Dan Haifley is such a breath of fresh air. So thankful to hear a discussion where we can disagree and still be brotherly! So thankful for his heart and personality.
@@wardonwords it seems to me that in order to REALLY figure out.. the meaning of the passage Matthew 6:27.. would be NOT to focus on the word.. "cubit".. because I think everyone agrees even the ancient scribes .. that this word.. represented some kind of "measure" or "length".. or "span"...correct?.. it seems to me.. that we need to center our attention of what was the intent meant by the word "stature".. used in the KJV text... was the original Greek word used here purposely ambiguous?., if we take... hēlikian OR
ἡλικίαν and examine THAT... this would seem to indicate "lifespan"... so hence we must conclude that this word used by the KJV translators.. "stature".. was in reference to time... NOT distance.. but IMO...I think both definitions.. make a good saying... the whole.. idea... is "worrying does Not help.. or solve anything... so why do it?.. as that one song from years ago stated..."Don't worry, be happy" worry will Not help one to grow OR live longer... I think. .trying to pinpoint exactly what is meant .. time? or distance?.. is "splitting hairs".. even the disciples who walked with Jesus had to ask Him oft times.. what things He said meant... I think that will be us..... one day as well..
@@wardonwords You DID touch on two concerns for those of us in life.... "how tall will I be?" "how long will I live?".. . I imagine these are VERY real concerns for the vast majority of the population... amongst Other concerns.. such as.. "where will my next meal come from?"... and "how will I make ends meet?"...
Mark, im sad to hear you're keeping a firm set date for ending this conversation. Your level of honesty on the subject, adjoined with your expertise , is hard to find. I've learned from others, just going really going to miss your angle, as I'm not sufficiently filled or content with this subject and will continue searching. I really and truly appreciate your ministry Mark and it's opened many eyes. God bless you.
That little diversion about "be careful" or having anxiety vesus thoughtful action is exactly why I'm here. You did well to stop and make sure the text was understood before rushing forward. 😊
@@wardonwords regarding *Luke 22 : 44* I have a *major stumbling block* →→ I read into it to mean, His stress was so intense, that even His sweat [when hitting the ground] seemed to resemble being of a manner not unlike great droplets of blood hitting the ground. § However, what I hear preached is, His stress was so intense, that His actual sweat converted into actual blood; and His great “sweating blood” droplets were hitting the ground. ( *AND [supposedly] backed up by* medical literature which confirms this medical anomaly. ) Please clarify for me, Dr Mark Ward. P.S. sorry to be offf topic. .
This conversation was frustrating. Dan plays ignorance, rambles when faced with clear inconsistencies, and holds a standard to English versions that he does not hold to any TR philosophy. Before "more research" is done, there must be honesty in the conversation.
I'm willing to give him some time to work through new ideas. At least he'll talk with me cordially; I've rarely been able to do such a thing. I've come to appreciate this about him greatly. He also listens. Who knows where this may lead?
I don’t know if KJVO will ever accept it. They hardly even accept the NKJV and it’s a Great Translation. They don’t even accept the KJVER . I actually see a real resurgence of the KJV with the younger generation. There’s a trend starting to happen ! Kind of like the Mullet and Moustaches LOL .
Just don't let it be done by apostates who like to remove key words and key verses as shown here: (NIV) +(ESV) Non-Inclusions: Mat 17:21 Mat 18:11 Mat 23:14 Mar 7:16 Mar 9:44 Mar 9:46 Mar 11:26 Mar 15:28 Luk 17:36 Luk 23:17 Jhn 5:4 Act 8:37 Act 15:34 Act 24:7 Act 28:29 Rom 16:24 (RSV) Non-Inclusions: Mat 12:47 Mat 17:21 Mat 18:11 Mat 21:44 Mat 23:14 Mar 7:16 Mar 9:44 Mar 9:46 Mar 11:26 Mar 15:28 Luk 17:36 Luk 22:43 Luk 22:44 Luk 23:17 Luk 24:12 Luk 24:40 Jhn 5:4 Act 8:37 Act 15:34 Act 24:7 Act 28:29 Rom 16:24
No we do not need an update on the KJV. What would be great is if translations such as the Geneva bible and the ASV were revived so that people can see that when the translators of the KJV said it was not their intention to make a new translation but to make a good translation better they were not lying. Furthermore with regards to the KJV it should be compulsory that the preface to the reader is in every KJV bible so that the KJV cultists' can see that the translators themselves condemn anyone who says the KJV is the only bible for the English speaking people.
@@MetroplexAerials More's the pity because it was the one translation prior to the KJV that l read which exposed the lie that the KJV was a unique translation separating itself from all other translations. Reading it was an eye-opening experience and brought home the reality you are never too old to learn.
@@lesbyler1374 In 1611, you potentially could have consulted a number of translations. There was Tyndale's incomplete Bible, of course, but you could also find the Coverdale Bible (1535), Matthew BIble (1537), Taverner's Bible (1539), Great Bible (1539), Geneva Bible (1560), Bishops' Bible (1568), and Douay-Rheims Bible (1610). Two of those (Geneva, Bishops') had more than one major edition, with notable changes made between them. And then you might also be able to find the early and later versions of the Wycliffe Bible, assuming that you were up for reading a translation that was a little over 200 years old.
Rather than update the kjv, why not get together with kjv onlyest and update the nkjv so that everyone can be happy. Update the nkjv in a way that it can be recommended by kjv only people.
(NIV) +(ESV) Non-Inclusions: Mat 17:21 Mat 18:11 Mat 23:14 Mar 7:16 Mar 9:44 Mar 9:46 Mar 11:26 Mar 15:28 Luk 17:36 Luk 23:17 Jhn 5:4 Act 8:37 Act 15:34 Act 24:7 Act 28:29 Rom 16:24 (RSV) Non-Inclusions: Mat 12:47 Mat 17:21 Mat 18:11 Mat 21:44 Mat 23:14 Mar 7:16 Mar 9:44 Mar 9:46 Mar 11:26 Mar 15:28 Luk 17:36 Luk 22:43 Luk 22:44 Luk 23:17 Luk 24:12 Luk 24:40 Jhn 5:4 Act 8:37 Act 15:34 Act 24:7 Act 28:29 Rom 16:24
Mark- I sure do appreciate your hard work, and for sharing your wisdom on RUclips. Been a big help to me. I'm a former major NKJV user and pretty recently switched over to the CSB. Forgive my ignorance, but if there was to be a KJV update like you and Dan discussed who is the major decision maker for this? Is it up to a publishing company to take on the task? Is it up to Cambridge? I hope you get to be apart of the process if it happens. Thank you again for your wisdom. God bless you and your family!
16:00 "add one cubit to his stature" vs "add one hour to his life" : The Greek word "helikia" is translated as "life" and "stature" in both the KJV and the modern translations. For example, KJV says Zacchaeus was "small in stature" as do all modern translations. But KJV says that the man blind from birth (John 9) was "of age" not "of stature" as do all modern translations.
While I appreciate these kinds of conversations, I think believers should use whatever translation they are comfortable with. We have Christian liberty. I don't think modern translations take away from doctrine or theology.
Mark, thank you for another gracious and interesting conversation! I went (mildly) down the rabbit hole looking into the Heb 10:23 KJV translation of "τῆς ἐλπίδος" as "faith". According to Ellingworth’s NIGTC Hebrews commentary, "Ψ 1245 1898 in fact read τῆς πίστεως", and the Vulgate reads "fidelis". My guess is the KJV translators went with the Vulgate's reading, despite having (to my knowledge) no Greek texts that read anything other than τῆς ἐλπίδος. But I'd be curious to hear more of your thoughts!
That is very possible. I’d want to hear from Tim Berg on this. Scrivener believed it to be an error, I think, because his own Cambridge Paragraph Bible, an 1873 KJV edition, changes it to “hope.”
@@wardonwords Hi, Mark. (1) The Vulgate reads “hope.” The relevant Latin word here is “spei.” The word "fidelis" was rendered "faithful" in the Douay-Rheims Bible. Vulgate: “Teneamus spei nostræ confessionem indeclinabilem (fidelis enim est qui repromisit)” Douay-Rheims New Testament (1582): “Let us hold the confession of our hope undeclining (for he is faithful that hath promised)” Here is the text with the two relevant Latin words in brackets next to their English equivalents: “Let us hold the confession of our hope [spei] undeclining (for he is faithful [fidelis] that hath promised)” (2) According to Scrivener, the KJV’s reading “faith” is an error. From p. 247 of “The Authorised Edition of the English Bible (1611), Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives” (Cambridge, University Press, 1884) by F. H. A. Scrivener: “The variation in Heb. x. 23 ‘faith’ for ‘hope’ is not included since it is a mere oversight of our Translators (Tregelles’ Horne, Vol. IV. p. 227 note).”
I must point out that eight English translations before 1611 unanimously read “hope." They are William Tyndale’s New Testament, the Coverdale Bible, the Matthew’s Bible, Taverner’s Bible, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Bishops’ Bible, and (as I showed above) the Douay-Rheims Bible.
@@andrewpowell8506 EXCELLENT. If I weren't finishing up with KJV-Onlyism, I'd do a video on this. This is excellent homework. I did know about that Scrivener quote, but I'd lost track of it. And I never bothered to look at previous English translations. I'm willing to call this an error in the KJV, as apparently you are. Thank you for this.
@@andrewpowell8506 Thank you for the correction regarding the Vulgate, that's my mistake- that's what I get for trying to read it when I don't know Latin!
I have a hard time believing this is not an error in the KJV! Even going into my Blue Letter Bible app and looking into Hebrews 10:23 and using the Interlinear study tool with Strongs, it shows that "The KJV translates Strongs G1680 ἐλπίς in the following manner: hope (53x), faith (1x)"
It should be noted that one of the leading men who worked on the NKJV was a Byzantine/Majority text guy! The Majority text in Luke 1:35 for example, does NOT have "of thee".
That's why: ERRORS FOUND IN NEW BIBLE VERSIONS NEW KING JAMES ERRORS & OMISSIONS NKJV Verse Comparison Chart (See pp. 146-160) Why by does the NKJV omit key words critical to mankind's salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ? "Now the serpent was more subtil..." Gen. 3:1 The NKJV Omits Key Christian Words: Times Omitted "Lord" 66 times "God" 51 times "heaven" 50 times "repent" 44 times "blood" 23 times "hell" 22 times "JEHOVAH" entirely "new testament" entirely "damnation" entirely "devils" entirely The NKJV ignored the KJV Greek Textus Receptus over 1,200 times. The NKJV replaced the trustworthy KJV Hebrew Old Testament (ben Chayyim Masoretic Text) with corrupt Biblia Hebraica from Stuttgart (ben Asher ).
@@MichaelNodine NKJV Verse Comparison Chart How the NKJV Demotes Jesus Christ NKJV KJV Luke 13:8 Sir Lord Matt. 18:26 before him, saying, Master and worshipped him, saying, Lord Matt. 20:20 kneeling down worshipping him Matt. 26:64 right hand of the Power right hand of power Gen. 22:8 God will provide for himself the lamb God will provide himself a lamb John 8:35 a son the Son Col. 2:2 the mystery of God, both of the Father and of Christ the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ (Trinity) Matt. 8:19 et al. Teacher Master Matt 19:16 Good Teacher Good Master Matt. 22:16 Teacher Master Matt. 23:8 One is your Teacher, the Christ one is your Master, even Christ Matt 23:10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ WARNING: The NKJV logo is the ancient symbol for the pagan trinity, not the Christian Trinity.
Back on the late 1960's Oxford U Press published the New Scofield Reference Bible, which not only updated the notes, but (gasp! 😱) replaced some antiquated / false friend words with modern equivalents. The one I particularly recall is replacing "prevent" with "precede" in 1 Thes 4:15. There was a loud hue-&-cry among evangelicals, decades before KJV Onlyism was a thing, over a very few minor changes in the text. The lesson I glean from that is that KJVO's will never accept a wholesale update to the KJV. Why (in their mind) update something that's already perfect? After all, Ps 12:7 says it's to have been refined seven times, not eight.
If the ultimate goal of a revision of the KJV were to happen, and institutions stood behind that, it would truly be somewhat of a mini-reformation just within the IFB, which is long overdue. Bravo, Mark. Whether it happens or not, you’ve earnestly done your part in trying to unify the church ultimately for Gods glory. Much of the rest is out of your control. We can only pray from here on. I would have hope for PCC, they have shown early signs of wanting to change for the betterment of the body. I would have hope for Maranatha Baptist College, they already have differing views within and openly reject Ruckmanism, it’s pretty explicit on their statement of faith. I’m not familiar enough with WCBC. I really wish Hyles Anderson had more hope. They’ve been critiqued for openly having Calvinists teach there if I remember correctly. But they’re probably too deep in IFB doctrines for hope in our lifetime.
Psalm 95:7-11 in the KJV doesn't mention about Joshua and Caleb: "7For he is our God; and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand. To day if ye will hear his voice, 8 harden not your heart, as in the provocation, and as in the day of temptation in the wilderness: 9 when your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my work. 10 Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways: 11 unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest." The point being, you can say something about a particular people that generalises their moral state, even though you could have some very few exceptions, such as Joshua and Caleb, and still be faithful and truthful to what happened. Also, another way to handle the NKJV's rendering of Hebrews 3:16 is that the author might be saying that ALL the disobedient people ALL came out of Egypt. It might not necessarily be saying that every single person who came out of Egypt were disobedient.
28:50 Dan Wallace worked on the NKJV committee and his testimony is that his job was to specifically ensure that the translators stuck to the TR. However, to be fair, he also said that it was miserable work because the the translators did not want to stick to the TR.
@@normanrausch1223 He's not listed, but you can find several RUclips videos where he himself states that he was tasked by Dr. Farstad to provide oversight to ensure that the NT translators stuck with the TR, despite his own perspective that it's inferior to the CT.
@@mnjackson5772 You are correct in what you say but Dan Wallace is incorrect if he says the NKJV and NASB translations are miserable or bad translations because that they are not.
The KJV in Joel 3:4 and Isaiah 14:29 & 31 is in error and needs corrected. The KJV uses the word Palestine in Joel 3:4 which is a bad error since the region of Palestine did not exist until 135 AD. This passage written in 800 BC is talking about judgment on Philistia, the land of the Philistines. This is about 935 years wrong historically. The KJV again in Isaiah 14:29 & 31 uses the word Palestina. Again Palestina or Palestine is named by the Romans in 135 AD. This is two errors by the KJV translators because this again is talking about Philistia, the land of the Philistines. These errors need to be corrected. The 1599 Geneva Bible uses the word Philistia in these verses as does the New King James Version.
That's less an error and more a translation choice to identify to the reader a geographic name which would have been more immediately familiar to them. It's the same logic by which we Anglicize formal names such as Yeshua to Jesus.
@spenserdeardorff2737 that is your viewpoint but to put Palestine in a verse that is talking about a specific nation in 800 BC when this region, not a nation Palestine, that wasnt called that until 135 AD is a major error and a bad translation choice that spawns history revisionism. It is not even close to being the same as Yeshua or Jesus who is the same person. Palestine and Philistia are not the same.
@@rodneyjackson6181 the passages you mentioned use the terms Philistia/Palestine to denote a geographic region, not a people group or nationality. Because of this, I believe it's a valid translation. As Mark points out, the end goal is to render the scriptures in a language that is easily understood. The choice to call the region "Palestine" would have been understood by the KJV's original audience. We can't call it a "mistake" simply because of the added political weight the term carries in today's culture, though it may fall into the category of "false friend". The choice to update location names has biblical precedent, however. Even the author of the Torah used anachronistic names, albeit with explanatory notes.
@spenserdeardorff2737 still a mistake. The passage specifically is talking about judgment on the Philistines period. There was no Palestine. The 1599 Geneva Bible, New King James Version and all other good faithful modern translations use Philistia. The KJV simply got it wrong and all nuances you described does nothing to justify this error. The Hebrew simply is talking about Philistia and to translate that into English as Palestine is an error historically and Scripturally.
@@rodneyjackson6181 agree to disagree. I believe the KJV audience would have understood what the passage was speaking about, even if modern audiences might not.
So would the KJVO folks accept an update of the KJV if it used the exact same edition of the TR and the Hebrew OT as the old King James? Or an update of the 1881 TR?
I’m an avid KJV and NKJV user. I’m just wondering, would this proposed update be accepted as a revision of the current NKJV? I know Thomas Nelson has committed to keeping the text stable, and I appreciate that because I trust the current text. I would however be happy with a NKJV update if it follows the guidelines proposed in this video.
What I find interesting is that Dan says the KJVO group were disappointed that the NKJV was not merely an update of the KJV language and that lead to scepticism of all new translations. Why don’t the KJVO group get together and do an update they can trust?
In regards to nephilim in Gen .6. I think the KJV was influenced by the Vulgate which follows the Septuagint in using gigantes to translate the Hebrew word nephilim
I'm generally on Mark's side but l did come across an example yesterday where a modern translation (in a note) used a word that wasn't very helpful to me. Proverbs 20:11 ESV (alternative translation in note) "dissemble". I have heard it before. I think of pulling a carburettor apart, but l know it doesn't actually say "disassemble"...
My first thought was that it was a leftover note from the RSV, but nope: somebody on the ESV team must have been consulting a 19th century commentary when drawing up that note (or perhaps helping someone prep for the SAT). That's not to say that the RSV never uses the word: in fact, even the 2021 NRSVue continues to use "dissembles" in Proverbs 26.24! (The ESV chose to go with "disguises" instead.)
Outstanding. The Psalm 12:6 crowd will throw a fit if you ever change anything under any circumstances so trying to make them happy would be pointless but I’m hoping they’re the minority in the KJV camp.
Forgive me if this was addressed and i missed it. I now understand that there are multiple TR's but my question is, did the KJ translators use more than one TR? Thank you for your time brother.
Yes. F.H.A. Scrivener has shown clearly that they used two main TR editions and a number of minor ones. Stephanus 1550 and Beza 1598 were their main ones. Here's a page I'm still working on filling out: kjvparallelbible.org/which-tr-stephanus-vs-beza/
Hey Mark are most of the NKJV translators from late 70’s passed on at this point? I’m just wondering who you know that knows those men who worked on the NKJV and i guess its just we’re a decade or so too late to speak to any of them?
I would really love to see everyone get behind the update project. Somehow, I see it as a monumental task. You see, back in 1611, the "authorization" to create the King James came from the King himself which was both head of state and head of the church (the Anglican church). So, whatever the King decreed, that is Law. Also, back then, there were no other independent English-speaking nations. All were colonies and subject to what the King decreed. Today, we have quite a few independent English-speaking nations. So, an effort made in the USA may not be seen favorable in other nations and vice-versa. Personally, I read from the Reina Valera 1909, but I could just as well read from the Reina Valera 1602 or even Enzinas 1543. Luckily for the Spanish-speaking Christians, the Spanish language has not changed as often or as dramatically as the English language has. (By the way, Enzinas in 1543 says "Haz diligencia" in 2 Timothy 2:15)
There was an official, authorised update already. It happened about 140 years ago, and people of the Victorian Era generally weren't happy with it. By that point, the authority of the Anglican Church was no longer enough to make English Christendom as a whole adopt the translation. If that's how it was in 1885, it's not going to change in 2025. The goal instead has to be to convince a small pocket of people to accept the update. That small pocket is the King James Only group. Everyone else can continue to enjoy the KJV as it stands... alongside any number of other translations approved in their churches.
@@wardonwords I KNEW IT! Sorry, amateur calligraphy geek here. My hand has a phantom ache, trying to remember how to hold the pen to do those letters. This style is a little different than the one I learned, so it's driving me a bit crazy.
But it is a fair point. Why is it acceptable to many to update the KJV/AV which in 1611 was printed in blackletter gothic to a modern typeface so it can be read by modern readers but it is not acceptable to them to update the words too for clarity for modern readers? Surely people should just learn to read the old typeface too following their logic...!
μεριμνάω = "to be careful" is even a false friend in the most popular Arabic translation (Smith-Van Dyke): اهتمّ. It can be only clarified by referring to the root of the word. Else, you will think that the Bible is telling us to be careless!
33:00 it seems obvious that translations like the TR/KJV ("some not all rebelled") are better because they prevent (in both the archaic and modern sense of that word) 'contradictions', however, all texts and translations have 'contradictions' and it is at least intellectually dishonest to pretend that the contradiction is the reason one holds to a particular translation. In such a case, they should reject the same translation when one of the many 'contradictions' are pointed out elsewhere; which none of us does. We explain those--away, in the opinion of the Bible skeptics.
I think a pure update of the English of the KJV would be great, but it depends on if will be accepted. It should probably be aimed at academics or at a high reading level and not dumb down. I think you could make a case to keep thee, thou, and ye because we don't have words to match the meanings. Just add a "dictionary" or explaination in the front pages with translators notes. It should done meticulously and each word comsidered exhaustively. Maybe bring trusted people in to proof read and share opinions and thoughts? I feel it could be done, but it's a tall task.
How do you engage a conspiracy theory in terms of trust issues? How do you engage the idea of publishers desiring to "make money" off of a new translation and "watering down" the translation of the Hebrew and Greek texts?
@@wardonwords I wish this would work Mark I really do. However, being fairly acquainted with the IFB I can tell you that acceptance of this new translation would likely result in a purity test, stand, or spiral. Many an IFB church, and members, would thump their chests and be proud of the fact that they do not accept this new Bible . . . and then proceed to nit pick it to death. They would allege corruption and come up with the wildest theories about how these institutions are trying to water down God's word. Deep down I think the guys at these schools that could translate from the original languages (there are not many) would balk because they know that they and their work would become lighting rods in the IFB. Remember that IFB stands for I F-ight B-aptists.
Ah! We get so many people that are like your Grandmother; "all means all." Atheists that seek “contradictions” in the bible will quote 1 Samuel 15:8 where it is written that Saul “destroyed all the [Amalekite] people.” Then, later in time, it is written in 1 Samuel 27:8, 9 David went against the Amalekites, thus they couldn’t have been “all” destroyed. Genesis 3:20 Eve is the mother of *all* living. Well, Adam was alive first, along with many living animals. Also, is she her own mother? Psalms 8:6 says, “You [God] put all things under his feet” (poetically meaning ‘all things under his authority’). Was that to say absolutely “ALL” things were under man’s and later Jesus’ feet? Not at all! Even the bible itself explains this one... In 1 Corinthians 15:27&28 Paul quotes Psalm 8:6 and clarifies; “But when he saith ‘all things are put under him,’ it is manifest that he [God] is excepted, which did put all things under him.” Yes, it is to be ‘understood’ by the reader that God is an exception to “all things under him.” Colossians 1:23 Paul says that the Gospel “has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven” “All” not in an absolute sense. We often get the "absolute" treatment on Colossians 1:16 where it says of Jesus, "For by Him all things were created" as if Jesus created himself, or even created God! He did create all other things though.
Restful conversation, merry gentlemen, "may nothing you dismay..." 1. Regarding the rendering of Luke 1:35 in both (A) the King James Version and (B) the New King James Version, I perceive it as a matter of both (1) Trinitarian emphasis and (2) poetic symmetry that is present in the former and missing in the latter, respectively: A. KJV: And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon THEE, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow THEE: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of THEE shall be called the Son of God. B. NKJV: And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon YOU, and the power of the Highest will overshadow YOU; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. 2. By omitting the pronoun YOU in the third line, the NKJV conveys the appearance of minimizing God's triune relationship with Mary when compared to the explicitness of the KJV, but still with both translations identifying her as (A) spouse of the Holy Spirit, (B) daughter of the Father and (C) mother of the Incarnate Son of God: A. The Holy Spirit shall/will come upon THEE/YOU B. the power of the Highest shall/will overshadow THEE/YOU C. that - holy thing/Holy One - which/who - shall/will - be born of THEE/(?) - shall/will - be called Son of God. 3. To my mind, it is no wonder that those familiar with the KJV experience(d) a disruption when reading/hearing the NKJV's rendering of Luke 1:35. 4. And if the King James Bible was good enough for St. Luke ...
I am wondering if you two have looked at the Keyword Study Bible (kjv), by Spiro Zodhaites? The publishers of that work did update a long list of archaic words. A lot of the words modernized in that work are on your list of words that are in your list of false friends list Mark. So we could just use that work.
Mark, what do we do with the corruptions that are found in the MT? e.g. Deut. 32:8, "sons of Israel" vs. "sons of God". Which is said to have been changed after the first century A.D.
I did get to see another video before 2025. Once I watched one video, YT kept feeding me them if I went onto the site instead of RSS. You seem very much to care. I can count the number of people who talk about KJVO who care about the people they talk about on my fingers, and fewer who really try to talk to them (preaching at them doesn't count). You're one of those. Most of the time it's more like the two minutes hate or the prayer of the Pharisee, "Thank you, that I am not like this man, a KJVO," both to agree with or please people who dislike them. It's like videos on the NWT in that regard. They can be no less vicious than the KJVO people they talk about. I think you've escaped that, and since you have, you're quitting at a good time, and with these discussions on a good foot. I hope things go well for you in the next project.
This is profound. You are right that the temptation you name is one reason I need to stop. I love these brothers and I see much good in them, but the temptation to look down my nose at them is real.
16:29 It is also a false premise that modern translations looked at the KJV and thought "how can we be different?" Or, that they SHOULD have looked at the KJV and only departed where absolutely necessary for readability. Modern translations (with the exception of NKJV and the like) are not updates of the KJV. They are new translations, working from the original languages.
@@wardonwords No doubt, and if the update is English only, as the NKJV was, they should take the source English translation and its choices seriously, almost sacrosanct, as they are trading on the trust of that that translations 'fan base'. KJVers take issue with the NKJV because they don't feel they held the KJV in high regard. And Dan Wallace's testimony gives some weight to that suspicion.
Ask the publishers who are selling Shakespeare plays with a modern English version in a separate column. There's definitely a demand for it. But it's really not a 1 to 1 comparison. This is more like asking, "Should we update the earliest English translations of War and Peace?"
Last time I checked, Shakespeare wasn't God's word translated from Koine Greek, vernacular language, and thus meant to be clear and understandable to Tyndale's plowboy.
There's a big difference though. Shakespeare was originally written in that style of English, whilst the Word of God wasn't originally written in 17th century Jacobean English.
Guy's, let's flood Joe's channel in support of Wes Huff. If you watch the video on believers' channels as you should, let's represent Christianity on Joe's channel. Let's show the corporates that Christ matters to us. We are a force through Christ that leads us.
To me there is no either or. Contradictory readings and missing words are just as important as false friends and proper TR/KJV basis. I would love to give time to this huge task, that is, updating the KJV, God willing.
Bro. Ward, I think you missed a critical point Bro. Haifley was trying to make, which speaks directly to the issue of whether or not to “update” the KJV. Namely, you are arguing for translational changes, even ones that don’t technically depart from the text of the TR, which is what rubs many of us KJV advocates the wrong way. On the one hand, you claim to only want to update the archaic words you perceive to be “false friends”, which if true would not change the genuine meaning of the English translation. But on the other hand, you seem to want to say the KJV translators made the wrong translational choice in some places where a text is genuinely ambiguous and a judgment has to be made (e.g., Heb. 3:16). With all due respect, this feels like a bait-and-switch to us. As a ground rule for this discussion, you should know that we would not accept an update to the KJV that changes the meaning of the English, as we believe the translational decisions of the KJV translators were correct. This is the root of our reluctance to concede to an update of the KJV, as we fear it will go beyond the mere updating of archaic words and change the meaning of the English. The NKJV was guilty of that in many places, and we have no desire to participate in a repeat of that. Can you understand this point?
The main issue with that stance is that it goes against the very translation philosophy of the KJV, which is to make a good translation better. I don't think that the translators themselves would see the point in merely bringing their words into a contemporary form of English without any efforts to improve it. Having said that, I can understand wanting an exact representation of a certain committee's (fallible) decisions, unadulterated by other people's (potentially better) ideas. For instance, if I wanted to consult the Great Bible of 1539 (the original "authorized version"), I wouldn't be satisfied by someone handing me a KJV, even though the KJV is a direct descendant of the Great Bible (its grandchild, if you will).
@ That’s fine, and I respect your view, though I disagree with it. But in your case, you should argue for a new translation, not merely an update of the KJV to modernize its archaic words.
I do not know how to be more clear: I am in favor of making an update to the KJV that updates only the English. I do not think this is theologically necessary, because their choices were not perfect. They said so explicitly themselves. But I think it is prudentially wise. And I think that only experts in historical Englishes can be trusted to know whether a given update to the KJV (say, "study" to "be diligent") is an English-only change or not.
This is the bottom line: the NKJV is claiming to be an updated KJV into modern English. They used the name KING JAMES to sell their bible, so they should have just stuck to the choices the King James translators made and not try to "improve" on it. For example, they should have left the born "of thee" in Luke 1:35 because that was the choice that was made by the KJV translators. Same goes with Hebrews 3:16, just keep the choice of the original KJV translators! This is the issue: Even though it's very minor, the NKJV is still playing textual critic in some places, as well as deciding on the true meaning of certain words (like corrupt vs peddle in 2Cor 2:17). They obviously think it's an improvement, but I think they should have just stuck to the choices of the original translators, otherwise call the bible something else. Maybe call it the Nelson Standard Bible. Sure, it wouldn't sell as well, but it would be a more honest title. I have a KJV put out by Nelson that has the easier updated words in the margin. It seems to cover all of the false friends. I read that one most of the time now. I'll compare the KJV to other translations or the original languages. I'm not KJV only but I just think the NKJV should have tried to be closer to the KJV regardless if they think they could improve it otherwise. We already have a ton of bibles that think they are improving on the KJV. A true update would be closer to the KJV in my opinion. -Sal
P.S. I wanted to thank Dr. Mark Ward for getting me more interested in the false friends. I think it's a big issue. I also want to comment to Dr. Haifley: don't bite at the bait when it comes to "improving the text" by using OTHER TR's or different interpretations than what the KJV translators made. Personally, I don't think there will ever be a future update that will actually replace the KJV (like the way the 1769 edition replaced the 1611 edition). I think we are too close to the end.
@@wardonwords the "original translators" I'm talking about are the ones who made the decisions that went into the KJV. Asking if the KJV translators in 1611 departed from earlier decisions made by earlier English Bibles is not related to this idea of updating the language of the KJV. That's another topic. Let me keep this short. An update of the KJV should be closer to the KJV. For example, if the KJV says hell, don't put hades or sheol, regardless if you think you are improving the interpretation. Same with giant and nephilim. If you want to change the KJV more, CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE, don't call it NEW King James. Someone else here made a similar comment saying KJV only think the NKJV changed it too much. I agree. But I still don't think we have enough time left in this current world/age for this update to be accepted by english speakers world wide to replace the 1762/1769 editions that are currently being used. I like the NKJV footnotes. I would love to have a KJV bible that included text critical footnotes believe it or not. A perfect KJV to me would have those notes as well as the translators notes and notes that help with the false friends and archaic phrases.
@@sljc777 It's fair to say that the name "New" King James Version is a bit confusing, but there was already a precedent from a few years earlier: the "New" American Standard Bible did not merely update the language of the American Standard Version, but also departed from some of its translation choices. Perhaps the NKJV's original British name, the Revised Authorised Version, was a bit clearer about the extent of the changes. More problematic is the NKJV's claim to be the fifth revision of the KJV. It's more like the first proper revision of the KJV after a series of smaller updates from 1611 to 1769 (assuming we ignore the Revised Version of 1885, of course). The NKJV is to the KJV as the KJV is to the Bishops' Bible: the product of a new committee that nevertheless builds heavily upon its immediate predecessor.
SKJV, KJVER, & KJ21 are the best KJV updates to date that I recommend over the NKJV or MEV. If you want an easier to read KJV text use a Defined KJV Bible or a KJV Sword Study Bible.
I implore Mark Ward to drop the nomenclature "false friend" in favor of "archaic friend" or "old friend". He can still beat this dead horse as much as he wants, but I don't think that he understands the harm he'll do by tainting future unbelievers with the idea of "false...false...false...false" words scattered throughout the Bible. Unbelievers think like unbelievers and giving them ammunition like that will just let them shoot themselves in the foot. I genuinely believe Mark is being reckless with this particular word choice if he truly desires to spread the Gospel. I don't know if it's an already secured trademark thing for him for his book but words have consequences and of all people he knows that. I appreciate his work. Pray for Mark folks, lest a besom of misconception sweeps the babes. 🙏
I simply disagree. This is standard linguistic nomenclature for the phenomenon we're observing. KJV defenders seem to me to be more upset about the terminology used to describe the misunderstandings than they are about the misunderstandings. That feels rather backwards to me.
There already is a KJV update its called AKJV American King James Version that stays true to the traditional texts and easier to read vesus the corrupt texts like NKJV and other modern text.
Right! There are many such projects, but the IFB KJV-Only folks have found reasons to ignore or reject all of them. The only way they'll trust a new KJV is if they do it themselves.
No, we do not need another update. Just leave it alone. I'm tired of the subject. The TR is one source and the CT is another. We have too many English translations, or we have many choices to choose. Read and understand the Bible,
Roy says a lot of nonsense. He recently made a video called "Four Doctrine Changes that Should Make You Trash Modern Bibles." His first example is a "change" that supposedly supports infant baptism. Now, anyone who knows anything about the KJV will know that all of the translators were paedobaptists, and anyone who knows anything about the modern versions will know that the committees tend to include Baptists and other credobaptists. Yet he ignores this fact and claims that the modern credobaptists are changing the old paedobaptist translation to be more paedobaptist! Later in the video, he complains that modern versions don't use the Latin word Calvary (which, of course, means "skull") and translate the Greek word with the proper English equivalent, as if a shift from traditional Roman Catholic terminology is somehow a departure from some blessed Baptist tradition. This is the sort of fallacious thinking you find throughout his videos, yet people still take him seriously.
These two men are sailing in the same sinking ship. One on the starboard believes the King James is a good translation, but it is merely a translation and no translation can be inspired and is the work of men. The other on the port believes the King James is not a good translation or can be improved by the new bibles. Neither man believes one can have the inspired scriptures in their possession. Both become their own final authority.
"One on the starboard believes the King James is a good translation, but it is merely a translation and no translation can be inspired and is the work of men." So one person agrees with the KJV translators, who thought that the idea of inspired translations was nonsense. Got it. "The other on the port believes the King James is not a good translation or can be improved by the new bibles." This is false. Neither one of them believes that the KJV is bad. An already good translation can be improved. Again, see the KJV preface, which argues that an effort to improve a previous translation does not imply that the previous translation was bad.
@@MAMoreno Neither believe ANY final authority in print. Both believe their opinion of the unavailable and unseen originals is the final authority. Nephilim is the perfect example. Giants are the byproduct of fallen angels and women who are called strange flesh in Jude 6-7. They are missing the truth of the matter. The LXX is untrustworthy by its own narrative. Is LXX or LXXII? Sixty-six of the translators were not Levites. The Apocrypha is WITHIN the text of the OT.
@@seekerofconsistency Again, just read the KJV preface to see the problem with one side insisting that they have a "final authority" in print: But the difference that appeareth between our Translations, and our often correcting of them, is the thing that we are specially charged with; let us see therefore whether they themselves be without fault this way, (if it be to be counted a fault, to correct) and whether they be fit men to throw stones at us: O tandem maior parcas insane minori: they that are less sound themselves, ought not to object infirmities to others. If we should tell them that Valla, Stapulensis, Erasmus, and Vives found fault with their vulgar Translation, and consequently wished the same to be mended, or a new one to be made, they would answer peradventure, that we produced their enemies for witnesses against them; albeit, they were in no other sort enemies, than as S. Paul was to the Galatians, for telling them the truth [Gal 4:16]: and it were to be wished, that they had dared to tell it them plainlier and oftener. But what will they say to this, that Pope Leo the Tenth allowed Erasmus' Translation of the New Testament, so much different from the vulgar, by his Apostolic Letter and Bull; that the same Leo exhorted Pagnine to translate the whole Bible, and bare whatsoever charges was necessary for the work? Surely, as the Apostle reasoneth to the Hebrews, that if the former Law and Testament had been sufficient, there had been no need of the latter: [Heb 7:11 and 8:7] so we may say, that if the old vulgar had been at all points allowable, to small purpose had labour and charges been undergone, about framing of a new. If they say, it was one Pope's private opinion, and that he consulted only himself; then we are able to go further with them, and to aver, that more of their chief men of all sorts, even their own Trent champions Paiva and Vega, and their own Inquisitors, Hieronymus ab Oleastro, and their own Bishop Isidorus Clarius, and their own Cardinal Thomas a Vio Caietan, do either make new Translations themselves, or follow new ones of other men's making, or note the vulgar Interpreter for halting; none of them fear to dissent from him, nor yet to except against him. And call they this an uniform tenor of text and judgment about the text, so many of their Worthies disclaiming the now received conceit? Nay, we will yet come nearer the quick: doth not their Paris edition differ from the Lovaine, and Hentenius his from them both, and yet all of them allowed by authority? Nay, doth not Sixtus Quintus confess, that certain Catholics (he meaneth certain of his own side) were in such an humor of translating the Scriptures into Latin, that Satan taking occasion by them, though they thought of no such matter, did strive what he could, out of so uncertain and manifold a variety of Translations, so to mingle all things, that nothing might seem to be left certain and firm in them, etc.? Nay, further, did not the same Sixtus ordain by an inviolable decree, and that with the counsel and consent of his Cardinals, that the Latin edition of the old and new Testament, which the Council of Trent would have to be authentic, is the same without controversy which he then set forth, being diligently corrected and printed in the Printing-house of Vatican? Thus Sixtus in his Preface before his Bible. And yet Clement the Eighth his immediate successor, publisheth another edition of the Bible, containing in it infinite differences from that of Sixtus, (and many of them weighty and material) and yet this must be authentic by all means. What is to have the faith of our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with Yea or Nay, if this be not? Again, what is sweet harmony and consent, if this be? Therefore, as Demaratus of Corinth advised a great King, before he talked of the dissensions among the Grecians, to compose his domestic broils (for at that time his Queen and his son and heir were at deadly feud with him) so all the while that our adversaries do make so many and so various editions themselves, and do jar so much about the worth and authority of them, they can with no show of equity challenge us for changing and correcting.
@@MAMoreno are referring to the warning in the dedicatory, "So that if, on the one side, we shall be traduced by Popish Persons at home and abroad, who therefore will malign us, because we are poor instruments to make God's holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto the people, whom they desire still to keep in ignorance and darkness; or if, on the other side, we shall be maligned by self- conceited Brethren, who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing, but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil;..." The second group of deceivers are Mark and people like him.
@@seekerofconsistency Mark Ward isn't objecting to the translators' work at all. He's objecting to some people's refusal to recognize that a 400-year-old translation, even one "not justly to be excepted against" in its own time, is no longer in the vulgar tongue. The objections to the updates of the KJV, especially those that use the Textus Receptus as their basis, are exactly the kind of cavils that the translators of the KJV lamented.
NKJV Verse Comparison Chart (See pp. 146-160) How the NKJV Demotes Jesus Christ NKJV KJV Luke 13:8 Sir Lord Matt. 18:26 before him, saying, Master and worshipped him, saying, Lord Matt. 20:20 kneeling down worshipping him Matt. 26:64 right hand of the Power right hand of power Gen. 22:8 God will provide for himself the lamb God will provide himself a lamb John 8:35 a son the Son Col. 2:2 the mystery of God, both of the Father and of Christ the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ (Trinity) Matt. 8:19 et al. Teacher Master Matt 19:16 Good Teacher Good Master Matt. 22:16 Teacher Master Matt. 23:8 One is your Teacher, the Christ one is your Master, even Christ Matt 23:10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ WARNING: The NKJV logo is the ancient symbol for the pagan trinity, not the Christian Trinity. Use of number symbols (like this 666) can be traced back to Pythagoras (582 B.C.), initiate into the Egyptian mysteries. The symbol was popularized again by satanist Aleister Crowley (circa 1900) for the Royal Arch (Lucifer) of the 3rd Degree of the York Order of Masonry. The symbol's shape is duplicated as three initiates join arms and feet, while repeating the names of the ancient pagan trinity. The NKJV's symbol can be seen on the satanic rock group albums like Led Zeppelin, as well as on New Age best sellers like The Aquarian Conspiracy. Remember Acts 17:29 -"we ought not to think that the Godhead is like {anything}...graven by art..."
@@MAMoreno How do you refute something that is irrefutable? Unless obvious comparisons no longer count or matter? Maybe you think we're living in the twilight zone yea?
If you're willing to listen to fellow believers who have addressed your charges before, then I highly recommend Pastor Scott Ingram's RUclips channel. He has done a fair amount of videos lately, addressing charges made against the NKJV. Like how Proverbs 18:13 commands us that we should hear a matter first before we answer it, otherwise we're being foolish and unwise, then I strongly suggest you check out his channel, as we as Christians don't want to bear false witness.
@@permafrost7781we're not living in the Twilight Zone but you definitely are I will pray that the holy spirit opens your eyes to the truth and you come back to reality
@@eclipsesonic How the NKJV Matches Jehovah Witness Version (NWT) Demotes Jesus Christ NKJV KJV Acts 3:13 His Servant Jesus his Son Jesus Acts 3:26 His Servant Jesus his Son Jesus Acts 4:27 holy Servant Jesus holy child Jesus Acts 4:30 holy Servant Jesus holy child Jesus Col. 1:15 the firstborn over all creation the firstborn of every creature Mark 2:15 OMIT Jesus Heb. 4:8 Joshua Jesus Acts 7:45 Joshua Jesus 2 Thes. 3:5 patience of Christ patient waiting for Christ (we are to be patient waiting for Christ) • Demotes the Trinity NKJV KJV Acts 17:29 Divine Nature Godhead Phil. 4:20 our God and Father God and our Father Rev. 1:6 His God and Father God and his Father Col. 3:17 God the Father through Him God and the Father by him John 14:16 Helper Comforter John 14:26 Helper Comforter John 15:26 Helper Comforter John 16:7 Helper Comforter • continued... APPENDIX • 149 NKJV Verse Comparison Chart (See pp. 146-160) How the NKJV Matches Jehovah Witness Version (NWT) Promotes Works / Progressive Salvation NKJV KJV 1 Cor. 11:1 Imitate Christ followers...of Christ Rom. 3:3 faithfulness faith Rom. 11:30, 32 disobedient...disobedience not believed...unbelief Rev. 19:8 righteous acts of saints righteousness of saints 1 Cor. 1:18 are being saved are saved 2 Cor 2:15 are being saved are saved Eph. 2:8 have been saved are...saved • How the NKJV Supports New Age Ideas: NKJV KJV Works Salvation Matt. 7:14 difficult is the way narrow is the way Gal. 5:22 faithfulness faith 1 John 5:13 may continue to believe may believe Eccl. 5:20 God keeps him busy God answereth him Progressive Ages / Evolution Matt. 12:32 age to come world to come Matt. 13:39 et al. end of the age end of the world Acts 15:18 from eternity from the beginning of the world 1 Cor. 15:45 Adam became a living being Adam was made a living soul
The KJV is an excellent translation-but if you're going to read it exclusively, you need to understand that it was translated into a form of English no one quite speaks or writes anymore. So there are going to be some places where you think you understand but, because of language change, you're going to miss the intent of the KJV translators. For help discerning when this is the case, 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
Your arrogance and ignorance knows no bounds. The KJV translators made it abundantly clear that it was not their intention to make a new translation but to make a good translation better. Before you shoot off your mouth you should garner some genuine knowledge. As The Living bible puts it so well in 1 Corinthians 8 :1b-2 But although being a "know-it-all" makes us feel important , what is really needed to build the church is love. If anyone thinks he knows all the answers he is just showing his ignorance. This scripture concisely and precisely and aptly describes you to the tee.
Time will tell if Mark can "overcome" his KJV Derangement Syndrome and not degrade the King James Bible after the new year. I do not think he will be able to leave it alone for two months. He obviously will be able to satisfy his fix by talking about it somewhere else.
@@wardonwords If this definition of degrade (to reduce from a higher to a lower rank or degree) is applied, you have degraded the KJV. Claiming it contains errors is not uplifting to the Book.
@@fbcl8532 I have claimed one error in an obscure place in Job. This is no more than the KJV translators admitted to in their preface. If the only options are a perfect KJV and degrading the KJV, then I am with the KJV translators against your viewpoint.
@@fbcl8532 Time has already moved the KJV from its original rank. That's no one's fault, and it doesn't take anything away from the KJV's value for 350 years. The problem is that the bronze serpent in the wilderness is being repurposed as an idol.
ERRORS FOUND IN NEW BIBLE VERSIONS NEW KING JAMES ERRORS & OMISSIONS NKJV Verse Comparison Chart (See pp. 146-160) Why by does the NKJV omit key words critical to mankind's salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ? "Now the serpent was more subtil..." Gen. 3:1 The NKJV Omits Key Christian Words: Times Omitted "Lord" 66 times "God" 51 times "heaven" 50 times "repent" 44 times "blood" 23 times "hell" 22 times "JEHOVAH" entirely "new testament" entirely "damnation" entirely "devils" entirely The NKJV ignored the KJV Greek Textus Receptus over 1,200 times. The NKJV replaced the trustworthy KJV Hebrew Old Testament (ben Chayyim Masoretic Text) with corrupt Biblia Hebraica from Stuttgart (ben Asher ).
What a wonderful brotherly conversation you both had!!
✔
Dan Haifley is such a breath of fresh air. So thankful to hear a discussion where we can disagree and still be brotherly! So thankful for his heart and personality.
Right!
@@wardonwords
it seems to me that in order to REALLY figure out.. the meaning of the passage Matthew 6:27.. would be NOT to focus on the word.. "cubit".. because I think everyone agrees even the ancient scribes .. that this word.. represented some kind of "measure" or "length".. or "span"...correct?..
it seems to me.. that we need to center our attention of what was the intent meant by the word "stature".. used in the KJV text...
was the original Greek word used here purposely ambiguous?.,
if we take...
hēlikian OR
ἡλικίαν
and examine THAT... this would seem to indicate "lifespan"...
so hence we must conclude that this word used by the KJV translators.. "stature".. was in reference to time... NOT distance..
but IMO...I think both definitions.. make a good saying...
the whole.. idea... is "worrying does Not help.. or solve anything... so why do it?..
as that one song from years ago stated..."Don't worry, be happy"
worry will Not help one to grow OR live longer...
I think. .trying to pinpoint exactly what is meant .. time? or distance?.. is "splitting hairs"..
even the disciples who walked with Jesus had to ask Him oft times.. what things He said meant...
I think that will be us..... one day as well..
@@wardonwords
You DID touch on two concerns for those of us in life....
"how tall will I be?"
"how long will I live?"..
.
I imagine these are VERY real concerns for the vast majority of the population... amongst Other concerns.. such as..
"where will my next meal come from?"... and
"how will I make ends meet?"...
Mark trying hard not too smile to hard when Haifley read “be diligent” 😂
I knew in advance what he would find. ;)
Mark, im sad to hear you're keeping a firm set date for ending this conversation. Your level of honesty on the subject, adjoined with your expertise , is hard to find. I've learned from others, just going really going to miss your angle, as I'm not sufficiently filled or content with this subject and will continue searching. I really and truly appreciate your ministry Mark and it's opened many eyes. God bless you.
I appreciate that. Might I suggest that your next step include books? Try John Frame on The Doctrine of the Word of God. amzn.to/4iQS9kV
I love the Nkjv.
That little diversion about "be careful" or having anxiety vesus thoughtful action is exactly why I'm here.
You did well to stop and make sure the text was understood before rushing forward. 😊
✔
@@wardonwords regarding
*Luke 22 : 44*
I have a *major stumbling block* →→
I read into it to mean, His stress
was so intense, that even His sweat [when hitting the ground] seemed to resemble being of a manner not unlike great droplets of blood hitting the ground.
§
However, what I hear preached is,
His stress was so intense, that His actual sweat converted into actual blood; and His great
“sweating blood” droplets were hitting the ground.
( *AND [supposedly] backed up by* medical literature
which confirms this medical anomaly. )
Please clarify for me, Dr Mark Ward.
P.S. sorry to be offf topic.
.
Happy Christmas to everyone. May God bless our 2025
I use KJV but also compare with NKJV, KJVER, NASB95, NLT, and NCV. Occasionally the CSB as well. It has helped me a lot.
@@OklaBoondocks the HCSB which has fortunately been out of print for some time is much closer to the TR then the CSB
This conversation was frustrating. Dan plays ignorance, rambles when faced with clear inconsistencies, and holds a standard to English versions that he does not hold to any TR philosophy. Before "more research" is done, there must be honesty in the conversation.
I'm willing to give him some time to work through new ideas. At least he'll talk with me cordially; I've rarely been able to do such a thing. I've come to appreciate this about him greatly. He also listens. Who knows where this may lead?
I don’t know if KJVO will ever accept it. They hardly even accept the NKJV and it’s a Great Translation. They don’t even accept the KJVER .
I actually see a real resurgence of the KJV with the younger generation. There’s a trend starting to happen ! Kind of like the Mullet and Moustaches LOL .
50 years away!? How about NOW!?
I agree!
The missionaries have spoken. If people insist on that version of the TR, then the KJV must be updated. Absolutely.
@@DevlinDomini the Modern English Version. The 2024 eddition has corrected for typos
Just don't let it be done by apostates who like to remove key words and key verses as shown here:
(NIV) +(ESV)
Non-Inclusions:
Mat 17:21
Mat 18:11
Mat 23:14
Mar 7:16
Mar 9:44
Mar 9:46
Mar 11:26
Mar 15:28
Luk 17:36
Luk 23:17
Jhn 5:4
Act 8:37
Act 15:34
Act 24:7
Act 28:29
Rom 16:24
(RSV)
Non-Inclusions:
Mat 12:47
Mat 17:21
Mat 18:11
Mat 21:44
Mat 23:14
Mar 7:16
Mar 9:44
Mar 9:46
Mar 11:26
Mar 15:28
Luk 17:36
Luk 22:43
Luk 22:44
Luk 23:17
Luk 24:12
Luk 24:40
Jhn 5:4
Act 8:37
Act 15:34
Act 24:7
Act 28:29
Rom 16:24
@@permafrost7781
good grief Charlie Brown
🤦🏻♂️
I’ve throughly enjoyed this conversation between to Godly men, that agree to disagree on certain points, and don’t resort to ad hominem.
For readability reasons I would recommend the CSB or NASB2020 over the ESV although I love it as well .
The NASB2020 has really grown on me . People should give it a try.
Looking forward to see what the Lord has planned for you brother.
Amazing discussion and end result!
Excellent conversation. Very enlightening.
Great conversation. Thank you for sharing this.
"use the one that matches the KJV". winds up just getting you to KJV Onlyism.
Right. That's been my point for a few years now. To the Calvinistic TR defenders, too.
Good job, brothers!
No we do not need an update on the KJV. What would be great is if translations such as the Geneva bible and the ASV were revived so that people can see that when the translators of the KJV said it was not their intention to make a new translation but to make a good translation better they were not lying.
Furthermore with regards to the KJV it should be compulsory that the preface to the reader is in every KJV bible so that the KJV cultists' can see that the translators themselves condemn anyone who says the KJV is the only bible for the English speaking people.
There was a 1599 Geneva release a bit over a decade ago, but I don't think it made much traction.
@@MetroplexAerials More's the pity because it was the one translation prior to the KJV that l read which exposed the lie that the KJV was a unique translation separating itself from all other translations.
Reading it was an eye-opening experience and brought home the reality you are never too old to learn.
How many modern versions were around in 1611 ?
@@lesbyler1374 In 1611, you potentially could have consulted a number of translations. There was Tyndale's incomplete Bible, of course, but you could also find the Coverdale Bible (1535), Matthew BIble (1537), Taverner's Bible (1539), Great Bible (1539), Geneva Bible (1560), Bishops' Bible (1568), and Douay-Rheims Bible (1610). Two of those (Geneva, Bishops') had more than one major edition, with notable changes made between them. And then you might also be able to find the early and later versions of the Wycliffe Bible, assuming that you were up for reading a translation that was a little over 200 years old.
Rather than update the kjv, why not get together with kjv onlyest and update the nkjv so that everyone can be happy. Update the nkjv in a way that it can be recommended by kjv only people.
Only update the notes. Not the NKJV translation. The notes show all the Critical Text updates.
@@Rod-Wheelerthey still won’t be satisfied.
(NIV) +(ESV)
Non-Inclusions:
Mat 17:21
Mat 18:11
Mat 23:14
Mar 7:16
Mar 9:44
Mar 9:46
Mar 11:26
Mar 15:28
Luk 17:36
Luk 23:17
Jhn 5:4
Act 8:37
Act 15:34
Act 24:7
Act 28:29
Rom 16:24
(RSV)
Non-Inclusions:
Mat 12:47
Mat 17:21
Mat 18:11
Mat 21:44
Mat 23:14
Mar 7:16
Mar 9:44
Mar 9:46
Mar 11:26
Mar 15:28
Luk 17:36
Luk 22:43
Luk 22:44
Luk 23:17
Luk 24:12
Luk 24:40
Jhn 5:4
Act 8:37
Act 15:34
Act 24:7
Act 28:29
Rom 16:24
Mark- I sure do appreciate your hard work, and for sharing your wisdom on RUclips. Been a big help to me. I'm a former major NKJV user and pretty recently switched over to the CSB. Forgive my ignorance, but if there was to be a KJV update like you and Dan discussed who is the major decision maker for this? Is it up to a publishing company to take on the task? Is it up to Cambridge? I hope you get to be apart of the process if it happens. Thank you again for your wisdom. God bless you and your family!
That's the biggest question. I see only two realistic options: Striving Together Publications/a Beka; Cambridge. Both are very long shots.
Good conversation, thanks, gentlemen.
Our pleasure!
16:00 "add one cubit to his stature" vs "add one hour to his life" : The Greek word "helikia" is translated as "life" and "stature" in both the KJV and the modern translations. For example, KJV says Zacchaeus was "small in stature" as do all modern translations. But KJV says that the man blind from birth (John 9) was "of age" not "of stature" as do all modern translations.
While I appreciate these kinds of conversations, I think believers should use whatever translation they are comfortable with. We have Christian liberty. I don't think modern translations take away from doctrine or theology.
Surely you can make an exception and continue your conversations with Dan Haifley so long as he continues to he reasonable.
Mark, thank you for another gracious and interesting conversation! I went (mildly) down the rabbit hole looking into the Heb 10:23 KJV translation of "τῆς ἐλπίδος" as "faith". According to Ellingworth’s NIGTC Hebrews commentary, "Ψ 1245 1898 in fact read τῆς πίστεως", and the Vulgate reads "fidelis". My guess is the KJV translators went with the Vulgate's reading, despite having (to my knowledge) no Greek texts that read anything other than τῆς ἐλπίδος. But I'd be curious to hear more of your thoughts!
That is very possible. I’d want to hear from Tim Berg on this. Scrivener believed it to be an error, I think, because his own Cambridge Paragraph Bible, an 1873 KJV edition, changes it to “hope.”
@@wardonwords Hi, Mark.
(1) The Vulgate reads “hope.” The relevant Latin word here is “spei.” The word "fidelis" was rendered "faithful" in the Douay-Rheims Bible.
Vulgate:
“Teneamus spei nostræ confessionem indeclinabilem (fidelis enim est qui repromisit)”
Douay-Rheims New Testament (1582):
“Let us hold the confession of our hope undeclining (for he is faithful that hath promised)”
Here is the text with the two relevant Latin words in brackets next to their English equivalents:
“Let us hold the confession of our hope [spei] undeclining (for he is faithful [fidelis] that hath promised)”
(2) According to Scrivener, the KJV’s reading “faith” is an error.
From p. 247 of “The Authorised Edition of the English Bible (1611), Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives” (Cambridge, University Press, 1884) by F. H. A. Scrivener:
“The variation in Heb. x. 23 ‘faith’ for ‘hope’ is not included since it is a mere oversight of our Translators (Tregelles’ Horne, Vol. IV. p. 227 note).”
I must point out that eight English translations before 1611 unanimously read “hope." They are William Tyndale’s New Testament, the Coverdale Bible, the Matthew’s Bible, Taverner’s Bible, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Bishops’ Bible, and (as I showed above) the Douay-Rheims Bible.
@@andrewpowell8506 EXCELLENT. If I weren't finishing up with KJV-Onlyism, I'd do a video on this. This is excellent homework. I did know about that Scrivener quote, but I'd lost track of it. And I never bothered to look at previous English translations. I'm willing to call this an error in the KJV, as apparently you are. Thank you for this.
@@andrewpowell8506 Thank you for the correction regarding the Vulgate, that's my mistake- that's what I get for trying to read it when I don't know Latin!
I have a hard time believing this is not an error in the KJV!
Even going into my Blue Letter Bible app and looking into Hebrews 10:23 and using the Interlinear study tool with Strongs, it shows that "The KJV translates Strongs G1680 ἐλπίς in the following manner: hope (53x), faith (1x)"
I love these conversations(and conduct). I smell a podcast in the future!
I'm committed to leaving the KJV debate (almost completely) behind. But conversations with Dan don't have to be about the KJV.
I know you did. There is no shortage of topics you two gentlemen could discuss!
It should be noted that one of the leading men who worked on the NKJV was a Byzantine/Majority text guy! The Majority text in Luke 1:35 for example, does NOT have "of thee".
✔ Excellent.
KJV research council should have Mark come & speak. I like these conversations between these two men
No. KJV-onlyists won't accept it - and we already have the NKJV. Surely?
They don't accept it.
That's why:
ERRORS FOUND IN
NEW BIBLE VERSIONS
NEW KING JAMES ERRORS & OMISSIONS
NKJV Verse Comparison Chart (See pp. 146-160)
Why by does the NKJV omit key words critical to mankind's
salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ?
"Now the serpent was more subtil..." Gen. 3:1
The NKJV Omits Key Christian Words: Times Omitted
"Lord" 66 times
"God" 51 times
"heaven" 50 times
"repent" 44 times
"blood" 23 times
"hell" 22 times
"JEHOVAH" entirely
"new testament" entirely
"damnation" entirely
"devils" entirely
The NKJV ignored the KJV Greek Textus Receptus over 1,200 times.
The NKJV replaced the trustworthy KJV Hebrew Old Testament (ben Chayyim
Masoretic Text) with corrupt Biblia Hebraica from Stuttgart (ben Asher ).
@@MichaelNodine NKJV Verse Comparison Chart
How the NKJV Demotes Jesus Christ
NKJV KJV
Luke 13:8 Sir Lord
Matt. 18:26 before him,
saying, Master
and worshipped him,
saying, Lord
Matt. 20:20 kneeling down worshipping him
Matt. 26:64 right hand of
the Power
right hand of power
Gen. 22:8 God will provide
for himself the
lamb
God will provide
himself a lamb
John 8:35 a son the Son
Col. 2:2 the mystery of
God, both of the
Father and of
Christ
the mystery of God, and
of the Father, and of
Christ (Trinity)
Matt. 8:19 et al. Teacher Master
Matt 19:16 Good Teacher Good Master
Matt. 22:16 Teacher Master
Matt. 23:8 One is your
Teacher, the Christ
one is your Master,
even Christ
Matt 23:10 And do not be
called teachers;
for One is your
Teacher, the Christ
Neither be ye called
masters: for one is your
Master, even Christ
WARNING: The NKJV logo is the ancient symbol for the pagan
trinity, not the Christian Trinity.
Back on the late 1960's Oxford U Press published the New Scofield Reference Bible, which not only updated the notes, but (gasp! 😱) replaced some antiquated / false friend words with modern equivalents. The one I particularly recall is replacing "prevent" with "precede" in 1 Thes 4:15. There was a loud hue-&-cry among evangelicals, decades before KJV Onlyism was a thing, over a very few minor changes in the text. The lesson I glean from that is that KJVO's will never accept a wholesale update to the KJV. Why (in their mind) update something that's already perfect? After all, Ps 12:7 says it's to have been refined seven times, not eight.
Besides the MEV there's also the 21st Century KJV and Third Millennium
Right!
AND the Simplified KJ...seems that they were pretty conservative.
If the ultimate goal of a revision of the KJV were to happen, and institutions stood behind that, it would truly be somewhat of a mini-reformation just within the IFB, which is long overdue.
Bravo, Mark. Whether it happens or not, you’ve earnestly done your part in trying to unify the church ultimately for Gods glory. Much of the rest is out of your control. We can only pray from here on.
I would have hope for PCC, they have shown early signs of wanting to change for the betterment of the body. I would have hope for Maranatha Baptist College, they already have differing views within and openly reject Ruckmanism, it’s pretty explicit on their statement of faith. I’m not familiar enough with WCBC. I really wish Hyles Anderson had more hope. They’ve been critiqued for openly having Calvinists teach there if I remember correctly. But they’re probably too deep in IFB doctrines for hope in our lifetime.
Psalm 95:7-11 in the KJV doesn't mention about Joshua and Caleb:
"7For he is our God;
and we are the people of his pasture,
and the sheep of his hand.
To day if ye will hear his voice,
8 harden not your heart, as in the provocation,
and as in the day of temptation in the wilderness:
9 when your fathers tempted me,
proved me, and saw my work.
10 Forty years long was I grieved with this generation,
and said, It is a people that do err in their heart,
and they have not known my ways:
11 unto whom I sware in my wrath
that they should not enter into my rest."
The point being, you can say something about a particular people that generalises their moral state, even though you could have some very few exceptions, such as Joshua and Caleb, and still be faithful and truthful to what happened.
Also, another way to handle the NKJV's rendering of Hebrews 3:16 is that the author might be saying that ALL the disobedient people ALL came out of Egypt. It might not necessarily be saying that every single person who came out of Egypt were disobedient.
Excellent.
on Heb 3.16. Hodges-Farstad text has it as a Question mark. The Patriarchal Text used by the Greek Orthodox does too.
Excellent homework. I should have thought to look at these.
28:50 Dan Wallace worked on the NKJV committee and his testimony is that his job was to specifically ensure that the translators stuck to the TR. However, to be fair, he also said that it was miserable work because the the translators did not want to stick to the TR.
No he did not work on the committee of the NKJV and he condemned the using of the TR seeing it as an inferior text.
@@normanrausch1223 He's not listed, but you can find several RUclips videos where he himself states that he was tasked by Dr. Farstad to provide oversight to ensure that the NT translators stuck with the TR, despite his own perspective that it's inferior to the CT.
@ so if I send you a link to a lecture of him saying what I quoted?
ruclips.net/video/itG4ZK7ZXMM/видео.htmlsi=noAjjzHl0T00iejl
@@mnjackson5772 You are correct in what you say but Dan Wallace is incorrect if he says the NKJV and NASB translations are miserable or bad translations because that they are not.
The KJV in Joel 3:4 and Isaiah 14:29 & 31 is in error and needs corrected. The KJV uses the word Palestine in Joel 3:4 which is a bad error since the region of Palestine did not exist until 135 AD. This passage written in 800 BC is talking about judgment on Philistia, the land of the Philistines. This is about 935 years wrong historically. The KJV again in Isaiah 14:29 & 31 uses the word Palestina. Again Palestina or Palestine is named by the Romans in 135 AD. This is two errors by the KJV translators because this again is talking about Philistia, the land of the Philistines. These errors need to be corrected. The 1599 Geneva Bible uses the word Philistia in these verses as does the New King James Version.
That's less an error and more a translation choice to identify to the reader a geographic name which would have been more immediately familiar to them. It's the same logic by which we Anglicize formal names such as Yeshua to Jesus.
@spenserdeardorff2737 that is your viewpoint but to put Palestine in a verse that is talking about a specific nation in 800 BC when this region, not a nation Palestine, that wasnt called that until 135 AD is a major error and a bad translation choice that spawns history revisionism. It is not even close to being the same as Yeshua or Jesus who is the same person. Palestine and Philistia are not the same.
@@rodneyjackson6181 the passages you mentioned use the terms Philistia/Palestine to denote a geographic region, not a people group or nationality. Because of this, I believe it's a valid translation. As Mark points out, the end goal is to render the scriptures in a language that is easily understood. The choice to call the region "Palestine" would have been understood by the KJV's original audience. We can't call it a "mistake" simply because of the added political weight the term carries in today's culture, though it may fall into the category of "false friend".
The choice to update location names has biblical precedent, however. Even the author of the Torah used anachronistic names, albeit with explanatory notes.
@spenserdeardorff2737 still a mistake. The passage specifically is talking about judgment on the Philistines period. There was no Palestine. The 1599 Geneva Bible, New King James Version and all other good faithful modern translations use Philistia. The KJV simply got it wrong and all nuances you described does nothing to justify this error. The Hebrew simply is talking about Philistia and to translate that into English as Palestine is an error historically and Scripturally.
@@rodneyjackson6181 agree to disagree. I believe the KJV audience would have understood what the passage was speaking about, even if modern audiences might not.
Yes. Update the outdated antiquated kjv soon..it really needs it!
Check out the MEV Modern English Version. There's a 2024 Edition that has typos corrected from the first edition.
So would the KJVO folks accept an update of the KJV if it used the exact same edition of the TR and the Hebrew OT as the old King James? Or an update of the 1881 TR?
Maybe! But only if they do it themselves, I think.
Which is something I don't think they will ever do because it would cost them "street cred" with the rabid KJVO people they depend on.
@@chadwilham3942 I agree. But the next generation may manage it.
I’m an avid KJV and NKJV user. I’m just wondering, would this proposed update be accepted as a revision of the current NKJV? I know Thomas Nelson has committed to keeping the text stable, and I appreciate that because I trust the current text. I would however be happy with a NKJV update if it follows the guidelines proposed in this video.
This project would have no connection to the NKJV. It would be for the many people who don’t trust the NKJV.
What I find interesting is that Dan says the KJVO group were disappointed that the NKJV was not merely an update of the KJV language and that lead to scepticism of all new translations. Why don’t the KJVO group get together and do an update they can trust?
That’s my call.
Then you should be checking out the Modern English Version
Yes, a good one!
In regards to nephilim in Gen .6. I think the KJV was influenced by the Vulgate which follows the Septuagint in using gigantes to translate the Hebrew word nephilim
I'm generally on Mark's side but l did come across an example yesterday where a modern translation (in a note) used a word that wasn't very helpful to me. Proverbs 20:11 ESV (alternative translation in note) "dissemble". I have heard it before. I think of pulling a carburettor apart, but l know it doesn't actually say "disassemble"...
Yeah, probably too tough a word to belong in a Bible translation.
My first thought was that it was a leftover note from the RSV, but nope: somebody on the ESV team must have been consulting a 19th century commentary when drawing up that note (or perhaps helping someone prep for the SAT). That's not to say that the RSV never uses the word: in fact, even the 2021 NRSVue continues to use "dissembles" in Proverbs 26.24! (The ESV chose to go with "disguises" instead.)
@@MAMoreno interesting. I only got as far as searching the ESV main text and the KJV and finding this word appears in neither.
Outstanding. The Psalm 12:6 crowd will throw a fit if you ever change anything under any circumstances so trying to make them happy would be pointless but I’m hoping they’re the minority in the KJV camp.
I agree 100%.
Forgive me if this was addressed and i missed it. I now understand that there are multiple TR's but my question is, did the KJ translators use more than one TR?
Thank you for your time brother.
Yes. F.H.A. Scrivener has shown clearly that they used two main TR editions and a number of minor ones. Stephanus 1550 and Beza 1598 were their main ones. Here's a page I'm still working on filling out: kjvparallelbible.org/which-tr-stephanus-vs-beza/
@markwardonwords thank you, I will check out that link.
Hey Mark are most of the NKJV translators from late 70’s passed on at this point? I’m just wondering who you know that knows those men who worked on the NKJV and i guess its just we’re a decade or so too late to speak to any of them?
This I don't know; I believe James D. Price is still living. I had conversation with him a few years ago. Dan Wallace is certainly still living.
I would really love to see everyone get behind the update project. Somehow, I see it as a monumental task. You see, back in 1611, the "authorization" to create the King James came from the King himself which was both head of state and head of the church (the Anglican church). So, whatever the King decreed, that is Law. Also, back then, there were no other independent English-speaking nations. All were colonies and subject to what the King decreed. Today, we have quite a few independent English-speaking nations. So, an effort made in the USA may not be seen favorable in other nations and vice-versa. Personally, I read from the Reina Valera 1909, but I could just as well read from the Reina Valera 1602 or even Enzinas 1543. Luckily for the Spanish-speaking Christians, the Spanish language has not changed as often or as dramatically as the English language has. (By the way, Enzinas in 1543 says "Haz diligencia" in 2 Timothy 2:15)
There was an official, authorised update already. It happened about 140 years ago, and people of the Victorian Era generally weren't happy with it. By that point, the authority of the Anglican Church was no longer enough to make English Christendom as a whole adopt the translation. If that's how it was in 1885, it's not going to change in 2025.
The goal instead has to be to convince a small pocket of people to accept the update. That small pocket is the King James Only group. Everyone else can continue to enjoy the KJV as it stands... alongside any number of other translations approved in their churches.
Not sure if it was intentional but the old font and the new updated font. One is easier to read today. Both appropriate for their time.
Intentional!
I'm sure it was intentional!
@@wardonwords I KNEW IT! Sorry, amateur calligraphy geek here. My hand has a phantom ache, trying to remember how to hold the pen to do those letters. This style is a little different than the one I learned, so it's driving me a bit crazy.
@@wardonwords I should have figured 😅
But it is a fair point. Why is it acceptable to many to update the KJV/AV which in 1611 was printed in blackletter gothic to a modern typeface so it can be read by modern readers but it is not acceptable to them to update the words too for clarity for modern readers? Surely people should just learn to read the old typeface too following their logic...!
If you do an update, just do one off of the English KJV
That is literally impossible, I’m afraid. You can’t always know what the KJV means without checking the Hebrew and Greek.
How did Richard Bancroft factor into the KJB production?
μεριμνάω = "to be careful" is even a false friend in the most popular Arabic translation (Smith-Van Dyke): اهتمّ. It can be only clarified by referring to the root of the word. Else, you will think that the Bible is telling us to be careless!
33:00 it seems obvious that translations like the TR/KJV ("some not all rebelled") are better because they prevent (in both the archaic and modern sense of that word) 'contradictions', however, all texts and translations have 'contradictions' and it is at least intellectually dishonest to pretend that the contradiction is the reason one holds to a particular translation. In such a case, they should reject the same translation when one of the many 'contradictions' are pointed out elsewhere; which none of us does. We explain those--away, in the opinion of the Bible skeptics.
I think a pure update of the English of the KJV would be great, but it depends on if will be accepted. It should probably be aimed at academics or at a high reading level and not dumb down. I think you could make a case to keep thee, thou, and ye because we don't have words to match the meanings. Just add a "dictionary" or explaination in the front pages with translators notes. It should done meticulously and each word comsidered exhaustively. Maybe bring trusted people in to proof read and share opinions and thoughts? I feel it could be done, but it's a tall task.
I'd be in favor of keeping the thees and thous.
Sweeeeet!
How do you engage a conspiracy theory in terms of trust issues? How do you engage the idea of publishers desiring to "make money" off of a new translation and "watering down" the translation of the Hebrew and Greek texts?
By bringing KJVO institutions along. They have the trust of KJVOs.
@@wardonwords I wish this would work Mark I really do. However, being fairly acquainted with the IFB I can tell you that acceptance of this new translation would likely result in a purity test, stand, or spiral. Many an IFB church, and members, would thump their chests and be proud of the fact that they do not accept this new Bible . . . and then proceed to nit pick it to death. They would allege corruption and come up with the wildest theories about how these institutions are trying to water down God's word. Deep down I think the guys at these schools that could translate from the original languages (there are not many) would balk because they know that they and their work would become lighting rods in the IFB. Remember that IFB stands for I F-ight B-aptists.
😊
Ah! We get so many people that are like your Grandmother; "all means all." Atheists that seek “contradictions” in the bible will quote 1 Samuel 15:8 where it is written that Saul “destroyed all the [Amalekite] people.” Then, later in time, it is written in 1 Samuel 27:8, 9 David went against the Amalekites, thus they couldn’t have been “all” destroyed.
Genesis 3:20 Eve is the mother of *all* living. Well, Adam was alive first, along with many living animals. Also, is she her own mother?
Psalms 8:6 says, “You [God] put all things under his feet” (poetically meaning ‘all things under his authority’). Was that to say absolutely “ALL” things were under man’s and later Jesus’ feet? Not at all! Even the bible itself explains this one... In 1 Corinthians 15:27&28 Paul quotes Psalm 8:6 and clarifies; “But when he saith ‘all things are put under him,’ it is manifest that he [God] is excepted, which did put all things under him.” Yes, it is to be ‘understood’ by the reader that God is an exception to “all things under him.”
Colossians 1:23 Paul says that the Gospel “has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven” “All” not in an absolute sense. We often get the "absolute" treatment on Colossians 1:16 where it says of Jesus, "For by Him all things were created" as if Jesus created himself, or even created God! He did create all other things though.
Is there a work that is trying to update the TR into one?
No.
@52:40 Bryan Ross is the man! That pastor has volumes of material that I find all the time from a decade ago.
He is a diligent guy! He's got a nose for finding historical sources.
Restful conversation, merry gentlemen, "may nothing you dismay..."
1. Regarding the rendering of Luke 1:35 in both (A) the King James Version and (B) the New King James Version, I perceive it as a matter of both (1) Trinitarian emphasis and (2) poetic symmetry that is present in the former and missing in the latter, respectively:
A. KJV: And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon THEE,
and the power of the Highest shall overshadow THEE:
therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of THEE shall be called the Son of God.
B. NKJV: And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon YOU,
and the power of the Highest will overshadow YOU;
therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.
2. By omitting the pronoun YOU in the third line, the NKJV conveys the appearance of minimizing God's triune relationship with Mary when compared to the explicitness of the KJV, but still with both translations identifying her as (A) spouse of the Holy Spirit, (B) daughter of the Father and (C) mother of the Incarnate Son of God:
A. The Holy Spirit shall/will come upon THEE/YOU
B. the power of the Highest shall/will overshadow THEE/YOU
C. that - holy thing/Holy One - which/who - shall/will - be born of THEE/(?) - shall/will - be called Son of God.
3. To my mind, it is no wonder that those familiar with the KJV experience(d) a disruption when reading/hearing the NKJV's rendering of Luke 1:35.
4. And if the King James Bible was good enough for St. Luke ...
#4. “If the KJV was good enough for St. Luke…” the KJV did not exist when Luke existed. Done.
@@richiejourney1840 "And if ..." ;-)
I guess it's time for Dan Haifley's name's typeface to be given an update.
I am wondering if you two have looked at the Keyword Study Bible (kjv), by Spiro Zodhaites? The publishers of that work did update a long list of archaic words. A lot of the words modernized in that work are on your list of words that are in your list of false friends list Mark. So we could just use that work.
I haven't noticed that! Interesting.
It’s good to see two scholarly believers having a reasonable discussion about this. 🤍 I’m tired of folks causing divisions over it.
Which TR text was it that omitted “ek sou” in Luke 1:35?
Stephanus. See link in description.
Mark, what do we do with the corruptions that are found in the MT? e.g. Deut. 32:8, "sons of Israel" vs. "sons of God". Which is said to have been changed after the first century A.D.
We do our best. We look to people like John Meade that we have reason to trust.
I did get to see another video before 2025.
Once I watched one video, YT kept feeding me them if I went onto the site instead of RSS. You seem very much to care. I can count the number of people who talk about KJVO who care about the people they talk about on my fingers, and fewer who really try to talk to them (preaching at them doesn't count). You're one of those.
Most of the time it's more like the two minutes hate or the prayer of the Pharisee, "Thank you, that I am not like this man, a KJVO," both to agree with or please people who dislike them. It's like videos on the NWT in that regard. They can be no less vicious than the KJVO people they talk about. I think you've escaped that, and since you have, you're quitting at a good time, and with these discussions on a good foot. I hope things go well for you in the next project.
This is profound. You are right that the temptation you name is one reason I need to stop. I love these brothers and I see much good in them, but the temptation to look down my nose at them is real.
16:29 It is also a false premise that modern translations looked at the KJV and thought "how can we be different?" Or, that they SHOULD have looked at the KJV and only departed where absolutely necessary for readability. Modern translations (with the exception of NKJV and the like) are not updates of the KJV. They are new translations, working from the original languages.
RIGHT. But there is pragmatic value in an English-only update.
@@wardonwords No doubt, and if the update is English only, as the NKJV was, they should take the source English translation and its choices seriously, almost sacrosanct, as they are trading on the trust of that that translations 'fan base'. KJVers take issue with the NKJV because they don't feel they held the KJV in high regard. And Dan Wallace's testimony gives some weight to that suspicion.
Should we update Shakespeare?
Yes
@randywheeler3914 I had a brother named Randy. We never agreed either.🤔😁
Ask the publishers who are selling Shakespeare plays with a modern English version in a separate column. There's definitely a demand for it.
But it's really not a 1 to 1 comparison. This is more like asking, "Should we update the earliest English translations of War and Peace?"
Last time I checked, Shakespeare wasn't God's word translated from Koine Greek, vernacular language, and thus meant to be clear and understandable to Tyndale's plowboy.
There's a big difference though. Shakespeare was originally written in that style of English, whilst the Word of God wasn't originally written in 17th century Jacobean English.
Guy's, let's flood Joe's channel in support of Wes Huff. If you watch the video on believers' channels as you should, let's represent Christianity on Joe's channel. Let's show the corporates that Christ matters to us. We are a force through Christ that leads us.
To me there is no either or.
Contradictory readings and missing words are just as important as false friends and proper TR/KJV basis. I would love to give time to this huge task, that is, updating the KJV, God willing.
Right!
Bro. Ward, I think you missed a critical point Bro. Haifley was trying to make, which speaks directly to the issue of whether or not to “update” the KJV. Namely, you are arguing for translational changes, even ones that don’t technically depart from the text of the TR, which is what rubs many of us KJV advocates the wrong way. On the one hand, you claim to only want to update the archaic words you perceive to be “false friends”, which if true would not change the genuine meaning of the English translation. But on the other hand, you seem to want to say the KJV translators made the wrong translational choice in some places where a text is genuinely ambiguous and a judgment has to be made (e.g., Heb. 3:16). With all due respect, this feels like a bait-and-switch to us. As a ground rule for this discussion, you should know that we would not accept an update to the KJV that changes the meaning of the English, as we believe the translational decisions of the KJV translators were correct. This is the root of our reluctance to concede to an update of the KJV, as we fear it will go beyond the mere updating of archaic words and change the meaning of the English. The NKJV was guilty of that in many places, and we have no desire to participate in a repeat of that. Can you understand this point?
The main issue with that stance is that it goes against the very translation philosophy of the KJV, which is to make a good translation better. I don't think that the translators themselves would see the point in merely bringing their words into a contemporary form of English without any efforts to improve it.
Having said that, I can understand wanting an exact representation of a certain committee's (fallible) decisions, unadulterated by other people's (potentially better) ideas. For instance, if I wanted to consult the Great Bible of 1539 (the original "authorized version"), I wouldn't be satisfied by someone handing me a KJV, even though the KJV is a direct descendant of the Great Bible (its grandchild, if you will).
@ That’s fine, and I respect your view, though I disagree with it. But in your case, you should argue for a new translation, not merely an update of the KJV to modernize its archaic words.
I do not know how to be more clear: I am in favor of making an update to the KJV that updates only the English. I do not think this is theologically necessary, because their choices were not perfect. They said so explicitly themselves. But I think it is prudentially wise. And I think that only experts in historical Englishes can be trusted to know whether a given update to the KJV (say, "study" to "be diligent") is an English-only change or not.
This is the bottom line: the NKJV is claiming to be an updated KJV into modern English. They used the name KING JAMES to sell their bible, so they should have just stuck to the choices the King James translators made and not try to "improve" on it. For example, they should have left the born "of thee" in Luke 1:35 because that was the choice that was made by the KJV translators. Same goes with Hebrews 3:16, just keep the choice of the original KJV translators! This is the issue: Even though it's very minor, the NKJV is still playing textual critic in some places, as well as deciding on the true meaning of certain words (like corrupt vs peddle in 2Cor 2:17). They obviously think it's an improvement, but I think they should have just stuck to the choices of the original translators, otherwise call the bible something else. Maybe call it the Nelson Standard Bible. Sure, it wouldn't sell as well, but it would be a more honest title. I have a KJV put out by Nelson that has the easier updated words in the margin. It seems to cover all of the false friends. I read that one most of the time now. I'll compare the KJV to other translations or the original languages. I'm not KJV only but I just think the NKJV should have tried to be closer to the KJV regardless if they think they could improve it otherwise. We already have a ton of bibles that think they are improving on the KJV. A true update would be closer to the KJV in my opinion. -Sal
P.S. I wanted to thank Dr. Mark Ward for getting me more interested in the false friends. I think it's a big issue. I also want to comment to Dr. Haifley: don't bite at the bait when it comes to "improving the text" by using OTHER TR's or different interpretations than what the KJV translators made. Personally, I don't think there will ever be a future update that will actually replace the KJV (like the way the 1769 edition replaced the 1611 edition). I think we are too close to the end.
Who are the “original translators”? Did they stick with the choices their predecessors made?
@@wardonwords the "original translators" I'm talking about are the ones who made the decisions that went into the KJV. Asking if the KJV translators in 1611 departed from earlier decisions made by earlier English Bibles is not related to this idea of updating the language of the KJV. That's another topic. Let me keep this short. An update of the KJV should be closer to the KJV. For example, if the KJV says hell, don't put hades or sheol, regardless if you think you are improving the interpretation. Same with giant and nephilim. If you want to change the KJV more, CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE, don't call it NEW King James. Someone else here made a similar comment saying KJV only think the NKJV changed it too much. I agree. But I still don't think we have enough time left in this current world/age for this update to be accepted by english speakers world wide to replace the 1762/1769 editions that are currently being used. I like the NKJV footnotes. I would love to have a KJV bible that included text critical footnotes believe it or not. A perfect KJV to me would have those notes as well as the translators notes and notes that help with the false friends and archaic phrases.
@@sljc777 It's fair to say that the name "New" King James Version is a bit confusing, but there was already a precedent from a few years earlier: the "New" American Standard Bible did not merely update the language of the American Standard Version, but also departed from some of its translation choices. Perhaps the NKJV's original British name, the Revised Authorised Version, was a bit clearer about the extent of the changes.
More problematic is the NKJV's claim to be the fifth revision of the KJV. It's more like the first proper revision of the KJV after a series of smaller updates from 1611 to 1769 (assuming we ignore the Revised Version of 1885, of course). The NKJV is to the KJV as the KJV is to the Bishops' Bible: the product of a new committee that nevertheless builds heavily upon its immediate predecessor.
@@sljc777 I hear you!
SKJV, KJVER, & KJ21 are the best KJV updates to date that I recommend over the NKJV or MEV.
If you want an easier to read KJV text use a Defined KJV Bible or a KJV Sword Study Bible.
I implore Mark Ward to drop the nomenclature "false friend" in favor of "archaic friend" or "old friend". He can still beat this dead horse as much as he wants, but I don't think that he understands the harm he'll do by tainting future unbelievers with the idea of "false...false...false...false" words scattered throughout the Bible. Unbelievers think like unbelievers and giving them ammunition like that will just let them shoot themselves in the foot. I genuinely believe Mark is being reckless with this particular word choice if he truly desires to spread the Gospel. I don't know if it's an already secured trademark thing for him for his book but words have consequences and of all people he knows that. I appreciate his work. Pray for Mark folks, lest a besom of misconception sweeps the babes. 🙏
I simply disagree. This is standard linguistic nomenclature for the phenomenon we're observing. KJV defenders seem to me to be more upset about the terminology used to describe the misunderstandings than they are about the misunderstandings. That feels rather backwards to me.
There already is a KJV update its called AKJV American King James Version that stays true to the traditional texts and easier to read vesus the corrupt texts like NKJV and other modern text.
Right! There are many such projects, but the IFB KJV-Only folks have found reasons to ignore or reject all of them. The only way they'll trust a new KJV is if they do it themselves.
@@wardonwordsand as an Englishman I could never accept an update to the AV done by an American organisation 😉
@@ianholloway3778We’re going to call it the President James Version.
@@wardonwords 😂
No, we do not need another update. Just leave it alone. I'm tired of the subject. The TR is one source and the CT is another. We have too many English translations, or we have many choices to choose. Read and understand the Bible,
Found an interesting designation for Mark. Brother Roy (Old School Bible Baptist) says he's a "Bible atheist." Huh
Roy says a lot of nonsense. He recently made a video called "Four Doctrine Changes that Should Make You Trash Modern Bibles." His first example is a "change" that supposedly supports infant baptism. Now, anyone who knows anything about the KJV will know that all of the translators were paedobaptists, and anyone who knows anything about the modern versions will know that the committees tend to include Baptists and other credobaptists. Yet he ignores this fact and claims that the modern credobaptists are changing the old paedobaptist translation to be more paedobaptist!
Later in the video, he complains that modern versions don't use the Latin word Calvary (which, of course, means "skull") and translate the Greek word with the proper English equivalent, as if a shift from traditional Roman Catholic terminology is somehow a departure from some blessed Baptist tradition. This is the sort of fallacious thinking you find throughout his videos, yet people still take him seriously.
These two men are sailing in the same sinking ship. One on the starboard believes the King James is a good translation, but it is merely a translation and no translation can be inspired and is the work of men. The other on the port believes the King James is not a good translation or can be improved by the new bibles. Neither man believes one can have the inspired scriptures in their possession. Both become their own final authority.
"One on the starboard believes the King James is a good translation, but it is merely a translation and no translation can be inspired and is the work of men."
So one person agrees with the KJV translators, who thought that the idea of inspired translations was nonsense. Got it.
"The other on the port believes the King James is not a good translation or can be improved by the new bibles."
This is false. Neither one of them believes that the KJV is bad. An already good translation can be improved. Again, see the KJV preface, which argues that an effort to improve a previous translation does not imply that the previous translation was bad.
@@MAMoreno Neither believe ANY final authority in print. Both believe their opinion of the unavailable and unseen originals is the final authority. Nephilim is the perfect example. Giants are the byproduct of fallen angels and women who are called strange flesh in Jude 6-7. They are missing the truth of the matter. The LXX is untrustworthy by its own narrative. Is LXX or LXXII? Sixty-six of the translators were not Levites. The Apocrypha is WITHIN the text of the OT.
@@seekerofconsistency Again, just read the KJV preface to see the problem with one side insisting that they have a "final authority" in print:
But the difference that appeareth between our Translations, and our often correcting of them, is the thing that we are specially charged with; let us see therefore whether they themselves be without fault this way, (if it be to be counted a fault, to correct) and whether they be fit men to throw stones at us: O tandem maior parcas insane minori: they that are less sound themselves, ought not to object infirmities to others.
If we should tell them that Valla, Stapulensis, Erasmus, and Vives found fault with their vulgar Translation, and consequently wished the same to be mended, or a new one to be made, they would answer peradventure, that we produced their enemies for witnesses against them; albeit, they were in no other sort enemies, than as S. Paul was to the Galatians, for telling them the truth [Gal 4:16]: and it were to be wished, that they had dared to tell it them plainlier and oftener.
But what will they say to this, that Pope Leo the Tenth allowed Erasmus' Translation of the New Testament, so much different from the vulgar, by his Apostolic Letter and Bull; that the same Leo exhorted Pagnine to translate the whole Bible, and bare whatsoever charges was necessary for the work?
Surely, as the Apostle reasoneth to the Hebrews, that if the former Law and Testament had been sufficient, there had been no need of the latter: [Heb 7:11 and 8:7] so we may say, that if the old vulgar had been at all points allowable, to small purpose had labour and charges been undergone, about framing of a new.
If they say, it was one Pope's private opinion, and that he consulted only himself; then we are able to go further with them, and to aver, that more of their chief men of all sorts, even their own Trent champions Paiva and Vega, and their own Inquisitors, Hieronymus ab Oleastro, and their own Bishop Isidorus Clarius, and their own Cardinal Thomas a Vio Caietan, do either make new Translations themselves, or follow new ones of other men's making, or note the vulgar Interpreter for halting; none of them fear to dissent from him, nor yet to except against him.
And call they this an uniform tenor of text and judgment about the text, so many of their Worthies disclaiming the now received conceit? Nay, we will yet come nearer the quick: doth not their Paris edition differ from the Lovaine, and Hentenius his from them both, and yet all of them allowed by authority?
Nay, doth not Sixtus Quintus confess, that certain Catholics (he meaneth certain of his own side) were in such an humor of translating the Scriptures into Latin, that Satan taking occasion by them, though they thought of no such matter, did strive what he could, out of so uncertain and manifold a variety of Translations, so to mingle all things, that nothing might seem to be left certain and firm in them, etc.?
Nay, further, did not the same Sixtus ordain by an inviolable decree, and that with the counsel and consent of his Cardinals, that the Latin edition of the old and new Testament, which the Council of Trent would have to be authentic, is the same without controversy which he then set forth, being diligently corrected and printed in the Printing-house of Vatican? Thus Sixtus in his Preface before his Bible.
And yet Clement the Eighth his immediate successor, publisheth another edition of the Bible, containing in it infinite differences from that of Sixtus, (and many of them weighty and material) and yet this must be authentic by all means. What is to have the faith of our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with Yea or Nay, if this be not? Again, what is sweet harmony and consent, if this be?
Therefore, as Demaratus of Corinth advised a great King, before he talked of the dissensions among the Grecians, to compose his domestic broils (for at that time his Queen and his son and heir were at deadly feud with him) so all the while that our adversaries do make so many and so various editions themselves, and do jar so much about the worth and authority of them, they can with no show of equity challenge us for changing and correcting.
@@MAMoreno are referring to the warning in the dedicatory, "So that if, on the one side, we shall be traduced by Popish Persons at home and abroad, who therefore will malign us, because we are poor instruments to make God's holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto the people, whom they desire still to keep in ignorance and darkness; or if, on the other side, we shall be maligned by self- conceited Brethren, who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing, but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil;..." The second group of deceivers are Mark and people like him.
@@seekerofconsistency Mark Ward isn't objecting to the translators' work at all. He's objecting to some people's refusal to recognize that a 400-year-old translation, even one "not justly to be excepted against" in its own time, is no longer in the vulgar tongue.
The objections to the updates of the KJV, especially those that use the Textus Receptus as their basis, are exactly the kind of cavils that the translators of the KJV lamented.
(NIV) +(ESV)
Non-Inclusions:
Mat 17:21
Mat 18:11
Mat 23:14
Mar 7:16
Mar 9:44
Mar 9:46
Mar 11:26
Mar 15:28
Luk 17:36
Luk 23:17
Jhn 5:4
Act 8:37
Act 15:34
Act 24:7
Act 28:29
Rom 16:24
(RSV)
Non-Inclusions:
Mat 12:47
Mat 17:21
Mat 18:11
Mat 21:44
Mat 23:14
Mar 7:16
Mar 9:44
Mar 9:46
Mar 11:26
Mar 15:28
Luk 17:36
Luk 22:43
Luk 22:44
Luk 23:17
Luk 24:12
Luk 24:40
Jhn 5:4
Act 8:37
Act 15:34
Act 24:7
Act 28:29
Rom 16:24
They used a different TR. Huh. Lmfao.
No, don't touch it
NKJV Verse Comparison Chart (See pp. 146-160)
How the NKJV Demotes Jesus Christ
NKJV KJV
Luke 13:8 Sir Lord
Matt. 18:26 before him,
saying, Master
and worshipped him,
saying, Lord
Matt. 20:20 kneeling down worshipping him
Matt. 26:64 right hand of
the Power
right hand of power
Gen. 22:8 God will provide
for himself the
lamb
God will provide
himself a lamb
John 8:35 a son the Son
Col. 2:2 the mystery of
God, both of the
Father and of
Christ
the mystery of God, and
of the Father, and of
Christ (Trinity)
Matt. 8:19 et al. Teacher Master
Matt 19:16 Good Teacher Good Master
Matt. 22:16 Teacher Master
Matt. 23:8 One is your
Teacher, the Christ
one is your Master,
even Christ
Matt 23:10 And do not be
called teachers;
for One is your
Teacher, the Christ
Neither be ye called
masters: for one is your
Master, even Christ
WARNING: The NKJV logo is the ancient symbol for the pagan
trinity, not the Christian Trinity. Use of number symbols (like this 666)
can be traced back to Pythagoras (582 B.C.), initiate into the Egyptian
mysteries. The symbol was popularized again by satanist Aleister Crowley (circa
1900) for the Royal Arch (Lucifer) of the 3rd Degree of the York Order of
Masonry. The symbol's shape is duplicated as three initiates join arms and feet,
while repeating the names of the ancient pagan trinity. The NKJV's symbol can
be seen on the satanic rock group albums like Led Zeppelin, as well as on New
Age best sellers like The Aquarian Conspiracy. Remember Acts 17:29 -"we
ought not to think that the Godhead is like {anything}...graven by art..."
Gail Riplinger's gibberish has already been refuted on numerous occasions.
@@MAMoreno How do you refute something that is irrefutable? Unless obvious comparisons no longer count or matter? Maybe you think we're living in the twilight zone yea?
If you're willing to listen to fellow believers who have addressed your charges before, then I highly recommend Pastor Scott Ingram's RUclips channel. He has done a fair amount of videos lately, addressing charges made against the NKJV. Like how Proverbs 18:13 commands us that we should hear a matter first before we answer it, otherwise we're being foolish and unwise, then I strongly suggest you check out his channel, as we as Christians don't want to bear false witness.
@@permafrost7781we're not living in the Twilight Zone but you definitely are I will pray that the holy spirit opens your eyes to the truth and you come back to reality
@@eclipsesonic How the NKJV Matches Jehovah Witness Version (NWT)
Demotes Jesus Christ
NKJV KJV
Acts 3:13 His Servant Jesus his Son Jesus
Acts 3:26 His Servant Jesus his Son Jesus
Acts 4:27 holy Servant Jesus holy child Jesus
Acts 4:30 holy Servant Jesus holy child Jesus
Col. 1:15 the firstborn
over all creation
the firstborn of
every creature
Mark 2:15 OMIT Jesus
Heb. 4:8 Joshua Jesus
Acts 7:45 Joshua Jesus
2 Thes. 3:5 patience of Christ patient waiting for
Christ (we are to be patient
waiting for Christ)
•
Demotes the Trinity
NKJV KJV
Acts 17:29 Divine Nature Godhead
Phil. 4:20 our God and Father God and our Father
Rev. 1:6 His God and Father God and his Father
Col. 3:17 God the Father
through Him
God and the Father
by him
John 14:16 Helper Comforter
John 14:26 Helper Comforter
John 15:26 Helper Comforter
John 16:7 Helper Comforter
•
continued...
APPENDIX • 149
NKJV Verse Comparison Chart (See pp. 146-160)
How the NKJV Matches Jehovah Witness Version (NWT)
Promotes Works / Progressive Salvation
NKJV KJV
1 Cor. 11:1 Imitate Christ followers...of Christ
Rom. 3:3 faithfulness faith
Rom. 11:30, 32 disobedient...disobedience not believed...unbelief
Rev. 19:8 righteous acts of saints righteousness of
saints
1 Cor. 1:18 are being saved are saved
2 Cor 2:15 are being saved are saved
Eph. 2:8 have been saved are...saved
•
How the NKJV Supports New Age Ideas:
NKJV KJV
Works Salvation
Matt. 7:14 difficult is the way narrow is the way
Gal. 5:22 faithfulness faith
1 John 5:13 may continue
to believe may believe
Eccl. 5:20 God keeps him busy God answereth him
Progressive Ages / Evolution
Matt. 12:32 age to come world to come
Matt. 13:39 et al. end of the age end of the world
Acts 15:18 from eternity from the beginning
of the world
1 Cor. 15:45 Adam became
a living being Adam was made a
living soul
There is no need to go to another Bible then the KJV ruclips.net/video/zzMKhuMfLF0/видео.htmlsi=QVoas-KEqte5zc_U King James Only!
The KJV is an excellent translation-but if you're going to read it exclusively, you need to understand that it was translated into a form of English no one quite speaks or writes anymore. So there are going to be some places where you think you understand but, because of language change, you're going to miss the intent of the KJV translators. For help discerning when this is the case, 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
Your arrogance and ignorance knows no bounds. The KJV translators made it abundantly clear that it was not their intention to make a new translation but to make a good translation better.
Before you shoot off your mouth you should garner some genuine knowledge. As The Living bible puts it so well in 1 Corinthians 8 :1b-2 But although being a "know-it-all" makes us feel important , what is really needed to build the church is love. If anyone thinks he knows all the answers he is just showing his ignorance.
This scripture concisely and precisely and aptly describes you to the tee.
@@normanrausch1223 ruclips.net/video/zzMKhuMfLF0/видео.htmlsi=QVoas-KEqte5zc_U
@@normanrausch1223 yup your words say it all! King James Only
@JaromPrice-wf8xp all translations to another language should be from the KJV
The kjv needs to be left alone. Don't you have enough translations to mess with?
Time will tell if Mark can "overcome" his KJV Derangement Syndrome and not degrade the King James Bible after the new year. I do not think he will be able to leave it alone for two months. He obviously will be able to satisfy his fix by talking about it somewhere else.
I have never once degraded the KJV.
@@wardonwords If this definition of degrade (to reduce from a higher to a lower rank or degree) is applied, you have degraded the KJV. Claiming it contains errors is not uplifting to the Book.
@@fbcl8532 I have claimed one error in an obscure place in Job. This is no more than the KJV translators admitted to in their preface. If the only options are a perfect KJV and degrading the KJV, then I am with the KJV translators against your viewpoint.
@@fbcl8532then you degrade and defame Mark…pretty sure you degrade the other translations as well…
@@fbcl8532 Time has already moved the KJV from its original rank. That's no one's fault, and it doesn't take anything away from the KJV's value for 350 years. The problem is that the bronze serpent in the wilderness is being repurposed as an idol.
No, we have many versions already. But thanks anyway.
ERRORS FOUND IN
NEW BIBLE VERSIONS
NEW KING JAMES ERRORS & OMISSIONS
NKJV Verse Comparison Chart (See pp. 146-160)
Why by does the NKJV omit key words critical to mankind's
salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ?
"Now the serpent was more subtil..." Gen. 3:1
The NKJV Omits Key Christian Words: Times Omitted
"Lord" 66 times
"God" 51 times
"heaven" 50 times
"repent" 44 times
"blood" 23 times
"hell" 22 times
"JEHOVAH" entirely
"new testament" entirely
"damnation" entirely
"devils" entirely
The NKJV ignored the KJV Greek Textus Receptus over 1,200 times.
The NKJV replaced the trustworthy KJV Hebrew Old Testament (ben Chayyim
Masoretic Text) with corrupt Biblia Hebraica from Stuttgart (ben Asher ).