a lot recently with picking a translation and end up changing translation more than reading the bible...
Any advice on this, or how to just pick one and read it please?
Which translation does your church use in sermons?
Which translation does your church use in Sunday School?
Do you prefer the translation to sound traditional?
Do you prefer the translation to sound contemporary?
These questions might be a place to start.
MA is right, as usual! Thank you, MA!
Sir i appreciate your work here. I use the KJV EW Bullinger Companion Bible for reading and study. I like to keep it simple and appreciate Bullingers work in his appendices. I think we all stand accountable to God himself.
I don't share Bullinger's ultra dispensationalism, but I got a copy of this monumental work 40 years ago when it was still published by Zondervan. I've benefitted greatly by many of Bullinger's insights and have appreciated his love for God's word.
@35:00 ish, you revealed a very important distinction in the translations. I''ve always heard the phrase "help meet" as thought it were a noun in the KJV churches. I've heard something like "The wife is the husband's help meet..." not "helper", which is where the sentence should end. I can see that she could be "comparable to", "suitable for" or "complimentary to" her husband. All of those make sense. I never heard the word "meet" used, even in a sermon, as another part of speech from the "help".
In LOGOS, I created a "dictionary" highlighting style. When I find words I want to better understand, most often in the KJV, but also in books and other translations, I highlight the word with the dictionary word. This underlines the word in brown and prints out the definition in brown background next to the word.
I would have tried to define "help meet" as though I were defining a "table saw" or "saw buck", two words that define a single noun.
@37:00 the "righteousness of the law", His argument is meaningless since the KJV added many words to clarify the text. For example, who killed Goliath? In 2 Sam 22.19, the KJV added the words "the brother of" where the actual text only says
19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, a Beth-lehemite, slew (i) the brother of (/i) Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.
(2 Samuel 21:19, KJV)
This is the verse that triggered me to look into leaving the KJO mindset. I think KJO did the right thing by adding the words in italics. I think most other translations should have done the same. I find it hypocritical for KJOs to say its wrong for a different interpretation to add clarifying words while the KJV does the same thing.
As for "righteous requirements" vs "righteousness", I don't see a difference in this context.
I don't see how someone cannot understand that in most cases, "seed" means "man's descendant" except where someone spilled his seed on the ground. Except for Jesus, all "seed" comes from man, the father, but Jesus is the only "seed" of a woman.
@40:00 ?Suratt? It sounds like he is saying that I will not fully understand the KJV 37% of the time because of the archaic or chosen words. Which, is why I reference many different translations and no longer am I KJO.
@41:00 would the 6th point be that one would have to understand the use of the words to each culture at the time they were written?
For example, you understand what I mean when I say we are fast approaching, if not living 1984 right now. I would guess that you understand me but what about the younger generation and people from other parts of the world. They might think I have a memory problem and don't know what year this is. I have a friend who, when we talk about current events, I get to the point of saying, "Yep, it's 1984."
Thanks for your critique. When faced with an argument about KJO, I'm often confronted with the question about if the KJV is not "God's Preserved or inerrant Word", then which translation is? You don't have one and believe the verse is not true.
My response is that it is a fact that the King James translators did not have perfect, inerrant copies of the original autographs. They had to pick and choose, or even combine errant manuscripts to make up the text they translated into English just as modern translators do today.
Most of the KJO's I deal with, and really, it isn't that many, are only KJO because that's their church's position. They don't have a grasp as to why, unless it is superficial and unattributed arguments. They never convert, nor do I try to make them. Some consider me Satan, but most appreciate that I typically know and can use the KJV as well as they do and we discuss more important things.
I like the IDEA behind the World English Bible because it was translated via public forums in the modern Internet era.
Can you imagine a reddit forum updating a Bible Translation?
i really like the NKJV
Me too!
I use NKJV, NLT, KJV, CSB and NASB95. I find using together is very helpful, less so the CSB as far as study. I find my bible app, set to MacArthur study Bible and different translations really helps in understanding the Word.
All good tools for Bible study! Great!
What are KJVo’s arguments on earlier translations, like GNV
Do you have a video on that?
In my experience, they don't ever get into the details. They say that if a Bible was from the TR, it's ok. But they don't address places where the Geneva Bible or Tyndale make different textual or translation decisions than the KJV.
Would it come short if majorly or all of my readings and study are from NKJV? I once used the NASB then ESV and now NKJV and this is for now my favorite haha
No. You will do fine on the NKJV!
Well done with the English accent! 46:35 One of the less painful attempts by an American. (It was more convincing than my American accent anyway!)
Ha! Thank you!
Great work Mark. I do love the KJV and I utilize other translations. I believe the biggest issue with the KJVO crowd is people giving them too much attention. If the attention is suffocated then they will shrivel into the fringe.
Unfortunately, this is a large group of thousands of people who are having children. Those poor kids are being brought up in the bondage of legalism. Pastor Jonathan Burris is an example of a former KJVO man who has two kids. He, his wife and thankfully their children have been delivered. That’s why I believe in ministries like this. People are being helped out of legalistic bondage through this kind of engagement.
@@carolbarlow8896 Here in the Dakotas and Iowa the KJO position seems to be growing. They attempted to gain a foothold in my church until we caught on.
Mark, have you made any videos on the 1885 Revised Version? I'd be very interested to hear you judgment of the revisions, as well as the accuracy, readability, intelligibility and literary quality of the text. It seems to me that much of what we hear about this translation today tends to repeat opinions formed more than 100 years ago in the context of resistance to updating the KJV. I'd love to hear a contemporary re-evaluation!
I suspect that Mark's concern with intelligibility would weigh against the RV simply because of its insistence on remaining in Early Modern English (despite its updating of many false friends).
MA is right. And I really haven't spend significant time on the ERV. =|
Here soon I will be swapping to the NKJV from the KJV for the Bible in my home.
Mark, as you slide out of the KJVO debate circle, I look forward to more coverage on other translations, such as the NKJV!
Also want to see some about the NLT. I haven’t seen you speak on that translation much. But that’s the one translation that I actually cringe at when I see quotes of it. I know it’s dynamic equivalent, but something about it is so different than the NIV that makes me cringe a little lol!
It's technically a paraphrase and not a translation, despite the name. It's just a revision of the original Living Bible. And that was certainly cringe worthy!
@@Nick-wn1xw gotcha. Yeah it’s just. Meh.
I definitely prefer formal equivalent translations. ESV, KJV and NKJV, notably.
Thank you for the encouraging words-and for the nudge to do more on the NLT.
@@Nick-wn1xw The NLT is considered to be a new translation not a paraphrase. It did start out as a revision of the Living Bible (Which was a paraphrase of the ASV.) but it was decided by the translators that it should be a completely new work. The first edition contained some phrasing similar to the Living Bible but these have been removed in subsequent revisions.
There is a difference between a paraphrase and a dynamic equivalent.
If you're going to use "paraphrase" so lously, then all translations are paraphrased.
And in defense of dynamic equivalent translations:
Formal equivalent (aka Word for word) tries to be more accurate to the words chosen by the author
Dynamic equivalent (aka thought for thought) tries to be more accurate to the intended experience of the author for the reader.
Both are important in their own way.
We Christians tend to forget that when the originals were read, people didn't hear something like "Yoda-speak" or need dictionaries to understand.
A great example is 2 Cor 1:22.
In the NKJV it says God gave the holy spirit as a "guarantee", but of what?
The Greek word here has no direct equivalent in English (at least not one used anymore).
So without a commentary, you're left with a very truncated text.
But a Dynamic equivalent is free from the arbitrary rule of "one word to replace one word" and can simply make it as plain as the original reader/listener would have heard it.
2 Corinthians 1:22 (NLT): and he has identified us as his own by placing the Holy Spirit in our hearts as the first installment that guarantees everything he has promised us.
I love the NKJV.
I would love to know why the KJV translates the Reed Sea as the Red Sea.Was it a bad translation.
In the language we work with, if we said “he delights in his way” it means he delights in his own way. There is no way to translate it ambiguously, we would have to say “the man delights in Gods way” or “God delights in the mans way” otherwise we end up with a reflexive idea.
Excellent point!
Hi. I don't follow your point. The ambiguity results from not knowing (in the original Hebrew) whether God is delighting (in) the man's way or vice versa. The best attempt to preserve the ambiguity (which I'm not saying is the best translation simply) is to write, "and he delights in his way," that is, if you are not capitalizing divine pronouns. I can't agree that "he delights in his way" is necessarily reflexive-particularly because we can write in English, "...in his own way." The Hebrew text of Tanakh frequently has this kind of ambiguity.
@@KingoftheJuice18 I am talking about a foreign language i work with and expressing that nots always possible in languages to preserve inspired ambiguity from Heb/Gr.
@@HebrewGreekKnowledge What language?
@@KingoftheJuice18 I have to be careful about saying due to safety concerns.
First, another great video, thank you. Secondly, just a few comments about education, intelligence and scholarship; having studied at a Christian university, whose Biblical studies professors all had worked on the NIV, it was never their scholarship that I doubted, but their presuppositions. Every single one of them said, in one context or another, that those who could not read Hebrew or Greek could not do serious Bible study; therefore it was their duty to "interpret" the text for the reader (hence, the "Dynamic Equivalence" approach to translation). Each of these men had certain theological/cultural views that were reflected in the translation choices they made - they demonstrated those presuppositions in every class and conversation. Finally, in order to achieve their impressive qualifications from respectable schools and universities, they had to pass the muster of their academic supervisors - who were either neo-orthodox or outright theological liberals; and some of those unbiblical presuppositions were adopted. This is not a "conspiracy" in the sense of a group of people deliberately conniving to do some evil work; just that a consensus based on shared presuppositions that were never challenged but simply accepted without question. Can I point out a particular passage in the NIV that is egregious or dangerous? No, just that its translation presuppositions make it impossible to do a lot of Bible study because the scholars who translated it assumed that nobody but fellow academics could do that kind of study in the first place. For what it is worth...
People that read their bibles thoroughly are rare, AFAIK most Americans don't read much if ever and most active American Christians haven't read it cover to cover their whole lives. To then aspire to read cover to cover in multiple translations in short intervals and retain the material.... that's almost nobody. I bet less than one million in the US fit that standard.
How many of those ALSO study Koine and Aramaic, or modern Greek and Hebrew? Do they functionally gain more understanding relative to us... is there a big enough sample size to even try to put that into statistical models?
Mark I have a kind of big question for you that's not 100% related to this. Why do some people, seemingly mainly in scholarly settings in the modern day, but in less formal settings in the past, use "an" in front of words that begin with an "h?"
I ask you because you are very knowledgeable on words and I've heard you do it in a couple of videos. Thank you if you do get the opportunity to answer this question!
It’s fussy. It’s the old way of doing things, I believe. I’d have to look up specifics! I could be wrong!
@@markwardonwords thank you for your response. I have tried to look into this as well and all I can find is comments on the currently most accepted way, which is, of course, to say "all words beginning with consonants get 'a' not 'an'. 'h' is a consonant. So it gets an 'a'"
Thank you for your response and God bless. 🙏♥️
Very honest video thank you
My pleasure!
on "Satan" vs. "an accuser".. the author clearly contradicts his OWN claimed principle or preference of "translations shouldn't be a commentary/interpret" he made when talking about "He" vs. "he". rendering "Satan" is literally a commentary/interpretation about the IDENTITY of the accuser.
Yes, I think you're correct. Not perhaps an unwarranted commentary or interpretation, but one nonetheless.
Hello Mark,
I am watching this video now. I will respond later.
Did you see where I showed you how to contact me via the internet?
@markwardonwords Yessir. I will be in contact with you shortly. I was rear-ended by someone last week Sunday. My truck was totaled. The camper that I built on the back of the truck saved my life. The frame was made of pressure treated 4x4 lumber. He would have been better off if he hit a brick wall. I was at a red light. He hit me at over 55 mph. It turned out to be a blessing in disguise, as my truck was in need of some expensive engine repair. Both drivers are safe. Please pray for the salvation of the other driver. My neck is in bad shape, but I am in good hands. Please pray for wisdom, as my attorney handles all the insurance business. "No fault" in NY State is "your fault". I am thankful to be alive.
How can i convince my spouse that the esv is ok. The christians at the ifb church she grew up in are kjv only and have scared her to where she wouldnt purchase an esv for me because she thinks it would be wrong.
Is there any way that you could purchase the ESV yourself? If it weighs this heavily on her conscience, perhaps you shouldn't put her in the position of having to make the decision to buy it. If it's a gift for you, that might be a different situation, but even then, you might see if there's some other gift she could give. It may take time for her to move past the things she has been taught; forcing it to a crisis is probably not worth it, as it could harm her trust in you when it's that very trust that might help her see this issue more clearly in the future.
I hadnt asked her for it just mentioned i wanted it and she tried to buy it but couldnt and had asked for advice from someone she knew. I just dont want her thinking what I am reading is terribly wrong.
My friend, I'd suggest GREAT patience. The only thing that should be allowed to reform her conscience is God's word. And I'd suggest you appeal to 1 Cor 14 and its principle that edification requires intelligibility. I think the way that you do this is to teach her all the words in the KJV she doesn't know she doesn't know. I have written my next book for her. I do not know its release date. But almost all the material is available freely on my RUclips channel already, in the Fifty False Friends in the KJV series:
ruclips.net/p/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc
Build on the common ground you share with her: you both want to understand God's word. Show her slowly that the KJV, because of language change, is no longer fully intelligible. Show her through teaching that it contains words she doesn't realize she's misunderstanding.
@@markwardonwords Thank you, I appreciate the response and help.
Dr. Ward speaks of the "Embarrassment of Riches" of the extant MSS. How much of this EoR is used by the textual critics?
Love your TR memes sir. (I think Mark wanted to talk about translations in this one) But I agree about the manuscripts. The Majority text family needs a seat at the head of the table! Also, all the Reformation era translations from them need to be included in the discourse. Shout out Tyndale Coverdale Matthew's Great Geneva Bishops King James!
@murrydixon. Thank-you for your kind compliments. I agree that we as English speakers have been blessed with a great heritage from Tyndale to KJV. Some places I have read mentions some 80% of the KJV NT is Tyndale. Even if someone preferred Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, or the Bishops (😬) over the KJV, they are still significantly better Bibles than any Modern Translation available. 🙂
@@alanstewart2042 What are your thoughts on Jay P. Green's NT Interlinear of the TR?
2)I understand the NKJV was revised away from the KJV in 1984. Is it beyond repair or if another revision was to bring it into line would it then be acceptable? And what would that revision involve?
@murrydixon5221 I don't know if I will be able to address all your concerns in this format (I don't know how many words one is allowed to respond with).
I don't have Green's Interlinear, so I cannot give an assessment of it properly, I typically use George Ricker Berry's interlinear or the one available at BlueLetterBible.
When it comes to "archaic" words in the KJV, it would have to be determined that the word indeed is archaic, as in no one in the Anglo sphere uses it. Some words that are deemed archaic in American English are still in use in England.
Also, there is a world-view issue. I am a Premodern, and the KJV is a Premodern world-view translation of the Bible. So *if* there is to be an update of the KJV it would have to be done by men who are of the same mindset and convictions of our translators.
Any update would also have to use the Textus Receptus.
For clarity sake, I still want the thou/thee and ye/you distinctions with the verb endings.
Since the KJV is an Early Modern English translation, I really don't see much need of an update for the KJV. I don't think there is anything wrong with using a dictionary to learn the meaning of words, as ever since I went to elementary school that has been the practice in life. In college and seminary I was constantly looking up words that I didn't know.
So in sum, it will take at lot for me to be satisfied with the idea of a new translation to replace the KJV.
@@alanstewart2042 Thanks for taking the time to respond. The KJV is a masterpiece, perfectly understandable. No revision or replacement necessary. Apologies, I should have been more clear. I meant the NKJV or another modern version to be fully revised in line with the right Majority manuscripts and our historical Bibles.
I salute you for being able to read the Berry's Interlinear. I have that and it seems great but I can't read that print. The Jay P. Green Interlinear is based on the Textus Receptus in the NT and the four volume set has a 7 point font as well as Strong's numbers. Check it out.
I can see how a decision of how to capitalise the pronouns Psalm 37:23 might come up for consideration. Having said that, the meaning of the KJV copy I just consulted seemed clear enough to me, even though it’s a different dialect of English to the one I use. I have no argument with anyone who might choose to capitalise the word "he."
I am neither for or against it, but I honestly just prefer following the actual rules of English and grammar, especially because the original languages don't differentiate deity pronouns from normal ones. I've also occasionally found the capitalization thing to border on idolatry at times, though this certainly isn't all that common.
@@curtthegamer934 I think that capitalising deity pronouns should only really be done in texts where there is certainty in each case of whether the pronoun refers to God. However this is likely to only occur in new compositions.
If you start out with a preconception, maybe you should first do everything you can to disprove that preconception, not try to prove it.
I’m aware of several poor translations in the KJV that the NKJV corrected. For example, world was corrected to “age” for aeon.
For those who insist on or just appreciate the KJ, Beeke’s reformation heritage study bible is excellent. It explains most, but not all, of the “false friends” Mark lists. The articles and study notes are also excellent.
✔ Beeke and Barrett are top-notch guys.
I often hear how Holy Ghost is the proper interpretation of Holy Spirit.
They're the same thing..
@@tonimccoy9778 I would agree
Does Surrett talk about the term "Holy Ghost"-certainly a central Christian concept? Can people honestly say that it doesn't put God into a billowing white sheet?
So question, trying to figure this out. Should I study the Old Testament and Greek in order to know which Bible I should use? If so which Greek manuscript should I read as well as Hebrew.
I'm just feeling like I would need to really getting confused to what Bible is now closest to the " Old and New testament of Hebrew and Greek"
I do not believe God calls all Christians to learn Hebrew and Greek. Unless you do, you will have to trust someone to translate them for you. And you will have to trust someone to make text-critical decisions for you, too.
So how could I know if these translators are translating accurately?
Which Bible should one trust?
Are the scholars of today just trust worthy as those who translated the 1611?
I know the men of now days are brilliant but are they at the same level of language translation of the 47 plus scholars of the 1611.
My mind is just racing for answers I'm just trying to make the best decision.
@@joelhernandez9823 Let's slow down a minute and ask: how do you normally, in other fields, discover if someone is competent to do a job you aren't truly competent to evaluate? For example, I'm not truly fit to evaluate the effectiveness of a given drug (except perhaps on myself). How do I know if my doctor and the people who made the drug he prescribes are trustworthy?
You know this entire argument is ridiculous because God has given us many faithful translations in all languages....... A translation that has a political agenda is a problem but most translators want to be as faithful as they possibly can to the original text and those are the ones that are out there that we can choose from.
@@kdeh21803 The whole argument is, yes, in one sense, ridiculous-and yet countless sincere Christian people have been confused by it and pulled into it. What can we do except patiently instruct them, as Paul commanded?
I wonder how many "KJV only" people speak or know a second language? That would solve most of the strongholds.
Really? How is that?
When you have to translate another language to English, you quickly run into the simple fact that it's impossible to have word for word. There's expressions and figures of speech in every language, and they seldomly translate well. Making the translator have to interpret rather than translate. If someone who is "KJV only" understood/ experienced this, most of the strongholds would disappear.
@The-SilverBack2 I highly recommend the book "Understanding English Bible Translation: The Case for an Essentially Literal Approach" from the eminent Professor Leland Ryken.
You won't get a better understanding of the issues involved from anyone else. I could lay it out here on a youtube comment but you and all interested would be best served by reading this book.
I read this book. My stance is if you actually want "literal," then you should just have the Greek and Hebrew versions. I'm a zero or 100 kinda guy. If I want exact, then I'll just learn greek and hebrew and then read the original manuscripts. That would be better than saying the KJV is the most reliable. Which is obviously not true. Thank you for the recommendation brother murraydixon.
@@The-SilverBack2 No a but you are welcome. If you read it, what do you disagree with? What is your translation of choice if you don't like a literal version? Do you think a literal version is harder than learning Greek or Hebrew? As Mr. Ward says, there is no zero sum. Translation exists within a spectrum and even within the literal translations some are more toward the interlinear and some are slightly more interpretive. While paraphrase is not an translation of the text, it can be read as a commentary or devotional.
Where do you live that, at this time of the year you have on three layers of clothing?
The cool PNW!
36:00 It seems pretty common for KVJO folks to cherry-pick and isolate texts. Could the NKJV's rendering in Gen 2:18 arise from a leaning toward egalitarianism? If you look at it by itself, it's more amenable to that understanding than the renderings in some other translations, sure--but that's far from the only relevant text. It's (at least) as bad as saying that CT-based Bibles are denying the Trinity based on 1 John 5:7. In both cases (and the many others like them), you need to look beyond a single text (or handful of texts) to see what the translation as a whole is saying.
RIGHT!
Even more confusingly, the Hebrew argument raised is usually used to argue FOR egalitarian views, not against.
@@maxxiong Yes! I noticed the same thing!
@nick, Your opinion is wrong about the nlt in my opinion..I've read the nlt beside kjv, nkjv and niv and found it to be accurate while being the easiest to read and understand , exactly what a bible is supposed to be..Toni's husband
I agree with you. Perhaps "edification requires intelligiblity' should be the subtitle of the NLT?
I actually do have some issues with the nlt and how it renders certain theological words. It renders justified "made right" which either means "reconciled" or "sanctified".
@@maxxiongI believe sanctified doesn't really mean justification. Made right with God covers justified and sanctified and just about everything else. God bless all believers..Toni's husband
@@tonimccoy9778 Yeah I'm saying the NLT is a bit problematic theologically sometimes
All these debates over which is "the best" English translation are very interesting. But the obvious question that these "experts" seem to keep overlooking or just plain ignoring is this: What is the best German translation? What is the best Japanese translation? Spanish? Arabic? Russian? Do you see my point? Surely the Creator of the Universe in His desire to inspire the original authors of scripture would not intentionally restrict the access to those scriptures to one and only one "reliable" translation. Surely the very God who confused the language of man at the Tower of Babel wanted His written word to be accessible to people of all languages and tongues? Or does the whole world, Germans, Japanese, Spaniards, Arabs, Russians, etc. have to be able to read 17th century English in order to access God's word? Personally, while not a scholar on the original text and various translations, I think the whole debate over KJV only or not is a waste of time. God will make His truth known to those who sincerely seek it. Seeking the most accurate representation of the original text is commendable. But to denigrate those who can only read a German Bible, or those who prefer NASB, is immature and short sighted.
Agreed. I almost never hear KJV/TR defenders spend any time on Bibles for other languages.
I'm German, studied theology and religious studies at Bamberg University and I prefer the Luther 1545 (in modern spelling however) or the very literal "Elberfelder Translation". The "Menge"-Bibel is also very good.
I also like the Luther revised version from 1912. After that, the quality of the revisions declined and there are some actual mistranslations in later versions.
One version was particularly unloved by the audience, that was the Luther 1975 which was basically "called back" and destroyed. I was lucky to find 2 of these for my collection - probably the rarest version of the Luther translation. Not many were sold as it was so unpopular.
BTW - the German equivalent to the KJV-only people would be the "Bible Baptists" who exclusively use the Luther 1545. I love this version for linguistic reasons. But I might get an actual reprint one day in the original spelling of Luther's translation. They're expensive though.
I'd also love to get a black letter reprint of the original KJV but those are rather expensive too.
BTW - I have very mixed feelings about this "fight against KJV only" because once people lose interest and switch to this sometimes faulty and too modernistic new translations, the older ones might no longer be printed and that would be a shame!
I very much dislike the modern translations that put modern concepts in the text that have no place there. Yes, everyone should be able to understand the text but at the same time the text is thousands of years old so there is this concept of the "foreign text" in biblical theology. We need to be aware that the text was not written to us. Sometimes I think an older (not completely obscure) translation helps with that. But then again, I do read Greek so could compare to the original text. Still, my Greek reading skills aren't so fluid anymore so I normally do use a translation. And the older versions are often closer to the original. I'd never use a "Good News Translation" for example.
@@MrSeedi76 But you do have to consider that the translators of the Reformation era were also shaped by "modern concepts" from the 1500s. That's inevitable: a translation is a product of its time. And while we need to be aware that we're not the original audience of the text, we also need to be aware that Martin Luther (or William Tyndale, for that matter) wasn't the original audience of the text, and the experiences he had certainly were influences on his translation choices.
As such, his historic version of the Bible might get us closer to him without necessarily getting us closer to the Bible's authors. (And going back even further, we could say the same of Jerome and the Vulgate. Like I said, there's no avoiding bias and cultural influence completely.) So there's value in looking back to an older translation, but there's also value in comparing it with a newer translation. Even if both are fairly literal renderings of the text, both will be filtering the ancient culture of the Bible with the culture that produced the translation.
@@MrSeedi76 It is valuable to keep older translations in print; that is a good thing. It is valuable to give God's word to the people in a language they can understand. These values need not necessarily be in tension. But if they are, I think the latter weighs more!
Everyone previous to 2 generations from Noah all spoke a mystery language. Nobody speaks that now. What oral transmission and text languages were used to get God's word out until Moses commissioned the pentateuch..... what were all of them speaking and writing then - I'm certain their literacy took a hit during the Male drowning years... Pharoah was keeping them stupid and/or assimilated, they weren't excelling academically at that time and they were missing a generation! Jewish diaspora phenomena and regional power dynamics caused language drift in Hebrew, adding; Babylonian, Assyrian, Egyptian, (Samaritan split too) Greek, Roman and every combination of those was twisted and added to by the Jewish Elite (called pharisees but many were other sects or simple scribes and public officials). So add to all that the New Testament being originally compiled in multiple languages and many passages actually being polemical treatises and/or sermons intentionally put into multiple languages by an army of scribes across the developed world..... yeah there will be some slight disagreement on exact wording 🤯
Here's where it gets more egregiously taxing to explain: the bible is a compilation of men, containing a controversial canon that is decided by men (not all traditions agree), without a perfect chain of custody, later shepherded by power mongers embedded within the Roman system - that were oftentimes using it as a political tool...... and the bible doesn't self-declare to be absolutely complete and perfect - the councils and committees making it weren't infallible and neither is the bible "infallible". You choose to believe in it or you don't, but screaming about one word or verse to the exclusion of the entire passage means you can't actually accept it as "truth". I think the bible is true, it's "the truth", I don't idolize it beyond being a collection of our best attempts to maintain and translate what survived a fallen world through the millennia (deluge, tower of Babel curse for millennia, regime change, pagan freaks intentionally sabotaging it when Israel was fallen [most of the time], etcetera). Temple Jews also had extra books that weren't available to laypersons, and if they're available later, the chain of custody is totally broken anyways (an argument against the dead sea scrolls too).
Have I watched this video before?
No, though you may have read it on my blog. And I tackled similar objections from Albert Hembd (both on my blog and on my channel).
Perhaps you're experiencing deja vu.
I believe I was recalling a pair of your videos (which are excellent and memorable!) from March of 2023 entitled, "Why Do Textus Receptus Defenders Reject the NKJV? Parts 1 and 2."
@@msctshrly Yes, that's it. Hembd makes very similar arguments.
I still prefer the KJV against the NKJ it just does not flow as the KJV. My other bible is the ESV which i find it does flow as the KJV.
Very interesting! I like the ESV for the same reason, but I can't say I've observed a significant difference between it and the NKJV on that score!
Interesting that all KJV only must translate many words and phrases while they preach into English for those who listen to them. 1Cor. 16:13 “Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong.”
1 Corinthians 16:13 KJV
“Watch ye, stand fast in the
faith, quit you like men, be
strong…”
Why are they able to translate that from pulpit and not write it out in a translation ?
RIGHT!
Mark, thanks for another video. I wish you would bring back that chair. I feel like it makes your video more conversational than a talking torso.
I have some critiques but it is not at you personally, it is your position.
We all need to be able to disagree without taking things personally. This issue is important to all of us here and I can tell that it is important to you. Otherwise you wouldn't have spent this much time and effort on it.
You say that you don't have many people to interact with for careful critiques. It is my hope that some of mine might prove useful.
I believe that your audience is the average lay person out there. When you put academia and institutional credentials on a pedestal as the only ones who are qualified to make a statement on these matters, you are disqualifying 98% of your audience on this channel.
Even Dr. Charles Surrett has a degree you made the point that it is not as sound as another.
What is this academic elitism? I agree that everyone has to trust someone. Someone sincere or someone with the better diploma from a more prestigious university?
I want to give you the opportunity to explain your position better. You are more than welcome to do so if you want.
You make the point that being critical of the NKJV is the same as attacking the people that are behind it. Why is that?
A rounded 70/30 of the KJV and NKJV in favour of the KJV is a fair assessment of a translation.
"Very few people in the church have the capacity to give just judgment"
We all have the same resources, the same "embarrassment of riches" and we can give just judgment. All of the church has the capacity.
If your goal is indeed to let us all use as many good translations, why do TR people have to be satisfied with only a few translations like NKJV or MEV or some niche translations? Why haven't any of the major publishers came on board and given us a English translation fully within our textual tradition from top to bottom?
Sometimes one of the CT translations sticks with the KJV better than one of the translations we are supposed to accept.
Like G3338 metamelomai many of the CT translations agree with the KJV.
It is not just that a given word can be an alternate or viable translation but why make an unnecessary change?
Thank you.
Thanks for the tone in which this was written. Some cogent points.
I don't have time to answer them all, so I'll go for what I think the strongest point is: I want to be very careful, indeed, not to imply that academic credentials are required for getting textual criticism and translation right. Jeff Riddle has these credentials, and I disagree with him. And plenty of pastors out there (like my own) don't have PhDs and yet are, I think, right about text and translation. However, I don't see any way around the simple fact that a just judgment on the quality of a translation requires knowledge of the languages from which that translation is translated as well as the language into which that translation is translated. And it is rare to encounter people who have this knowledge without academic credentials. It does happen, but it's rare.
Also: I did not say and do not think that attacking the NKJV necessarily means attacking the people behind it. But certain attacks are personal, namely those that go after the translators' motivations. Surrett did this.
I hope that helps! Perhaps other commenters can answer your other questions. You've asked fair questions.
@@markwardonwords I appreciate your time and the response. To be fair, I am not familiar with Surrett's work. I know that things can get a bit overheated at times and I do agree with you that we need to give the best intentions to each other. Would you agree that having a full set of translator's notes on every translation actually explaining their judgment calls would greatly reduce the guesswork? Also, a lot of good parallel bibles are out of print today. Specifically KJV/NKJV
Yes! This is an excellent idea! Only the NET Bible has done this. I’d like to see the NIV and ESV and CSB, at least, do it before their translators die. It would be a LOT of work. Of course, people may just call them liars. Some will. But I think being transparent would help-in a way that didn’t used to be necessary.
@@markwardonwords The Tyndale Center is in the process of releasing the notes of the Legacy Standard Bible translation team on "The Master’s Seminary" website. The LSB has become one of my preferred translations and I have found the translator notes to be very helpful.
@@samandkathyshelton4207 I will start with saying that I have been edified very much through Pastor MacArthur's preaching. I do share his appreciation of the NASB. I am a TR/Byz/Maj guy. If I was going to use a CT, I would prefer the NASB95. This LSB I have to disagree with him on. The Tetragrammaton should be left alone. No one can be sure about those vowels and that is playing with fire. What do you think or what do you like about the LSB compared to what we have had? Are there any renderings in these notes I should check out?
I have faith in the KJB God gave me. Faith is a powerful thing.
I do, too! The KJB is worthy of your trust.
The word helper might be due to copyright issues.And I personally think that the word Is " comforter" is a better word, But when you understand the text, The mission of the holy spirit, the word "helper" would be a better word
I assure you that "Helper" was not chosen due to copyright. I am perfectly certain of this-even though I understand why people sometimes suspect that copyright is the reason for a change. Here's my video on this topic: ruclips.net/video/STmTzOLx97E/видео.html
I have difficulty seeing how using the word “helper” here would be due to copyright issues as so many English translations, such as the NASB, NKJV, ESV, GNB, NCV, DLNT, ERV, EXB, GW, ISV, NOG, NLV, TLV, VOICE, and I'm sure a number of others, use that same word here.
This video has been 49 minutes well spent and prompted in me a desire to voice the following items:
1. Ode to Professor Charles Surrett, Academic Dean Emeritus of Ambassador Bible College, Shelby, North Carolina
Chuck Surett would place no bet
on any non-KJV.
For within the AV covers he found
God's Word infallibly.
2. Dr. Ward speaking at 3:48 - 4:00: "And answering critiques of the new King James is an important part of my overall case which is that, because of changes in English over 400 plus years, the excellent King James version is no longer fully intelligible to today's plowboy."
Response: Perhaps not to today's plowboy, but what about to today's doughboy? For I'll have you know that Professor Surrett received his B.A. degree from Pillsbury Baptist Bible College.
3. Dr. Ward, feigning to establish that necessary countenance required for such earnest endeavor, I begin:
"Sovereign Lord, most humbly on my bended knee I beseech thee" (quoting Henry V by William Shakespeare), perchance didst yon Professor Surrett, within his tome Certainty Of The Words, ever address the translation discrepancy between the KJV and NKJV regarding the conjunction in the subject clause of 1 Corinthians 11:27? To wit:
A. "Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, AND drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." (KJV)
B. "Therefore whoever eats this bread OR drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." (NKJV)
4. The KJV translation for 1 Cor 11:27 is in agreement with the 1560 Geneva Bible and the 1568 Bishops Bible.
5. The NKJV translation for 1 Cor 11:27 is in agreement with:
A. Bible Hub's Greek text analysis page for the conjunction in the subject clause of 1 Corinthians 11:27:
Strong's = 2228E; Greek = ἢ ((ē); English = 'OR'; Morphology = Conj.
B. Bible Hub's page of parallel Greek New Testament versions for 1 Corinthians 11:27 that include, chronologically, (1) Stephanus Textus Receptus of 1550; (2) Beza Greek New Testament of 1598; (3) Tischendorf 8th edition of 1872; (4) Westcott and Hort of 1881; (5) Scrivenor's Textus Receptus of 1894; (6) Nestle Greek New Testament of 1904; (7) Greek Orthodox Church of 1904; (8) RP Byzantine Majority Text of 2005; (9) SBL Greek New Testament of 2010; and (10) Berean Greek New Testament of 2016. Of these 10 Greek versions, all have ἢ (ē), translated into English as 'OR' as the conjunction in the subject clause of the verse.
C. The three earliest English translations of the Bible: (1) Wycliffe's Bible, c. 1382-95; (2) Tyndale Bible, c. 1522-35; (3) The Great Bible, 1539 [first authorized edition of the Bible in English, authorized by King Henry VIII and prepared by Miles Coverdale]. All have 'OR' as the conjunction in the subject clause of 1 Cor 11:27.
6. If 1 Cor 11:27 is identified in Prof. Surrett's Certainty Of The Words, does he also provide any reason for the conjunction discrepancy between the KJV and NKJV as he does with the numerous other examples you mentioned?
You crack me up! You've brought up 1 Cor 11:27 a number of times. Can you point me to any scholarly discussions that take up your concern?
1. Dr. Ward: "You crack me up!"
Response: Quite apt, as it confirms my reputation as a crackpot.
2. Dr. Ward: "You've brought up 1 Cor 11:27 a number of times. Can you point me to any scholarly discussions that take up your concern?"
Response: I wish I could in the plural. I brought it up again because of your (A) estimation of Professor Surrett as the most scholarly proponent of KJV Onlyism and (B) review of his book Certainty Of The Words, thinking that perhaps he addressed its variance with the NJKV.
3. I can only bring up personal anecdotes, if you are interested:
A. Many years ago, a young fellow repeatedly was trying to convert me to KJV Onlyism due to his perceived perfection of that translation. Then one day he brought out a hard copy of Strong's Greek Concordance and asked me to show him any possible error in the KJV. When I pointed out that the conjunction in the subject clause of the KJV translation for 1 Corinthians 11:27 was at variance with the Greek in Strong's, he immediately went silent and never again attempted to convert me to KJV Onlyism.
B. In this age of high speed internet and the 'utopian' youtube, several times I have left comments on KJV Onlyist videos about 1 Cor 11:27. The first time I received obfuscation, the youtuber vehemently stating that the conjunction could be translated numerous ways. The second time, I received no answer from a different youtuber.
C. After contacting KJVO refugees Pastor Jonathan Burris and yourself about the issue, your informed responses about how there is no Greek NT manuscript anywhere that supports a translation other than that of the TR gave me the confidence to inquire further with another KJVOer on youtube.
D. After seeing your recent videos on one particular proponent of KJV Onlyism, I decided to watch his 2023 'landmark' debate with a seasoned debater of Reformed Baptist identity whose initials JW do not in any way signify that he is a member of the Watchtower Society nor a proponent of NWT Only. By the way, I am not BLT Only but sometimes will substitute turkey for bacon so as to enjoy a TLT.
E. While disagreeing with his presuppositions, I was impressed with this KJV Onlyist's debate performance marked by courage, zeal and sincerity in the face of such a formidable opponent. I forthwith decided to contact him through his church and offered him a question about the discrepancy between the KJV and TR regarding the conjunction in the subject clause of 1 Cor 11:27, and whether the LSB translation was more accurate, since it stemmed from a KJVO vs LSB debate.
F. I received an email answer from someone identifying themselves as Bro TR, so perhaps I can assume he would be amenable perceived as 'Brother Textus Receptus.'
G. Respecting the confidentiality of his person, I now quote from his reply:
'Thanks for watching the debate, and thanks for your good question.'
'Certainly "or" is a more common translation for that particle. I would be interested in studying if an "and" translation can be justified by the ὥστε ὃς ἂν ... ἢ construction in Koine Greek as little words like ἢ can mean different things when they are in different syntactical constructions. I don't have time to study that out right at the moment, however. I would not be surprised if a study of that syntax could give a basis for the KJV's translation. The Geneva Bible also has an "and," so there would be not only the KJV translators but the Geneva as well who would have just missed it if there is no justification for "and." I have no problem with the "or" of the LSB here, as it is a justifiable translation. I suspect the KJV's translation is justifiable as well, but I don't have time to look into it at the moment. But thanks for the good question.'
H. So there it is, Dr. Ward, you have my one single "scholarly discussion" of the issue at hand with a knowledgeable KJVOer, and for which I am grateful to 'Brother Textus Receptus.'
I. The only conceivable avenue left for discussion would appear to be the 'Why?' question, but that requires informed speculation about intent in the light of historical circumstances in northern Europe from the second half of the 16th century to the early 17th century and beyond.
J. May God bless you, your flower lady, your flower children and your frisbees hiding in the flowers.
--> Around 5 minutes into the video
The verse most certainly does not mean that the Spirit, water, and blood "agree in one person." It means that they form a threefold witness to Christ. They act as one unified testimony rather than as three disparate ones. So I'm counting this as a point for the NKJV--not because the KJV got it wrong, but because it's too prone to being interpreted in a way that would leave its translators scratching their heads in confusion.
Dear brother: Again, verse 8 is about bearing witness here on earth. Just go back and read the first part of verse 6, "This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ" Following the context, the last part of verse 8 says, "and these three agree in one." So, the question is, in whom do these three agree? The answer is Jesus Christ! Interpreting it any other way doesn't make sense. This is just one of the many issues with the NKJV.
You're forcing the "Constantine says so" trinitarian thesis (it wasn't the nicene creed!) into the text! You can believe what you want but you can't retroactively force the text to fit within the extra-biblical materials.
Mark Ward please count them up for me: what translations actually say persons instead of members, when referencing anything trinitarian? AFAIK zero mainstream bibles say person at all EXCEPT when saying the fullness of deity is within the person of Christ.
So Jesus is the Son of God but also God, also subservient and equal, a different person and eternally generated by him but is equal and uncreated, is the face and strong right arm of God the Father but isn't him but actually is, is a lamb but isn't really a lamb but when we eat passover lamb or eucharist it transubstantiates into Christ flesh but is it man or lamb kabobs in your stomach..... the bible didn't say that crap and didn't even generate the arguments about how to parse them. Roman occupied Palestine did, and Roman Catholicism perpetuated it across the world..... it's still not "in the bible" though.
@@nobodyspecial1852 Constantine didn't say to be trinitarian. Constantine said for the bishops to settle the dispute between the two opposing factions, and he backed up the side that appeared to come out on top at the end. It was a Mount Carmel moment for Christian orthodoxy. But this decision didn't really settle anything for Constantine. He subsequently exiled Athanasius when a dispute arose between him and the Arians. Furthermore, the emperor did not actually get baptized until he was near death, and he chose an Arian to baptize him. For a short time after Nicaea, it looked as if Arianism would take hold as the official doctrine of empirical Christianity in spite of the council's decision. Much like the Mount Carmel incident with Elijah, the correct side won (Athanasius), only to be wrong side to abuse royal power to suppress the correct side anyway.
EVERY scripture in this video & comparison with the “New World Translation;”
Ps 37:23 NWT & NJKV “He” upper case
Mt 21:32 NWT “did not feel regret” NKJV “relent” KJV “repented"
Ex 13:17 1961 NWT “will feel regret” 2013 NWT & NKJV “change their minds”
Mt 27:3 NWT “felt remorse” NKJV “felt remorseful” KJV “repent"
Ps 63:1 NWT “I keep looking for you.” NKJV & KJV “Early will I seek thee.”
John 14:26 NWT “helper” NKJV “Helper” KJV “Comforter”
Acts 17:29 NWT “Divine Being” upper case. NKJV “Divine Nature” KJV “Godhead”
1 Cor 1:22 NWT “ask for a sign” NKJV “request” KJV "require”
Ezra 8:22 NWT “ask” KJV “require”
1 Cor 6:9 1961 NWT “men kept for unnatural purposes” 2013 NWT “men who submit... practice homosexuality” NKJV “homosexuals... sodomites” KJV “effeminate.. abusers....” (personal opinion; NWT would; win the title “Most accurate” :) )
Titus 3:10 NWT “promotes a sect” NKJV “divisive” KJV “heretick”
Ps 109:6 NWT “resistor” NKJV “an accuser” KJV “Satan”
Gen 2:4 NWT & NKJV “history” KJV “generations”
Gen 2:18 NWT “complement of” NKJV “helper comparable to” KJV “help meet for”
Romans 2:26 NWT & NKJV “the righteous requirements of the law” KJV righteousness of the law”
Romans 2:27 NWT & NKJV “written code” KJV “letter”
Romans 3:25 NWT & KJV “through faith in his blood” NKJV “by His blood through faith”
Romans 4:18 1961 NWT & KJV “seed” 2013 NWT “offspring” NKJV “descendants”
Romans 7:7 NWT “sin” NKJV “covetousness” KJV “lust”
Other thoughts; Jesus allowed for variation even within his sermons, including variations in the Lord’s Prayer.” Matthew 6:9-11 and Luke 11:2-4 He wasn’t so absolute, verbatim. So why should bible translations be so absolute, verbatim?
“Godhead” is already somewhat archaic of “Godhood.” I continuously meet people that insist “Godhead” means “The Triune God” when, in all exegetical honesty, it doesn’t.
“Worship” is another word that in KJV days meant two things; 1- “God oriented worship” and 2-simply to “bow down,” “genuflect.”
I’ll only give a brief argument against the NWT because I am not a biblical scholar, but Dr. Ward is perfectly consistent to accept the NKJV and not the NWT, because the NWT was translated by men who are not accredited biblical scholars and with the specific goal of affirming JW theology. Because both the KJV and NKJV were translated by committees of excellent Greek & Hebrew scholars without the goal of affirming certain theologies, they are meaningfully different than the NWT.
@@adamjett7947 Actually, Mark Ward made a video discussing the NWT. He said it wasn't too bad but that it had "warts." Many modern translations are lining up more and more with the NWT in many ways. Most of the 'so-called' differences "affirming JW theology" are discussed here on RUclips - "New World Translation Curiosities." Check some of them out. You might be surprised. :)
If you are a JW check out all of the scripture that supports Jesus’s deity. Start with Hebrews chapter 1 how Jesus accepted worship, while in Luke chapter 4 he tells Satan you are to worship the lord your God and Him only shall you worship.
NWT is corrupt. Mark would never support that we use such a translation. I pray you come to know the Jesus that can save you.
@@codyskimmerhorn1978 Thanks for your respectful reply. It’s my intent to be kindly myself. Yes, I was a Lutheran and heavily involved in the “Jesus Movement,” saved in the early 1970s. For over 50 years now I have checked "out all of the scriptures that supports Jesus’s deity” including Hebrews. Luke chapter 4 Jesus quoted from the OT scriptures, told the devil to worship YHWH and Him only shall you SERVE - not worship (note my "worship" thoughts on my previous comment). Compare Hebrews 13:10. Feel free to view my findings from orthodox sources by looking at my; “New World Translation Curiosities” videos on youtube. Thanks, your prayers are answered; I have definitely come to know the Jesus that can save me.
The nwt inserts the word "other" into colossians 1: 16, 17.
Two things to remember about Satan: 1. Creating doubt is the name of the game - Adam and Eve was the first example of this. 2. He "SUBTLY beguiled" Adam and Eve - this means his seeds of doubt will appear small and insignificant... until they grow. Notice how modern Bible supports will say the new bibles are more accurate, insinuating what we had before was less accurate and difficult to understand... a non believer may then dismiss the Bible's trustworthiness if they feel accuracy is doubted or its too difficult to understand. Again, creating doubt and division is the game. Jesus made it very clear that His word requires STUDY - meaning it takes effort to know and understand it. That's because there's so much depth to even a single word sometimes.
Modern bibles are touted as "small and insignificant" changes unrelated to doctrine. The removal of Acts 8:37 shows that's not true. I suspect bibles will continue to be "revised" under the premise of "better understanding" and "accuracy". I'm not all doom and gloom in my stance on modern bibles though. I believe we can always take evil and use it for good, as long as we recognize the evil and understand its purpose. I see modern bibles as a tool for people who are not yet of the faith and need something that's "easy" to read. I stand behind KJV being the only true word of God, but if an ESV ignites someone's desire to get to know God, I trust the Holy Spirit will guide them to Gods true word.
The Alexandrian manuscripts are inferior to the TR for a number of reasons. "They are older so they're better" is a flawed argument when their reliability is abysmal due to obvious adulteration of the text, not to mention the age gap is grossly misrepresented.
2 Cor 11:3-4 says it best:
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
I won't even get into the comparison of the KJV translators vs modern Bible translators. When the translators are worried about political correctness, you know there's a bias in word translation beyond trying to find a word that represents the true meaning of the original words.
My friend, the New King James Version and the Modern English Version both use the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts as the King James. And they translate those texts into fully intelligible contemporary English, which means they meet the principle of 1 Corinthians 14, edification requires intelligibility. I recommend the NKJV and MEV to you.
@@markwardonwords Mark, thanks for the response! I agree, the CLAIM is the NKJV uses the same line of manuscripts [exclusively] as the KJV (some even put it on their covers), but the real world changes indicate Alexandrian utilization/influence. NKJV, ESV, etc are all just degrees of change utilizing Alexandrian manuscripts. The issue of saying they all use the same underlying manuscripts is there's an implied equality across all manuscripts. If I have 5000 math and science books that all agree 99%, then discover 1000 other math and science books from the same time period that only agree with EACH OTHER at a rate of 1%, would you use the disagreeing books to establish accuracy among the 5000 books agreeing at 99%, or vice versa? We also then have to acknowledge that through physical evidence we know the ones that don't agree have been blatantly modified with an agenda in mind.
I'll update this comment with evidence of Alexandrian influence/utilization in the NKJV when I have time between work this weekend.
@@Sherlock_nohtreal I have a video coming out in two weeks on this very topic.
Might I ask: can you read NT Greek? Are you able to personally verify claims that the NKJV doesn't use the TR in given places? Not asking to be tart, just to discover.
@@Sherlock_nohtreal Acts 8.36-38 NKJV, in accordance with the TR:
*Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, **_here is_** water. What hinders me from being baptized?”*
*Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.”*
*And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”*
*So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him.*
_________________________________________________
Now that we've established that the NKJV has verse 37, let's talk about which texts do not have verse 37. First, as you said, it's missing from the Alexandrian text-type. Since you mentioned the ESV, we'll use it to reflect this text.
*And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.*
_________________________________________________
Okay, but what about the Byzantine text-type, the so-called Majority Text? Well, let's look at the World English Bible, which follows the Byzantine text:
*As they went on the way, they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “Behold, here is water. What is keeping me from being baptized?”*
*He commanded the chariot to stand still, and they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him.*
_________________________________________________
Well, that means that most Greek copies don't have the verse at all. So we need to look to ancient translations of the Bible to find it. Let's start off with the Syriac translation known as the Peshitta. John Wesley Etheridge's translation will stand in here, as it follows the oldest reading for this text:
*And as they went in the way they came to a certain place which had water in it, and that eunuch said, Behold the water; what is the hinderance that I should be baptized? And he commanded that the chariot should stand; and they descended both of them to the water, and Philipos baptized that eunuch.*
Etheridge's footnote: "Verse 37 is wanting in the Peschito." Cf. footnote from James Murdock's Peshitta translation: "This 37th verse is not in any of the earlier editions, and is excluded from the text of the London editions of 1816 and 1826."
_________________________________________________
Surely it has to be somewhere in the ancient tradition, and indeed it is. Let's consult the Latin Vulgate. We'll use the Douay-Rheims Bible, which was the popular Catholic alternative to the KJV over the last four centuries:
*And as they went on their way, they came to a certain water; and the eunuch said: See, here is water: what doth hinder me from being baptized? And Philip said: If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. And he answering, said: I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still; and they went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch: and he baptized him.*
_________________________________________________
So there we go. Acts 8.37 is not commonly found in the Greek manuscript tradition, nor does it have support from the oldest Syriac witnesses. It is, however, a staple of the Latin manuscript tradition used by Catholics throughout the Middle Ages. Despite practicing infant baptism, they never felt the need to remove the verse from their Bible, and its presence in that tradition surely supported its inclusion in the Textus Receptus.
And it just happens that the TR's inclusion of Acts 8.37 retroactively led to its inclusion in the Patriarchal Text, a modified edition of the Byzantine text-type assembled by Eastern Orthodox scholars at the beginning of the 20th century. Here to represent this text is the Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible New Testament:
*As they went on the way, they came to [a place with] some water, and the eunuch said, “Behold, here is water! What is keeping me from being baptized?” He commanded the chariot to stand still, and both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and Philip baptized him.*
(Note the brackets around verse 37, much like the ones found in some editions of the NASB. Other versions that bracket the verse include the AMP, ICB/NCV, HCSB, LSB, and NCB.)
@@MAMoreno wow, thank you for the thoughtful and detailed response! Truly, thank you. You're right, I should have specified I was referring to the ESV and some of the other modern bibles in relation to Acts 8:37. The NKJV is certainly the closest to the KJV, but it still has Alexandrian influence in some of its changes. (To be clear, I own several translations and use both the NKJV and ESV for my kids, so I'm not super anti modern translations)
That being said, the inclusion of the Acts verse is a testament to the KJV translators ensuring the doctrine is cohesive and accurate. This is where, in my opinion (assuming you believe as well), the factor of being divinely inspired plays an important roll.
As I said in my last post, I'll update some evidence of Alexandrian influence when I have time between work (I'm on the clock until Monday 8am straight) as I really don't like making claims without including the evidence.
Thanks again for your incredible post - I hadn't looked into which ones included it and which ones didn't, so very thankful for that insight!