The NKJV Is the Best Bible Translation, and So's the MEV!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 апр 2022
- For Certain People in Certain Circumstances.
Who are those people? What are those circumstances?
Find out.
🎁 Help me end Bible translation tribalism, one plow boy at a time:
✅ / mlward
✅ buymeacoffee.c...
📖 Check out my book, Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible:
amzn.to/2r27Boz
🎥 Watch my Fifty False Friends in the KJV series:
• 50 False Friends in th...
👏 Many, many thanks to the Patreon supporters who make my work possible!
Name, James Duly, Robert Gifford, Lanny M Faulkner, Lucas Key, Dave Thawley, William McAuliff, Razgriz, James Goering, Eric Couture, Martyn Chamberlin, Edward Woods, Thomas Balzamo, Brent M Zenthoefer, Tyler Rolfe, Ruth Lammert, Gregory Nelson Chase, Ron Arduser, Caleb Farris, Dale Buchanan, Jess English, Aaron Spence, Orlando Vergel Jr., John Day, Joshua Bennett, K.Q.E.D., Brent Karding, Kofi Adu-Boahen, Steve McDowell, Kimberly Miller, A.A., James Allman, Steven McDougal, Henry Jordan, Nathan Howard, Rich Weatherly, Joshua Witt, Wade Huber, M.L., Brittany Fisher, Tim Gresham, Lucas Shannon, Easy_Peasy , Caleb Richardson, Jeremy Steinhart, Steve Groom, jac, Todd Bryant, Corey Henley, Jason Sykes, Larry Castle, Luke Burgess, Joel, Joshua Bolch, Kevin Moses, Tyler Harrison, Bryon Self, Angela Ruckman, Nathan N, Gen_Lee_Accepted , Bryan Wilson, David Peterson, Eric Mossman, Jeremiah Mays, Caleb Dugan, Donna Ward, DavidJamie Saxon, Omar Schrock, Philip Morgan, Brad Dixon, James D Leeper, M.A., Nate Patterson, Dennis Kendall, Michelle Lewis, Lewis Kiger, Dustin Burlet, Michael Butera, Reid Ferguson, Josiah R. Dennis, Miguel Lopez, CRB, D.R., Dean C Brown, Kalah Gonzalez, MICHAEL L DUNAVANT, Jonathon Clemens, Travis Manhart, Jess Mainous, Brownfell, Leah Uerkwitz, Joshua Barzon, Benjamin Randolph, Andrew Engelhart, Mark Sarhan, Rachel Schoenberger
I actually love the foot notes. It points out just how small and inconsequential the difference is.
What if I just love the flow and cadence of the KJV but get lost in the outdated English? I use the NKJV because it's as close to the KJV as I can get and still understand the text clearly.
That's ok! I love the KJV's language, too! But my Bible tells me that edification requires intelligibility, so your use of the NKJV is right!
💯
Same I love the poetry and tradition of the KJV but the NKJV is clearer, love them both
Happy to hear! I’ve recently switched from NASB95 (no hate for that translation; I still love it) to NKJV and it’s been a true blessing. Maybe it’s because I’m a huge fan of poetry, but the KJV has always spoken to me in a special way, so seeing the NKJV arrive and bringing that beauty to even more people is amazing.
Your succinct comment articulates perfectly what I try to say in the lengthy comments I just posted to this thread. I think there are two more reasons one could add for why the NKJV is a good translation for certain people--1) It resonates with cultural (and, in my case, personal) touch-stones that we have with the old KJV (e.g., Handel's Messiah or well recognized quotes from the KJV anywhere else in popular-culture), and 2) it carries over a rhythmic, poetic, and majestic quality from the KJV that other modern translations don't seem to have.
I grew up in a kjv only church, don’t really have a issue with that stance I love it and have many kjv verses memorized, I fell in love with the nkjv a few years ago and it has been a real blessing to me
Excellent video! It is good to see the MEV be acknowledged as the excellent translation that it is.
Glad you enjoyed it!
One thing I especially like about the NKJV is the copious references and the notes in reference to particular additions or deletions of various NT Greek texts. Very helpful.
@Reverend Boaz NLT and ESV are Critical Text based bibles. The Critical Text does not contain that verse. Codex Sinaiticus, along with other more ancient manuscripts also don't have it. Only the later Byzantine Texts have it. It has been concluded that it was an addition sometime in the later centuries.
God used the NKJV to rekindle my love of the Bible. I grew up with the King James Bible and never knew of any other translation of the Bible in English until my late teens. I bought my New King James Bible in July of 2000. The reason I bought it was because I read some of Psalm 91 in the Left Behind book series. I am so thankful for my NKJV Bible that God used to grow me in my faith. I took it to high school and college. I used it as a camp counselor and I took it to Papua New Guinea. I took it to Israel as I saw the Bible come to life. It is the Bible I used for teaching Sunday school, VBS, and Pulpit supply. It is now the Bible I use for preaching on Sundays as a Pastor. I use many other Bibles (physically) and also on my Logos Bible software and I am so thankful for the blessing of having so many excellent Bible translations in English. For the faithful men and women that God has used from John Wycliffe down through the centuries that have translated the Hebrew and Greek into our heart language. If you ever get to a place where you take the Bible you have for granted, let me encourage you with my experience in Papua New Guinea in 2005. I had the privilege of visiting a village for a month where the New Testament had been recently finished, but not yet published. The church was a wooden structure with no pews, no chairs. We all sat on a bamboo floor. The pastor had in his hand a printed copy of the book of Acts in his heart language. He was preaching from Acts 16 about Paul and Silas in prison in their heart language. To see the faces of these people hearing the Word of God in their heart language for the first time. It is ingrained in my memory forever. That is why I am thankful for the faithful translations of our English Bible into modern English. Whether it be NKJV, ESV, NASB, CSB, NLT, or NIV. It is the message that changes lives! It is the Word of God to point people to the God of the Word! To show them their need for a Savior and give them the hope of Jesus Christ! It is the message that has been given by faithful men and women to our generation so that we can teach others also! We are blessed beyond measure. The next time you read the Bible or hear the Bible taught or preached, remember the countless people that gave their time, talent, and treasure to be a faithful steward of the task God had called them to do. Also remember the countless languages in the world that still do not have one verse of Scripture in their heart language. "Thank You, Lord God, for the message of salvation that has been shared with us through Your Word. Thank You for the scribes of the past who preserved it on parchment and papyrus. The letters of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek were then translated into common Latin that taught many for centuries. Then for those who translated it to German, English, and countless other languages that Your message could go forth! Thank You. Men like Tyndale who would die so that we who spoke the language of English could have the Word of God. For the translators of the Geneva Bible that used the work of Tyndale for their translation. For the translators of the King James Bible that built on the work of Tyndale and Geneva to revise the Bishop's Bible. For the modern translators that have made their aim and goal to server You and continue to be faithful to the Word of God to give us the translations we have today. Thank You, Lord God, for equipping Your saints who love You and want to serve You for building Your church through this. Thank You for the way You have used Your Word in my life to rededicate my life to You over 20 years ago and for the journey You have had me on. Help me to be faithful to You and Your Word. In Jesus' name I pray. Amen."
To any newcomers to Mark Ward, a first-time viewer might think this video is about choosing Bible translations. I encourage you to watch as many of his videos as you can, because you'll find his mission, his recurring theme, is to advance the understanding of God's Word, to maximize the understanding of God's Word, and to gently love those who don't realize that they pass their eyes over God's Word without understanding what it means simply because we who speak Modern American English assume that all Bibles must of course use our language because the words look mostly familiar. If you get nothing else from this video, catch his graciousness and adopt it into your own life with those around you specific to this topic.
Thank you for this, Steve.
I am a critical text guy and a Bible scholar who reads both testaments in the original languages, yet I have an affinity for the NKJV for three reasons that you don't mention here--reasons which, I would wager, will resonate with others. In fact, a couple of years back I read through the NKJV from cover to cover and used it as my main go-to English translation for a bit (I had been using the ESV for that purpose for well over a decade before I did this).
Here are the three closely related reasons:
1) It is close enough to the KJV (much closer than the ESV) to retain all of the positive associations I have with the KJV, yet modern enough to distance itself from the negative associations that I have. Let me explain. I'm old enough to have grown up in a world where the KJV still held tremendous cultural cache; it's easy to forget, but not long ago virtually every reference from the Bible in popular culture was a direct quotation from the KJV Bible--think of Linus reading the Christmas story in the Charlie Brown Christmas special, or the parson reading Psalm 23 or some other passage at a funeral in a cowboy movie. I memorized all of my Bible verses in Awana from the KJV as a kid, though the church that hosted the Awana club was not KJV only. Then there's Handel's Messiah, which sets the rich, rhythmic language of the KJV to music. As recently as the 1980s, you could still find many mainstream books using the KJV for their Scriptural quotations (and many others used the ASV or RSV, which weren't all that far removed from the KJV).
When I read the NKJV and I hear the language of the KJV preserved, I feel a connection to my early years, when the KJV was still so prevalent.
2) My parents used the KJV, and were heavily influenced by some KJV only-ists early on. Thankfully, they did not end up their lives as KJV-only-ists. But they still insisted on using the KJV as their main translation for personal reading, because it was all they had known. They both passed away in 2019, and that was the event that prompted me to use the NKJV as my main translation for a season. I would not want to use the KJV as my main Bible, and I don't really have much interest in reading all the way through it. It's just too foreign, and it evokes in my mind a legalistic fundamentalism that I want nothing to do with. But the NKJV gave me a way to connect with the Bible of my parents without those connotations that I have come to associate with the KJV.
3) The fact that the NKJV has been so minimalistic in its revision of the KJV language gives it a foreign and often elegant and rhythmic quality that I really appreciate. Reading through the narrative books of the NKJV, with all its quirky phrases like, "And behold, it came to pass," or "And he answered them, saying," gives it a sort of Silmarillion-esque quality that I appreciate. I am reminded that I am reading ancient annals of a long lost age. Something like the NLT, by contrast, can feel like reading a light, breezy pulp novel, and I don't always want that.
In poetry, as well, the fact that the NKJV hasn't really updated the KJV's language enough to be truly "modern" has the result of preserving a sort of rhythmic and poetic feel, perhaps more so than is the case even with the ESV. For example, right now I'm looking at Psalm 3, and the NKJV's phrasing in places-- e.g., "many are they who rise up against me, many are they who say of me . . . ," sound much more like poetry to me than, say, the CSB ("There are many who attack me. Many say about me . . .").
If you'll indulge me, I'd like to share two more thoughts on the question of using the NKJV. One is that I found the textual footnotes to be useful while reading through the GNT. That's because I use critical editions (not TR), and, due to the textual notes, I can grab a NKJV and use it as my translation-checker as I read through. If it were not for those footnotes, using the NKJV as a go-to translation for me would have been out of the question. The most important thing I need my go-to translation to do is to help me check my reading in the original languages.
And one other final thought--I don't really recommend the NKJV to others, despite my affinity for it. The fact that it still reinforces the notion that the TR or even MT is somehow superior is highly problematic in my mind, and suggesting the NKJV to someone for daily use is too much like a tacit endorsement of TR-onlyism, which I can't abide. There are other reasons, as well. There are some translation decisions that it makes that drive me bonkers. I can overlook them myself, because I know what they are, but they could be very misleading to someone who doesn't know the original languages. The one that bothers me the most is the translation of "chesed" as mercy. I get why the KJV translators used "mercy," and I get that chesed is quite difficult to translate. But when a modern reader encounters the phrase "his mercy endures forever" in the psalms (for instance), that reader will get the wrong idea (to be fair, the NIV's translation "his love endures forever" isn't really any better--but then I don' usually recommend that translation either).
great video, just finished his book Authorized: a must read for those who love God’s word and the KJV as I do
Thank you! Very kind!
The textual notes in the NKJV are especially appreciated by those who prefer the Majority Text or hold to a Byzantine Priority view and who use the NKJV because there is not yet a good translation of their preferred Greek text.
✔ agreed.
Thank you, Mark for sharing this excellent post on the NKJV. I grew up on the KJV so when the NKJV hit the market I was quick to pick up a copy and I'm glad I did. Its language and form is close to the KJV. That said, my daily readings cover several translations spanning the Textus Receptus and Critical Texts from Formal Equivalent to Dynamic Translations. Appreciate your insights.
So do mine! Thank you for the consistent kind words!
I was introduced to Christianity with the NIV84 and to this day it is my preferred dynamic translation. When I started studying the bible, I was sold on the critical text and chose an ESV. Deeper down the rabbit hole I had a change of heart and became a majority text believer so I bought an NKJV, now I use both and I have a KJV for reference just because it's fun to compare old english to modern and see if there is another take away from it. The ESV I have has good footnotes and is still my go to daily reader, but I often compare it to the NKJV when the footnotes on my ESV says "some manuscripts say"
Well, the KJV is in modern English, not Old English. The NKJV is in Contemporary English. Old English faded out of use a good 300 years before the KJV was ever translated.
The NKJV and the LSB are my preferred translations. Also, thank you for your “false friends” videos, extremely helpful in explaining what I think is the biggest reason to reject KJV-onlyism. They don’t know what they don’t know.
Right!
@@markwardonwords After I branched out into translations other than the KJV, only then did I notice all of the verses that I was misunderstanding because of the “false friends”. Your channel is a blessing, brother, thank you very much. God bless you!
You are doing outstanding work Mark. Thank you for your courage to speak the truth in love.
I appreciate that!
Thank you, Dr. Ward! The NKJV's textual footnotes were extremely helpful to me when I first started seriously considering issues of textual criticism. My Greek was not at a level where I could read through the New Testament yet, so I needed a way to understand the differences between the TR, Majority Text, and Critical Text in English. The NKJV is an excellent translation. I would recommend it to anyone who is interested in seeing what the actual differences between the TR and CT really are.
Yes! The very reason I like the NKJV! Those references are the best!
I agree. I used the NKJV for 21 years (1996-2017) before switching to the ESV. But I still do all my Scripture memorisation from the NKJV and consult it in sermon preparation. an excellent translation! And I like how it (like the NASB) puts added words in italics, something the ESV doesn't do.
Faith in God is all I have left. Faith! I’m keeping faith even though it is difficult at this time. I’m so ashamed and embarrassed over my situation. I lost my job as a social worker because I declined the vaccine. I declined due to my pre existing health condition (Lupus) and heart disease. I’m on a bunch of medications including blood thinners. I was denied my medical/religious exemption from Forsyth hospital. I fell like every month me and the boys are facing homelessness. Every month is a struggle. I can’t be on the streets with two young children. I’m so depressed. My husband passed away three years ago in a car accident. I miss him dearly. I’m still coping with his death. I’m a single mother with two sons both are autistic, and non verbal. I am so overwhelmed at this point in time, it’s so hard on me. I am all alone no family nor friends to help me durning my time of need. But it’s my faith in God that will carry me through. Please keep me and my children in your prayers thank you. God bless.
I will pray for you and your children! God will provide a way, sometimes it’s hard to see this but I assure you it’s true
I'm someone who reads the ESV and KJV/NKJV in my personal study, depending on how I am feeling. I grew up in a Greek orthodox church before becoming a reformed christian as an adult, so I have an affinity for the textus receptus/majority text/byzantine texts and would argue that the strength of these is that vast majority of remaining texts from ancient time are from this fountain as they were more widely used and accepted in ancient times
That being said, I think it would be grossly negligent for someone to completely dismiss the critical text. These are mostly of Alexandrian origin, and if you know church history beyond the reformers, it makes sense why they would be older than the Byzantine texts simply by virtue of the fact that Constantinople didn't arrive on the scene until long after Alexandria/north africa had established itself as a bastion of Christianity, which is confirmed by the writings by individuals such as Origen and Tertullion.
I think that both sides have valid arguments... as far as ancient scripture goes, older copies aren't always better, and more copies aren't always an indicator they are right.
The fact remains that the ancient documents are 98% the same, and the vast majority of differences do not affect exegesis. I think an argument could be made that divine providence has made the various ancient sources available to us Christians so that we do not get lost in the weeds, so to speak and get hung up on things that are not spiritually beneficial. The most important fact is that God lived among us humans,he suffered and died for us, fulfilling the hebrew scriptures, and by faith in him, we are saved. In my opinion, it's in our best spiritual interest to be charitable in our treatment of other Christians and their Bible choices... because people get crazy lol...
God bless - love the videos
Yes: both sides have valid arguments! I agree. It's freeing for me to say that, even though I lean strongly toward the "Alexandrian" side (if that's even the right word for it). That last big paragraph of yours is so, so important. So much fighting, so much misinformation, about such tiny differences. Now, it's the word of God, so the details are important. But only if someone can have 100% certainty that his preferred text is correct does it make sense to vilify a text that is 98% the same.
Great comment. Thank you for this.
As a church we have just left the KJV only movement. TheSimplified KJV has made the transition a lot easier😀
I'm glad to hear this. I'd love to hear how it goes with the Simplified KJV!
@@markwardonwords everyone using the simplified kjv has found it has increased their understanding. Most not ready to go to Nkjv or mev so a helpful option to have😀
I also took your advice and bought a nirv to help break down hard to understand passages to a younger audience. Really has helped alot. 😊👍 Im not a fan of the esv...
Excellent!
NKJV is my favorite. I vote Republican , Trump, and MAGA! You're funny! Thank you.
I do my best!
For those who grew up with the KJV, and understand it well, this is not an issue. The KJV is fine.
The problem I had [ personally], was my brain was spending more “time “[ for lack of better word], I wasn’t getting out of the text what I needed to. People new to Christianity will struggle with understanding the KJV.
When I was in jail, I saw that just about everyone had a different Bible version.
There was also a lot of confusion.
The New King James , and MEV are excellent, especially for the Textus Receptus . The NKJV has the advantage of being offered in many various Study Bibles, and there are many study aids available. The MEV is an excellent translation, but has limited resources available for it. [ there is one aimed at Pentecostals/Charismatics. And one that will be coming soon: “The Spititual Warfare Bible “.
In general, though, there are 2 groups of Bibles. Conservative , theologically, and more Liberal theology. These more Liberal, often water down, or obscure many of the harder doctrinal stances of the Bible. They are also , generally too weak to be used for really deep studies.
So I have more of an “issue “ with people using/promoting these weaker versions. [ For devotionals , some of these may be fine].
I do really like the NKJV, MEV, and KJV,
But also, the HCSB is very good, the NASB/NASB-95, AMPLIFIED, and “An American Translation [ aka: Beck’s Bible], and though a bit more difficult, Darby’s translation for scholars interested in Bible text.
I’d better stop here. No one will read this whole comment anyway 😁
Some good thoughts! Read your whole comment! You know your Bible translations!
As a mexican, and pretty much in the spanish speaking world, the most used and popular Bible is the Reina-Valera 1960 which is a revision of the prior versions from 1909, 1862, 1602, 1569; RV 1960 was updated using the critical text and keeping TR texts, many people (after 1960) has used, read, preached and study from it, and many people don't like the new spanish versions such as the NLT or NIV. Interestingly, I found out that regarding the KJV, it has been done something similar as it was done with the Reina-valera; the NKJV is like the RV 1960, in fact if you translate from the NKJV to spanish it will read in spanish as the RV 1960 does...so, my point is, many people (like my self) have grown in Christ with the RV 1960, so using NKJV is as reliable as the KJV...I have read KJV , but now NKJV has become my main english Bible (I also have others), because when I read it feels like i'm reading my spanish Bible...and I must say that RV 1960 leans more to the critical text, and the NKJV keeps in some places does, but it keeps those TR texts that are on the KJV (for example Romans 1:16 and Mark 1:2)...NKJV is a great trustworthy translation...
Very interesting! Thank you for this!
I totally agree with Bro. Ward. I like kjv, but I keep coming back to NKJV and am easy to understand. Thanks and God bless you and family.
Many thanks!
The NKJV is also much different than the KJV, but I still love it best
I've been using the NKJV since 2015. It's still my favorite version!
It's a good one! Enjoy!
Brother I love your work, and appreciate the long hours of study that have bought you to where you are today. I know that you are a very busy man with many miles to go before you sleep. Would you do me a solid and answer this question? If you were taking a one way, permanent trip to a deserted island, and could only take one book (I am positive it would be God's Word) what would it be (if you know)? You undoubtedly have numerous further videos to make, and I want to view all of them, but I am curious what English translation, or original language texts you would opt for. God bless you and yours, and we look forward to your reply.
My ESV readers Bible! And thank you for the kind words.
Now, the NKJV is a super translation which I like. Especially in Proverbs 12:25 It uses the word "anxious" and in KJV is says Heavy heart. Heavy heart can mean anxiety, & the Bible says not be anxious..NKJV has a good flow. KJV i will put first because of its beautiful flow too. Niv the Lord brought me away from because it removes to much, to many key phrases, passages, doctrines to, especially the doctrine of Begotten Son by them removing begotten....not.good. but KJV & NKJV for me & that's all I need. God Bless.
I still like the NIV as my main translation with my NKJV...
John3:16 on NIV is even better because it says "One & Only Son" which specifies the uniqueness of the Son compare to all other sons of God..... What matters is you understand what the spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things w/ spiritual truths for this is the wisdom of God (1Cor.2:13,7)
@@powerant1914 No, its begotten Son. Begotten starts in Psalm 2:7 This day have I begotten thee.- John 1:18 - Begotten Son. John 3:16-18 Begotten Son..1 John 3: Begotten Son...begotten means to bring into existence, bring about....The nivs problem removing thos, is Luke 3:38 Says Adam is the son of God....we are sons of God..but Adam & us are not Begotten. Only Jesus os begotten.
@@Ishallnotquit777
Begotten for me means "one & only" or "the uniquely existing son of God" (ISV) or "only special Son" (NTE)....
So yes we can be called sons of God (Gal 4:6) or children of God (Jhn1:12) like adam but Lord Jesus is the one & only Son meaning the only unique Son of God how unique? He committed no sin and the One Whom the Father set apart as His very own (Jhn10:36,NIV)....
So indeed Lord Jesus is the one & only Son of God..
@@powerant1914 Begotten meand brought about & when you compare scripture with scripture in NKJV Psalm 2:7 - John 1:18 - John 3:16-18 - You'll see context is KEY. Niv destroys this. Its sad people think they can choose what should be in Goda word & what should not be & the modern niv & esv etc translators have made you the authority to say whats roght & not....theres a lot wrong. I don't condemn people reading niv, I know brethren who read niv & what people read is their business, but the truth is, niv has blatantly lied in it's foot notes saying what should or should not be in the text, & when yiu study context, then The Spirit shows it must be there fir a reason. God Bless you.
I agree here. NIV veers too much from exactness in the name of readability. It's better if you keep in mind that the NIV is closer to a paraphrase. "Only begotten" is in the Greek and should be translated so into English and not removed. Monogenes (the Greek word for only-begotten) means much more than "one and only." That would be "Monotekhos" - one and only. None of the early church fathers believed monogenes meant strictly only/unique as modern scholars do, such 'reasoning' was never used by them. Did they ever argue with their Arian counterparts with such "logic"? It was in 1886 when scholars changed the definition. A good source for it's original and more accurate definition is found in Wayne Grudem's book "Systematic Theology" starting on page 293, 2020 edition. "Only-begotten" and "begotten" were used quite interchangeably, as is even in the Nicene Creed. The "Only-begotten Son" (Jesus) was contrasted and even juxtaposed to the "Eternal Unbegotten" God, as is in the many volumes of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. Would God being "unbegotten" mean that He isn't unique or "un-unique? "Unique" is only a small portion of the definition, not all of it. Strange that translators believe they have the God-given right to remove/change (shall I say "omit" :) ) it.
It's not the Bible's job to fit us, it's our job to fit the bible, and a dozen good translations to fit different peoples , is not the "Word of God"
Here are the reasons I could see for using the NKJV:
1. You are the leader of a Bible study group that includes both KJV-users and, let's say, NASB-users. (Everyone is a dedicated "italics for supplied words" advocate in this group!) You want easy access to variants that may come up in discussion without having to play on your phone the whole time. Thus, you need a print Bible with convenient footnotes.
2. You are convinced that the majority of manuscripts became the majority of manuscripts because their readings were superior to those of the ones that fell out of use. Maybe you even attach a doctrine of preservation to the idea. And while you acknowledge that the Textus Receptus is an imperfect representation of that Majority Text, you also recognize that the NKJV is more widely available than the alternatives that might be slightly closer to the MT readings. And hey, it even has helpful footnotes for whenever those pesky Western Text variants show up in the TR!
3. You're Greek Orthodox, and you have no patience for the "scholarship" of Western schismatics. You know that your Church, the one true Church, preserved the correct text. And you know that the TR-based translations are about as close as you're going to get if you want a widely-available edition of the New Testament in English that uses the correct text. And frankly, you don't feel like reading the archaic language of the KJV.
Great reasons to use the NKJV.
That’s pretty good Moreno. Are you a primary, not only, NKJV user?
@@Logos1000 I don't usually have much reason to use the NKJV, but if I don't have access to an NRSV, ESV, or NASB, I'm fine with using it.
Excellent Video Mark, Both the MEV and NKJV are excellent translations. The MEV, I think, is significantly easier to read.
I use the KJV in church and the MEV at home.
Both are good!
Pretty sure the text critical notes were not included in the NKJV for any reason other than to show the variants between the TR and the two main traditions. IMO these notes are helpful and actual better than any other translation’s text note with the possible exception of the NET. But let’s be honest, the NET is a niche translation that will never be popular.
Right on all counts!
NKJV is the best of all worlds. It retains the beauty of the Authorized Version whilst bringing it into our mature English language and, with the footnotes, it includes the critical texts (people criticizing that is based on ignorance), and it also includes the Dead Sea Scrolls.
It ought to be acceptable to those who prefer the TR-for reasons you've mentioned.
Hey, Mark- you know how I I feel about the NKJV. It’s a balance between the TR and the best of both worlds. I my problem is the Onlyisms . I have watched from pulpits how the NKJV used the same Greek underlying text as the kjv and it was wrong on John 5:3-4. ( bad, very bad). As verse 4 was not part of the earliest Greek text. A copyist probably was making an aside. However, If he was translating for the NIV or NLT it could be said he was making an editorial decision to not include the verse because he wasn’t using the TR.
I'll be straight up honest. I don't know what to think about the textual debate anymore.
I see the points on both sides. Both biblical and logical points alike.
Hence why I like bibles like the nasb 95 and the lsb and in a way the nkjv that keeps a good healthy balance of using both sets of documents ( least that's the way I view it)
But either way it's still a romans 14 issue.
So if the majority of the church your conscience and ( as far as we know) God has no problem with which you use then you shouldn't either
Right! Rom 14! That is so important! That has been my consistent attitude on this channel and in my personal life as a Christian.
@@markwardonwords Question. Where do you think the church fathers would stand in the debate overall?
The reason I asked because I know some of the church fathers quoted from the textus receptis and others quoted from the critical text.
I know that's obviously not what they called them at the time but you know what I mean.
I don't know if there's any documents on if they had this debate or not.
But if they did where do you think the church fathers overall would stand in the debate?
With the majority of them support one side or the other or do you think they would be just as divided as we are over the issue?
@@austintucker394 Honestly, I think the whole bifurcation-the two streams-is a massive oversimplification to the point of error. I think the fathers were generally aware of mild textual pluriformity. I know Augustine was.
I love my KJV and my NKJV. I also enjoy the ESV, NASB, and lately, the LSB. I own, and occasionally use the CSB and NLT. Whenever I find one of those hard to understand passages, I find that reading other translations is helpful. I use whatever version of the Bible the Pastor is using, making it easier for me to follow along with the sermon or lesson. I admit that I really love my KJV though, and if I absolutely had to make a decision to keep one Bible only, that would be my choice. :)
Thankfully, no one is forcing anyone else to keep one Bible only-except the KJV-Onlyists!
Advise having both TR and critical text. I value NASB and NKJV.
A good plan! Go for it!
What about the 21st century King James version, what's your thoughts on that edition?
I simply haven't had the chance to go through it in any detail. =|
@@markwardonwords trust me you're not missing much I read it myself and it's in the same English as its predecessor the only difference is the punctuation is more morden and it capitalizes pronouns for Deity and that's about it
This is a great series and I love your final point about “whole” translations, as I came to terms that there’s decisions in several translations I see value in. I was letting 2 Samuel 21:19 be my determinate for writing off entire translations for a long time.
Right! It is so, so sad to me that people write off whole Bible translations based on one perceived error. Even the NRSVue, which has a serious error in it in 1 Cor 6, is surely full of plenty of other great translation choices.
Hi Mark. Have you come across the Text-Critical English New Testament (Byzantine Text Vesion) by Robert Adam Boyd (copyright 2021)?
Yes! I've had a little correspondence with him.
@@markwardonwords It looks good to me - I have a copy. Easy to read.
In Brazil the most used version (Almeida Revised and Updated, ARA) is based on the critical text and supposed to have more modern language than its TR predecessor (Almeida Revised and Corrected, ARC), although it still has a lot of archaisms in its language, by some measures even more than the TR translations. Its not as common as in the US, but the TR-only mentality also exists in other coutries, and in Brazil theres a funny phenomenon where some people actually prefer to buy a portuguese translation of the KJV (locally called Biblia King James or BKJ), which tries to translate terms exactly like the KJV, but in portuguese, and which some prefer because it's surprisingly less filled with archaic language than the Faithful Corrected Almeida (ACF), which is a more recent translation that tries to be more literal than the other translations, so we have both TR only people who prefer it as well as actual KJV-only people who dont even sepak english!
I do see far more people reading the NVI (Portuguese version of the NIV) and NVT (which tries to be an optimal equivalence translation) and even paraphrase Bibles here than in the US though. Young women especially seem to like the NVI.
Might be because most brazilian evangelicals are first generation, since the country was historically more homogeneously catholic, which also means the literary impact of the Almeida bible on modern portuguese was lesser than the KJVs on modern English, so it didnt get time or have a reason to become as prominent an issue as in the US, but it does exist, and I've seen more of it after the New Updated Almeida (NAA, new version of the ARA) was released.
Very interesting. I have a good friend who was a missionary to Brazil in a KJV-Only context. He would understand perfectly what you're saying. One thing I've wanted to do is tally up how many Christians have "received" the critical text throughout the world.
@@markwardonwords what's even more curious is that not only there's a KJV-only "KJV 1611 in portuguese" translation (I'm not sure if they translate from the English or from the TR, but they judge their accuracy by how closely the text resembles the KJV's wording anyway), but there's an Updated King James bible which is translated from the critical text and uses the "KJV style" (which I find odd, since there's no KJV style in portuguese, lol), so it's not even just KJV onlyism behind this phenomenon. There's also a "Reina Valera in portuguese". I'm not sure why, but I guess it's not that odd given most theological material is use is translated from English anyway (the textnotes and articles in our NAA study Bibles for ex are all translated from the ESV study bible, the commentaries used are mostly from American and British scholars, etc), so someone reading books praising the KJV might have decided it's better than it's portiguese equivalents (ACR, ACF), but I haven't seem people going as far as having bible translations based on English translations in other languages.
Ironically ,the BKJ has less archaic language than the ACF, and it's printed editions usually have some extra features that people like, so you have some people who prefer it to the traditional portuguese TR translation because it's easier to read.
Come to think about it, wasn't the Geneva Bible the one the Puritans used way back then? I think it is.
I think it's more so the Pilgrims that you can generalize as using the Geneva Bible. But I can't speak with confidence. Tim Berg is your man for that! KJBHistory.com.
Since you're just about done with the major translations of the Bible, I'd love to see your take on the Jerusalem Bible. It's notable for being the first "Catholic" bible to use non-vulgate/Septuagint sources and for being partially translated by JRR Tolkien!
I'm not a Catholic but I'm convinced that the Septuagint is a better source text than the Masoretic Text. Do you know of any "Protestant" Bibles that use the Septuagint as its primary OT source?
I would encourage you to read the King James Bible , it's been faithful and lead many to Salvation in Christ Jesus for the last 412 years .
I have dyslexia which affects my reading , spelling, and comprehension which means I have to re-read and re-read to get it , but I do get it because i " Study to shew thyself approved unto God , a workman that needeth not be ashamed , rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Tim 2 v 15.
My friend, do you know what “study” means in that verse? I’m not mocking or trying a gotcha. I’m asking. I urge you to watch my video on that word: ruclips.net/video/Nzgmi6I2HIE/видео.html.
As a 70 year old man with 50+ years of almost constant study in God's word; with now MANY various translations from both sides of the textual fence; my carry bible in my 1985 printing of the Nelson NKJV, double column, center column reference, and wide margins. But my heart lives in the older Byzantine versions. I also love my 1560 and 1599 GENEVA BIBLES minus those notes. The texts are great! Tyndale's 1527 NT is in one of my desk drawers that is referenced frequently as well. But that NKJV is that bridge that straddles the textual fence that makes it usable in discussion. I've recently found a 1984 printing of a Nelson KJV formatted in the same way as my NKJV. I could not help myself from buying it! Its currently in the mail. I'm "patiently" awaiting its arrival. Thanks for making these videos.
@@grit1679 71 now! Just had a birthday last week!
What happened to the NLT video you referenced at the end of the video? I'd love to watch it
Still writing the script; it's been on the backburner!
@@markwardonwords thanks for getting back to me. I look forward to watching it!
One of the problems I’ve encountered with the KJV-Only ministers, is they are often, dry, and bitter. They have no [ or very little] Joy. They tend to lean towards a legalistic view of Christianity. [ NOT ALL, but many].
This hasn't been my personal experience, except for the legalism part-but I don't deny your experience!
My wife uses the NKJV, and I think she'd say it's the best translation if you grew up with it, memorized it, and don't want to change! She has little interest in textual criticism and the debates about the TR - it's just what she knows. But for those who do care about such things, there's a lot of great information here, thank you! I look forward to your video on the NLT which I enjoy using alongside other translations.
NKJV is my favorite, but for deep study I use a ESV study Bible.
The NKJV sounds beautiful and is easy enough to understand (I grew up with the Bible so the language ect isn't new to me)
My main issue with critical text translations(obviously I don't mind too much I read them all the time) is not about the "CR" but rather a translators decision in John 3:16 and Hebrews 11:17 to say "only son" instead of "only begotten son"
- why? Because in Psalms 89 David is called God's first born but it is in terms of selected or anointed. Jesus is of God and begotten demonstrates the difference and it's significant in my opinion. In Hebrews Isaac is clearly not Abraham's only son but here it says only son because of the Greek word "monogene" which means "only begotten", "only of the parent" or "only legitimate".
Am I wrong about this?
"Only son" was a sincere attempt to reflect our best understanding of the Greek word monogenes. But it was wrong. And this can happen to translators! I don't think it misled a single person to get that wrong, because Christ's deity and the doctrine of the Trinity are well established. But I'm glad it was set right.
www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/lets-go-back-to-only-begotten/
So glad we have so many translations.
For me, I don't like the new king james
It's like light beer
I like the full flavor of king james english
But my favorite translations are the NIV and NLT.
I like to consult the so called literal translations occasionally as well
But I don't like reading the literal translations
They seldom read like a normal english speaker would speak
And their desire to be so literal word for word makes it less understandable
Could it be that the more recently discovered texts, parchments and manuscripts found after the RT are part of what the bible refers to at Mark 13:31 “Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away”? After all, the fact that we have such texts, parchments and manuscripts shows that those words didn’t pass away. Praise God we can have an even clearer understanding of His word because of them!
In advance, please do not respond to this inquiry and suggestion brother Mark . I’m thinking that you are a brother who is premillennial but isn’t dispensational ? I myself was raised and inclined to believe the Dispensational view but found Dr Waldrons two books and Dr Kim Riddelbarger to be very convincing for the Amill view . Also a great positive presentation of the covenantal theology by a Reformed Baptist, Dr Sam Renihan was an eye opener for me as well ; so much of the Bible makes sense to me now in a way that it didn’t before .
You have been a great help to me and others in my church on the topic of translation and Text , thank you so very much Dr Mark Ward .
Hey I hear there about to create an update to the MEV. Is that true ?
Yes!
@@markwardonwords awesome. Do you know when ?
@@austintucker394 I believe it is imminent. But I do not know with certainty.
@@markwardonwords ok thanks.
I tend to lean more towards TR mainly just out familiarity. I preach from the KJV, but at home I use the NJKV more than any other translation. I use the NASB/LSB as a compliment. I LOVE the NKJV
Those are all good options! Of course, if you don't already know my channel, and if you preach from the KJV, I encourage you to check out my "Fifty False Friends in the KJV" series on RUclips for help reading the KJV! ruclips.net/p/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc
Thumbs up, even though I am NOT an critical text guy!
✔ More power to you, my friend!
1 Samuel 15:15 (Your or Thy) This is a major difference.
Thy: The God and my God
Your: I'm trying to dissociate from God
Not sure I follow you, friend.
@@markwardonwords *No, we follow Jesus.
I'm reading the old testament and feel like there's a big discrepancy between the word 'Thy' and 'Your' the KJV and NKJV have different translations of Samuel 1 15:15
'Thy' makes it sound like Saul is a Victim of Circumstance, he made a mistake....he was struggling with the 'wicked spirit' and wasn't able to overcome-it....
'Your' makes him out to be more of a Villain in Defiance and Opposition to God as though leading a rebellion against God.
It's a small word, but a big difference.
Thy God as in:
The God & My God (Combined)
Your God as in:
Not my God.
@@hellfrost333 But, my friend, "thy" and "your" mean exactly the same thing in that context!
Read through KJV and NKJV many times. Currently, NASB 77, NIV, and ESV are my favorites. And if I could only have one, it’d be ESV. Why? I believe it’s best for me at this time 🙏🏼😁
Good choice! The ESV Is the Best Bible Translation!
ruclips.net/video/_rYONqbBGfo/видео.html
Although there are apps where you can do the same thing, for me there's nothing better than having a physical copy of your two favorite translations side by side for comparison and greater understanding. 🙂
More power to you! I’m a Logos man!
@@markwardonwords I'm pretty new to studying the Bible, maybe one day I'll be a Logos man too 😅
Our church switched to using the NKJV a few years ago under careful teaching from a mutual friend (and my former pastor). Our church overwhelmingly supported the change and we haven't looked back. We are definitely a church that appreciates and prefers (?) a TR-based translation having used the KJV for so long. Jumping to a CT-based translation might have been a bridge too far for some, but plenty of our people use and appreciate such versions as well.
I may be one of the oddball NKJV users who like it because of the textual notes. As I'm reading or preparing for sermons, these notes spark my thinking about the translation of the passage and force me to look at the original (I'm educated in Greek, but not proficient by any means). I come across some people who are bothered by the notes, and it's just hard for me to relate. I really enjoy getting a little insight into the decisions being made by translators as they compare the extant manuscripts. Through Logos software, I've also enjoyed using the NET Bible as a study tool for the same reason. I'm less familiar with the MEV but, oddly enough, was introduced to it by a friend who preferred the KJV tradition and felt the MEV did a better job than the NKJV.
Thank you Mark for the constant reminder through these videos of the Apostle Paul's words - "All are yours."
Excellent! I really appreciate this comment. I know that pastor. =) We need to meet in real life, Christian!
Thank you, Mark. I appreciate the balanced assessment you've presented. I'm not a TR or KJV-Only guy, but I'm "wired" to the language of the KJV and NKJV from years of foundarional exposure, so they're kind of home base for me. At some point, I must refer back to the AV phraseology. So glad you remarked via your video addendum about how the NKJV clues us into points of difference, i.e., critical text footnotes. I feel this gives me the best of both worlds. Now, in practical matters of choice, I've opted to forego the newer NIV translation when making major Bible purchases because of the TNIV and 2011 controversy (or maybe you have videos about the NIV that will disabuse me of my concerns). Recently, I decided to pre-order the beautifully typographed new Thompson Chain Reference edition (talk about turning a typographic toad into a prince), and I've opted for the NKJV edition with a full understanding of the caveats and tradeoffs you've expressed. Thanks again for the perspective (we live in a world of other fine translations) and for the vote of confidence for the NKJV.
Thank you for this kind and thoughtful comment.
You may indeed wish to see my video on the NIV: ruclips.net/video/8KaRpnhkViY/видео.html
Hey Mark. There is a parallel bible that has NIV NKJV NLT and Message. I wish I could replace the MSG with another more "literal." If you were making a 4 parallel version bible, what 4 would be your choice? Im guessing your choice would be ESV. Am I right? If I am. Its because I've watched every vid you made. Keep up the good work brother!
I'm honored!
Ooh… I think I'd go ESV + NIV + CSB + NLT. But I would suffer with just four now. ;) I check lots in Logos!
Thos NKJV footnotes to different textual traditions are a good resource. You get the best of all worlds by using an NKJV.
Right!
Uber, on the fence, liberal, offend no one.
I would love to see the NLT next! I use lots of different translations of the Bible: KJV, ESV, NIV, NLT, and the NKJV. I kind of just pick at any given moment of reading what I’m feeling that day. I mostly read the ESV, NIV, and NLT to my children. I have to say that the other day I read a translation of a verse in the NLT that I had never really understood in any other Bible translation. It was Lamentations 3:27. In most translations it says something almost identical to “It is good for a man to bear the yoke while he is still young.” In the NLT it says, “And it is good for people to submit at an early age to the yoke of his discipline.” I realized that I had always thought that that verse meant learning how to work hard when you’re young. I never realized that it meant learning to submit to God when you’re young. That’s a pretty sizable difference in application, in my opinion. I have since started quoting the NLT version of that verse to my children. But I thought of you, Mark, when I saw that!
Excellent! Now, off the top of my head, I wouldn't just accept the NLT's interpretation here. I would weigh it, pursue the question. Almost certainly, the NLT chose a viable interpretation. Whether they chose the best one or not will take some more study. Check out some commentaries from your local theological library if you have one, perhaps! Or check the NET Bible notes. Those are often helpful. If you have some time to put into this, I'd love to hear what you come up with!
@@markwardonwords That’s excellent advice, thank you! I will definitely look into it more.
@gastie..what I did and still do..I ise the nkjv and the nlt and have never regretted my decision. I have found the nlt to be highly underrated on its accuracy;its an excellent scholarly translation..god bless..Toni's husband
I have the mev bible the kenneth copeland ministries bible I read the king James And the New Living Translation And living Bible I a learning disability And mile down syndrome the mev bible Help Understand the reading better And the living bible too
More power to you! I pray for God's help to you!
Overheard in a Christian book store: “I need a Bible, and don’t show me anything except the Old Original Saint James Virgin”.
Too funny!
Doing the online with you for a few years. I hear 7 year tribulation in sermons often. Suggest you look at the 1560 Genovese bible footnotes to view early church understanding of Daniel 9:27 and the New King James translation of one, not he. The predominant 7 year premise was first promoted by a Jesuit Catholic by the name of Francisco Ribera In the late 1500's. It was adopted by John Nelson Darbey and the Schofield theologians and passed forward to the Dalas Theological and worldwide from there. Hard pill to swallow my brother. Trust you will be the True Burrean
I was raised Seventh-day Adventist (though not always practicing), and certain (more conservative) forces in the SDA church are KJV Onlyists, probably because most of the "distinctive" Adventist doctrines are more easily supported by the KJV than any modern translation. However, some SDA ministers I've seen, such as Doug Batchelor and one of the ex-pastors at the church I grew up in (who was, incidentally, quite a young man at the time and a recent seminary graduate), are modified KJV Onlyists in the sense that they also encourage and recommend the NKJV. (If I remember correctly, the pew Bibles at the SDA church my family attended were KJV as well.) And as I've stated before, my late grandma, though not a KJV Onlyist, very much preferred it, though this was likely more due to coming from a time when the KJV was the primary English Bible translation than her commitment to the SDA church.
And what you said about the Rechabites is very much appropriate here. Adventists generally teach that eating non-kosher meats and seafood and drinking alcohol in any quantity is a sin, though I believe the Bible clearly teaches otherwise. Nonetheless, I also do not drink alcohol because my immediate family doesn't drink and have a long family history of alcoholism that I don't want to become the next victim of. I also continued to attend SDA services despite my doctrinal issues and abstain from pork, shellfish, etc. out of respect for my grandma while she was here. And I think God would honor that, because after all, He did say to "honor your father and mother."
As an aside, I appreciated your joke about Christians who read modern translations officiating gay marriages, baptizing babies in alcohol and voting Democrat. There was a time in my life when I also very much thought it was a sin to vote for a Democrat, and while I am still anti-Democrat for the most part I don't think it's a sin to vote for them. There are plenty of reasons why a sincere Christian may think it is more appropriate to vote for a Democrat or left-wing candidate than someone else, and though I generally disagree with those reasons I can also understand and respect their logic.
Hello. I'm a SDA myself, and our church used the NIV. Another Church uses the NKJV. I think it just varies from congregation to congregation. God bless. 😇
@@sylvia4425 Indeed, it does vary. Guide magazine typically used the NIV when my gma taught Sabbath school with it.
HotWax93- I am solidly for the party that is against killing babies... Lesser of evils if you will, but we need to vote with common sense and will certainly answer to God for our choices. Nothing is perfect outside of the Godhead, but that doesn't mean that all are exactly the same.
@@duranbailiff5337 I agree, though I have been dismayed by the way so much of the GOP leadership has cowered at Trump, a man who is as un-Christian as they come.
I’d rather have an honest Democrat than a Republican in name only. If it is a Democrat vs a RINO, I vote for the Democrat.
Those are two excellent translations, and I use them both...along with the NASB95, CSB, LSB, AMP, BSB, etc....Thanks for this, Mark!
My pleasure!
The Dangers of the old King James: CAN'T IGNORE THIS!!! Here we go! If we are dedicated to going by Scripture, which translation are we going to prefer? The ONLY translation that contains the word Easter instead of Passover is the old King James and its variations. You may ask, "What is the error?" Do you want your children to grow up worshiping a pagan fertility goddess, or the only true God who caused the angel of death to pass over the houses of the people Israel who had put blood on the doorposts and lintel? Our culture seems more interested in eggs and bunnies than in the true meaning. The New King James has corrected this.
Mark, do you think that some people get hung up on the "Textus Receptus" perhaps because of its name? The "Received Text" implies it wasn't edited/created by people, but received from the hand of God or something. What if instead of "Textus Receptus" it was called something like "the Erasmus-Estienne Edition of 1550"?
It's true that a lot of the battle is to be had in terminology. But I don't think that's the draw. I think the draw is the KJV.
I understand your position but lets not presume. Lets just spread the good news
Evangelism is more important than Bible translation, yes, but that doesn't mean Bible translation is unimportant or not worth talking about!
@@markwardonwords I agree, and who;e heartedly and think all Glory To The Most High YHWH in the noame of Jesus Amen and hear here.
Plesase excuse the type error God Bless you in the name and blood of JESUS !
I pastor a bilingual church.
For simplicity I preach off the NKJV and RVR60.
✔
I use the KJV as my main bible to read from and study, however I do have numerous other translations, to fully grasp understanding and allow the Holy Spirit to guide me.
Excellent!
Fantastic comments on the New King James text-critical footnotes - thanks for the video Mark
What I now need is just a little bit of the knowledge I'll bet you have about *OT* textual criticism. I'd really like to learn more than I know. I really want to read more about the kethibh-qere readings in particular. I need to buy and read Tov.
Would you consider doing a video like this for the NET? I feel it doesn’t get as much attention as many translations.
Yes. It’s in my plans.
I went to a KJVO home church, that was my first introduction to the gospels. I really didn't like the archaic language of the KJV, and opted for the NKJV. I've explored many translations since then, read Stephanus, etc.
It finally feels like I've gone full circle, as i now use the MEV as a preferred choice because I'm used to the NKJV, but didn't want to return to its word syntax order. I also really like the NET Bible, and that is my second favourite bible translation. Plus Thomas Nelson make quality versions of it.
All good choices!
Great information thank you for sharing this invaluable information!!!
Glad it was helpful!
I like the principle of choosing the translation the pastor / priest chooses. I also like the fact that the NKJV and the MEV modern equivalents to the KJV.
The Orthodox Study Bible uses the NKJV for the New Testament and a new translation of the LXX for the Old Testament. The Orthodox Church (including the **Greek Orthodox**) is TR onliest.
Strictly speaking, they're Byzantine Text Onlyist. The work of Erasmus was built on that textual tradition, but it also contains readings from the Western Text (i.e. the pre-Vulgate Latin) type. And since they're the ones who adopted and reproduced the Byzantine Text for centuries, the Orthodox are well within their right to favor the "Majority Text" and, to a lesser degree, any English translation that follows that text more closely than it does the Alexandrian Text.
Excellent video Mark.
A quick note on the textual footnotes of the NKJV. At first I did not like them, I grew up on the KJV, still love it and read it (along with the NKJV & Webster's revision) but comparing the nkjv notes with other translations notes I appreciate the way the NKJV did their notes. That being said, for the KJVO people criticizing the textual footnotes of the NKJV; they will be surprised to open up their reproduced 1611 editions or their TBS Westminster Reference ones to Luke 17:36 and there off to the side is a footnote for that verse which says "This 36 verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies." So even some editions of the KJV including the original 1611 has a so called "Bible doubting footnote".
Great video Mark! I was looking forward to this one.
Blessings in Christ,
Dan
I addition to this, you can also buy officially published editions of the NKJV that do not have any footnotes. This alone makes the argument against the NKJV based on textual critical footnotes completely moot, because if that's really a major problem that KJV-Onlyists have with it, they can simply buy a No Footnotes Edition.
@@curtthegamer934 I didn't know that you can order NKJV without Textual footnotes? Where can you order them? Thomas Nelson text only NKJV's still contains the textual footnotes. I have a Giddens NKJV that has no notes at all & my father has the 1982 1st edition NKJV and it doesn't have any notes either.
Thank you CurtTheGamer
@CurtTheGamer I think for the KJVO people, it's unacceptable to them that the Bible was translated by men who would even consider the inclusion of those footnotes and was published by a publisher what would print them. They want translators who firmly believe with a pure heart that the TR is God's supernaturally preserved Word.
@@sorenpx The problem with that logic is that the translators of the KJV did not even believe that the TR was perfect, and neither did Erasmus. The point is that KJV translators chose to follow the TR, and so did the NKJV translators, despite what they believed.
@@curtthegamer934 I understand, but that's just how KJVO people think. In theory, at least some of them will acknowledge that a new translation from the TR isn't ungodly by default, but in their view the translators would have to hold the TR-only position, be godly men who lead upright lives, and would have to be Protestants who hold thoroughly orthodox beliefs.
I’m not a pastor, and have no plans to become one, but…
Can a pastor create paper handouts or essays re: texts and translations on the church’s website, with relevant sources and appropriate links?
How about a FAQ preceding the whole thing a la Google (i.e., you don’t see the response until you click on the question) ?
One could insert a text box after each Q/response to facilitate feedback.
Just a thought. Great channel-referred here by a Frisch perspective.
Sure! Sounds great!
The MEV translates Acts19:2 better than the NKJV. But the NKJV translates 1Cor.6:9 much better than the MEV. Here is part of the problem. There is no obvious or perfect successor to the KJV. Also many TR preferred folks don't particularly care for all the footnotes in the NKJV referencing the CT. The MEV, I think has only 2. But sadly, any serious TR based version is DOA. KJVOnliest will not except any change to the KJV.
I fully agree with the last two sentences. But they’re tautological: the people who reject the NKJV and MEV for flimsy reasons are clearly KJV-Only.
Mark's a rock star!!
I've already settled these issues, probably because I didn't grow up in a church where this was an issue, in my mind, but find myself watching your videos every time they come out. I think it's because of how level headed you approach those that oppose you even though you empathize with their position. I probably wouldn't be, honestly I haven't been, as nice when approached on the subject.
I found out the NJKV is very very close to the ESV.
Agreed!
We should always learn both sides of an argument before being close minded or dogmatic. Calvinism, Arminianism, KJO, Eschatology, etc. I have migrated from various positions after further research. And sometimes you can just say your not sure.
This is especially true of positions held by otherwise apparently faithful Christian people.
As per pastor mike everhards advice I use kjv, nkjv, and nasb( he prefers esv, but Charles Stanley uses nasb). My preferred daily translation is the nkjv. My very least like is niv 2011. I don’t agree with kjv only. I think conflating the kjv with the original autographs is erroneous. God Bless. Joshua 22:5
✔
Does the NKJV resolve some or all of the “false friends” of the KJV? Thanks for all of these wonderful videos.
I would say most. And the few it doesn't resolve are debatable, like "hosts."
Ultimately, it comes down to trusting and knowing, that God will mute any errors/lackings/rewritting of doctrine or characters in the Bible/taking out of verses, and will impart the True Word of God to you. This is why I can read any translation, and still receive. Even though the KJV has the full measure of original intent, I can still receive the Word of God through an niv, etc, or even "the message" or "the passion". Because I am born again and I am one of His sheep and the sheep hear the voice of the Good Shepherd and He rewards those who diligently seek Him. It's like hearing a good message from a preacher. Some of them may get mixed in, but the Holy Ghost will tell you what part is the preacher and what part is the Holy Ghost declaring what Jesus has.
Kjv is virtually incomprehensible; nkjv is clunky, thank God for the MEV!
But what about the triquetra printed on the NKJV they say it's representation of godhead but Bible says you should not add any image to Godhead and it's a symbol used in pagan religion and blackmagic
My friend, this is conspiracy theory thinking. The people who created the NKJV were Bible-believing evangelicals: would they purposefully use a pagan symbol? Plus, I think they dropped that symbol years ago after complaints.
@@markwardonwords but NKJV changes the verse is kjv like Hebrews 2v16 in kjv he didn't took on the nature of the angels but in NKJV it says he didn't come to aid of angels
@@jaideepnalluri If you have a KJV that properly marks the words added by the translators, you should see that "the nature of" is in italics. Those words aren't there in Greek. It's a guess at the meaning by the translators. They give a more literal rendering of Hebrews 2.16 in the margin: "Gr. he taketh not hold of Angels, but of the seed of Abraham he taketh hold."
The NKJV does offer the KJV's interpretation in its own marginal notes, but the NKJV translators interpreted the ambiguous "he takes hold of angels" differently than the KJV translators did. Is it "taking hold" of their nature, or "taking hold" of them to help them? The underlying Greek word can mean either thing.
Compare Ecclesiasticus 4.11 in the KJV, where this Greek word pops up again: "Wisdom exalteth her children, and layeth hold of them that seek her." Is Wisdom taking hold of the nature of those who seek her, or is she taking hold of them to help them? It's obviously the latter.
@@MAMoreno but many people doesn't read footnotes and I have a NKJV bible but it doesn't have any footnotes at all and i also don't read footnotes at most of the times
Geneva only! just kidding I just want the truth in English. Thank you for the nerds who want find the truth. Before i was saved I remember the joy that Green Bay Packer and Reverend Reggie White had on his face for being called to translate Hebrew. I will be switching to NKJV becuase I feel my NIV 2011 sometimes unreliable from not being word for word. Atonment cover vs Mercy seat give the NIV a sanatized feeling is some places. I will use the NIV for Sunday school and working with kids , but in my personal relationship with the Lord it is the NKJV.
I have the Word of Promise NKJV audio Bible. I use this when reading my NKJV bible. This a Bible used for more than 26 years. Love the NKJV and RC Sproul preaches out of the NKJV
What's the difference between the TR and the majority text?
The Majority Text is a broader category; the TR is (sort of! this is complicated!) one instance of a Majority-type text. But the TR does not contain only majority readings. Here are some study resources on this complicated topic:
byfaithweunderstand.com/2020/09/03/answering-a-question-i-get-all-the-time-the-places-to-start-in-studying-new-testament-textual-criticism/
I enjoy the KJV. In my dad’s country Barbados they use it often.
Thank you, Dr. Ward, for bringing in the NKJV and MEV into your "Best Bible Translation" series! You commented on how it is said the NKJV uses the same texts as the KJV, and that it is a myth otherwise. I looked into this some time ago and discovered that the issue is the claim that the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text (also called the Bomberg Text) was switched out for the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia text? Is this a myth? If not, is there a significant difference? It's difficult for me to tell, and it's notable how relatively little is out there about it, as so much attention has been given to the NT texts. BTW, I've got an MEV on my work desk, lots of NKJV Bibles at home, and an NASB I've carried for over 20 years to put my notes in. Still doing a lot of reading on Textual Criticism, including the resources you've recommended. Appreciate you very much, Sir, for making me think!
Yes, they used the Stuttgart text, but the differences are negligible. Either way, the Masoretic tradition is being faithfully represented in English. It's not like with the New Testament, where the differences between critical editions reflect manuscript families with significant variants.
A. The Bomberg/ben Chayyim Text:
Daniel Bomberg printed the first Rabbinic Bible in 1516-17 based upon the ben Asher text. That work was followed in 1524-25 by a second edition prepared by Jacob ben Chayyim and also published by Bomberg. The text of ben Chayyim was adopted in most subsequent Hebrew Bibles, including those used by the King James translators.
B. Rudolph Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica:
The ben Chayyim text was also used for the first two editions of Rudolph Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica [BHK] of 1906 and 1912.
In 1937, however, Paul Kahle published a third edition of Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica. This edition was based on the oldest dated manuscript of the ben Asher text, the Leningrad Manuscript B19a (A.D. 1008).
C. The Stuttgart Biblia Hebraica [BHS]:
For the New King James Version the text used was the 1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of the Biblia Hebraica [BHS], with frequent comparisons being made with the Bomberg edition of 1524-25.
There are only 9 places where the Bomberg/ben Chayyim and the BHS have a translatable difference. In 8 of those places, the NKJV used the reading of the Bomberg/ben Chayyim text. These verses are: 1 Chron. 15:2, Prov. 8:16, Is. 27:2, Is. 38:4, Ez. 30:18, Zeph. 3:15 (twice), and Mal. 1:12. The exception was in 1 Kngs. 20:38, where the difference does not effect the meaning.
D. Other Sources:
The Septuagint (Greek) Version of the Old Testament and the Latin Vulgate also were consulted.
In addition to referring to a variety of ancient versions of the Hebrew Scriptures, the New King James Version draws on the resources of relevant manuscripts from the Dead Sea caves.
In the few places where the Hebrew was so obscure that the 1611 King James was compelled to follow one of the versions, but where information is now available to resolve the problems, the New King James Version follows the Hebrew text.
According to Dr, Price, (OT executive editor of the NKJV) he personally made sure the NKJV followed Ben Chayimm in the 8 places it differs from Stuttgart.
Thank you once again, and 'GOD Bless!'
Thank you too!
God bless you !
NKJV !
yes both of those are the best!!!!!!!!
Where can I buy a printed copy of the Lexham Textual Notes on the Bible?
Doesn’t exist. =(
@@markwardonwords That makes me sad. Is there a bible that has the LXX/TR combination for old and new testaments?
@@DrGero15IDK if that exists but it'd be really cool to have!
@@DrGero15 I think that may be the case with the Orthodox Study Bible, AFAIK it uses the LXX for OT, and NKJV for NT.
@@markwalker3484 I'll check it out!