Great video Matthew... There is one thing that needs to be noted here... There is a verse in ESV missing that most all modern Critical Text scholars agree belongs in the text... That’s Matthew 12:47... Also it needs to be noted the base text of the modern translations take readings that are “harder readings” even if it is out of context. But great video bro!
mathew 12:47 is an interesting case actually, it's in most versions except the ESV and RSV, I can see it here in my NIV. I think it's down to the manuscripts the ESV use, they do explain it in the footnote.
you said most... which ones are left out ??? i was thinking about getting a NASB95 but I want all the TR verses tbh (I like the way the NASB renders words over the NKJV)
Thank you for sharing this about the NASV having kept the texts in question in brackets. I appreciate that way of dealing with questionable material. Put it out there for ALL of us to see.❤
As an archaeologist, I can say, that the idea of the “oldest and best manuscripts” being spoken of as a matter of fact by 20th century scholars, is utter nonsense. There are too many intricacies and much missing context to support the older/better. We don’t know that they are older, and their only claim to superiority is this idea that they are “older”. The 2-3 main manuscripts upon which the newer translations are approximately 90+% based are of questionable origin and condition and their acquisition dubious at best, and the idea that scholars are completely objective about the this subject (or any other) is a fallacy. Regardless of whether one is a KJV proponent or a supporter of modern translations, there is NO WAY to conclusively prove older/better. It is a matter of opinion, being put forth as fact…with many inconsistencies being ignored. The theory has become dogma. To Pastor Everhard, I enjoy your videos (I bought a Turquoise after watching your review), and I appreciate what you do. My comments here are in no way intended to discredit your point of view. I’m just sharing my thoughts on this subject which so often comes up, and which seem to lead a lot of people to question/doubt the Bible’s authenticity and divine inspiration, one way or another.
My grandmother just mentioned this this past weekend. Her pastor said people didn’t know what words in ESV meant and verses were missing and I was trying to tell her there’s no conspiracy. My other grandmother believes if it’s not an old King James, it doesn’t include the Gospel. Both my grandmothers seem slightly horrified I became a Reformed Baptist and moved away from Dispensationalism.
i always wondered what people meant by "missing verses" as my ESV has them all, it just has a little note before them that says "not found in X but commonly found in Y"
NKJV: Matt 12:46-47- “ While he was still talking to the multitudes, behold, his mother and his brother stood outside seeking to speak with him.Then one said to him, look your mother and your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak with you.” ESV: Matt 12:46- “While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brother stood outside asking to speak to him.” Maybe the author of the ESV version took out 47 because it was repetitive? Anyway, NKJV is my go-to
Would the idea that the manuscripts from Alexandria didn't get read much explain why they survived till today? Most of the early church didn't mess those Egyptian manuscripts.
It would probably be safe to say that not one single "conservative" seminary has the works of John Dean Burgon on its list for required reading. One of the greatest textual scholars of the 19th Century, Burgon was the greatest critic of the new Critical Text being promoted by Westcott/Hort, which leaves out so many words and verses. That the Byzantine Text "adds" verses and words presumes that the arguments of Critical Text position is correct. The idea that the "oldest manuscripts" (which simply means the oldest extant manuscripts) are ipso facto closer to the autographs is a non sequitur of the highest order. In the real life of the Church, manuscripts were used, worn out, and recopied. It is no wonder that the "older manuscripts" would be the ones that the Church did not use. Footnotes pointing out Critical Text readings are important IF those readings come from good manuscripts, but not important IF those readings come from corrupt manuscripts. In that event, they are no more worthy of the reader's attention than would be the "alternate readings" of, for example, the New World Translation.
This is the narrative missing in this discussion the oldest writings we have are the Greek Fathers and they quote the missing scriptures long before the critical text. ruclips.net/video/33SoPt-UPnk/видео.html
Thank you for this video.Personally 10 yrs if I come across your video I would stop watching the moment you mention critical text as older and has most number of copies because I was a KJV only.But reading the book One Bible Only by Roy E.Beacham and Kevin T.Bauder made me understand the real issue and I decided to quit being a KJV only and become a KJV/NKJV preferred.
I agree that NIV is not great, as I grew to the word. I decided to leave the NIV and go to KJV with the missing scriptures. May God Guide the actual seekers.
Nkjv only has the same name kjv Yes u r right Even though they say they are based on kjv - their selection of text and translation choice are very similar with niv N makes it difficult to do indepth study Even ESV😬 is better nkjv
I would suggest getting a kjv with apocrypha( the oldest version translate to English) as they hold lots of answers which were removed I had it in my hand Jehovah witness Bible as well and there Abraham left to north but old versions are saying he went up out of Egypt to south
Just do some research on Wescott & Hort and Alexandria text. They believed in Catholism, prayed to the dead. Worshipped Mary. Didn’t believe in Genesis and creation…. Etc….. I’ve never been a KJV only but after researching translations and the changes done and omitted words and verses,I question why we don’t question these other translations more or even use them.
Kjv only bible that is not copy written. To earn a copy write one must change things so man changes things he has no right to do. Just think about that.
64.000 missing words are not a conspiracy theory or a theory. They are effectively missing. As someone who speaks 3 languages I have lost appreciation for the ESV recently. It's translation doesn't ring true. Just my humble opinion.
FYI:the NKJV does Mention that the 2nd half of Mark 6:11 was omitted the part your parishioner brought up. So I like the fact that NKJV does acknowledge when something does not necessarily have to be listed/read even if they include it. )Love both KJV and ESV)
Good video. Noticed that you explained that the Byzantine texts were from a wide area, but you didn't mention the small area of the Alexandrian text, because the reason for that is very important. The Alexandrian's were a sect that believed a few things we would find heretical today. It has been theorized that one reason those copies survived was because they weren't used for very long. I assume you are aware of these things, and you had to choose how deep to go into various aspects of the translations, but I've found that most of the thoughtful "King James Only" people I've talked to site this very reason for their refusal to use newer translations, as they are all, or mostly, influenced by that older, and therefore supposedly "better" translation. I agree with you that there was a great deal that was not known about ancient Greek in the 15 and 16 hundreds that we are aware of today. There were so few examples of any Greek, that certain words were thought to have been invented by God specifically for use in the Bible. But since then, we've found a treasure trove of personal and business correspondence that allowed translators to realize the New Testament was written in the common Greek of the day, not the scholarly Greek there were more examples of prior to those discoveries. Thanks for doing what you're doing and bringing salt and light to the often dark environs of RUclips.
This is not true. There were both faithful and heretical elements in BOTH Byzantine and Alexandrian "sects". This is a red herring spread by King James Onlyists. We must be Bereans, willing to prayerfully examine ALL the evidence.
The critical text could be a fraud. I wont spend my money on a translation that is based on a manuscript with so much controversy. You guys need to research this in depth. Also, Westcott practiced in the ocult, and started something called the ghost guild in Britain. I'll stick with good old King James.
Pastor Matt, thank you for the video. The modern critical text is drawn 95% from only two Alexandrian manuscripts, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus. These two disagree with each other in about 12000 places, and disagree with the Textus Receptus (TR) in about 18000 places. The Majority text manuscripts, which consist of over 5280 complete New Testament manuscripts, including the TR manuscripts, are largely in agreement with each other, with only minor variations here and there. The Alexandrian texts have no known antecedents or descendants. They are older by about 100 years but they are in remarkably good condition, as if they had not been used much. Where early church fathers quote from the Scriptures, their quotations line up with the Majority text, and not the Alexandrian rexts. Draw your own conclusions.
I appreciate the study and all but Gods word is forever settled in heaven. I wouldn't want to be someone messing with Bible! I trust the KJV because of the manuscripts it came from. The Lord Jesus Christ is able to triumph over heretics.
The Alexandrian text was changed on purpose by corrupt evil people. So yes it was done on purpose and not done accidentally. Look at A Lamp in the Dark, Tares among the Wheat and Road to Babylon for the truth.
the real text is always in a majority text. there was no regression, you're right. out of 600+ manuscripts there are only 2 (vaticanus+sinaiticus) that don't have mark 16:9-20. I stick with the majority(byzantine text).
Why do you support a Bible that omits the actual words of Jesus when he red from the scroll of Isaiah fulfilling prophesy in his Nazareth synagogue, ‘he hath sent me to heal the broken hearted’ Luke 4:18
Lol - missing is not missing - really ? Footnotes are a form of hiding. You have to get a magnifying glass to read them. The Alexandrian version was not widely used for a reason. Older is not equivalent to better or more authentic.
This is why kjv is the best authentic Bible the rest have been perverted sadly to say and made Christianity get attacked by unbelievers especially Muslims which I used to be but this is the reason unbelievers mock and won't believe the Gospel very unfortunate 😭
Great Job on your video presentation, however there is a couple issues I too have with this confusion I suppose is one way of looking at it. I don’t have a degree in this field of study so my opinion is rather subjective, however I know how to study and ask questions. The Alexandrian text don’t have a single one of their mss agree with each other( big problem). Also the notes, etc from early church Father’s agree roughly 80% of the time with the Majority text. Also Simply “because a mss is older” does not prove authenticity or correctness! I choose the mss they agree more evenly and are found all over, then a small group in which claims to be older and doesn’t agree in its own writings.
well done. I facilitate a means bible study on Saturday mornings at my church. Often I encourage the men to read the verses we are studying in more than one version of the scriptures. I find in most cases when we discuss the differences it brings clarity to what is being said. My question for this post is where does the NASB fall in all this? As far as reading the Bible daily it is my go-to. My pastor preaches out of the NKJ as we have some in our fellowship(Calvary Chapel) who have once been baptist or AOG ... this has helped with their transition and helps deepen their study. Thank you for your faithfulness in service.
@@Imsaved777 thank you. I love pastor Matt's Posts as they help me balance out how I study the bible...even though I fellowship in a different tradition.
I have trouble believing that the early church did not have as good of version as us with critical text. Why would God allow the Majority text in the Early church to have less?
This is particularly why I love the 1995 NASB. It keeps much of the TR differences in there with the NASB style of translation. IMO it’s a perfect middle ground translation.
@Andrew Cole -- Would you please explain Acts 20:27 to me from the NASB95? I don't get it at all. HOW close is "purpose of God" to the "whole counsel of God"? What IS the "whole purpose of God" anyway? People need to reading the King James Bible. The Versions are deceptive, and so many are blind to it. Steevie Wonder shouldn't see better than one in Christ who is seeking TRUTH.
The devil has people so caught up in “understanding” Gods word. He’s blinded their minds and people don’t realize this is spiritual, and the word is our sword against the enemy. They don’t know it’s not all about understanding- which that’s what the Holy Ghost is for anyway, that they forget it’s about the power behind Gods word. The kjv clearly says angels hearken unto the voice of Gods word. So when we speak his word angels move on our behalf , and demons hate the true word. They are tripped up by it, because it thwarts their plans. Even when a demon is being cast out of someone, I notice they tend to use thee, and thus. Why is that? Why don’t they quote the niv or the others? Because even they know the true word. Niv, and all that other crap doesn’t even register with demons. If I say get THEE behind me Satan. They understand the kjv better than we ever will on this side of heaven. Therefore- I don’t need anything except the Bible that the devil is attacking. The one you can hardly find now. The one that’s hidden in my heart, even before I got saved. The one that worked when I quoted when I got saved. The one that ran demons out of the Alzheimer’s nursing home when I read it 23 years ago. The one people lost their lives over to get it printed. The one without the witchcraft symbol like nkjv. The one that gave me peace when I quoted it at night when I could hear what sounded like demons knocking on my window. The one that nobody had a problem with 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago- and worked for our grand and great grandparents, the one that I remember easily even with a bad memory- that’s the one I’ll stick with till I die!
Agree with you Little light 🕯️ Please Interpreters don't simply remove including the texts with brackets of explanation is beneficial for me. So I am therefore leaning towards nas and or LSB. I need a Bible so I will be looking more into THIS because accuracy is more important to me than ease of reading. 🤔
I understand why this happens, and overall, I don't have a problem with it. But consider Acts 8:37. This is omitted from the ESV and other newer translations. Irenaeus quotes that verse in his work On Heresies. That was written in the year 180. That early of a date should override the reasons for its omission. I noticed this quite by accident and it makes me wonder...
It's a bit disconcerting that the Alexandrian manuscripts are only "accidentally" older because of climate. Also, if you actually study scribal errors, they delete much more often than they add. It's just easier to skip stuff than to make up new stuff
Using multiple translations helps convey the critical underlying ideas. It’s like walking around a green before taking a putt. That, and what Matt said.
🙄🙄🙄🙄 The devil has people so caught up in “understanding” Gods word. He’s blinded their minds and people don’t realize this is spiritual, and the word is our sword against the enemy. They don’t know it’s not all about understanding- which that’s what the Holy Ghost is for anyway, that they forget it’s about the power behind Gods word. The kjv clearly says angels hearken unto the voice of Gods word. So when we speak his word angels move on our behalf , and demons hate the true word. They are tripped up by it, because it thwarts their plans. Even when a demon is being cast out of someone, I notice they tend to use thee, and thus. Why is that? Why don’t they quote the niv or the others? Because even they know the true word. Niv, and all that other crap doesn’t even register with demons. If I say get THEE behind me Satan. They understand the kjv better than we ever will on this side of heaven. Therefore- I don’t need anything except the Bible that the devil is attacking. The one you can hardly find now. The one that’s hidden in my heart, even before I got saved. The one that worked when I quoted when I got saved. The one that ran demons out of the Alzheimer’s nursing home when I read it 23 years ago. The one people lost their lives over to get it printed. The one without the witchcraft symbol like nkjv. The one that gave me peace when I quoted it at night when I could hear what sounded like demons knocking on my window. The one that nobody had a problem with 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago- and worked for our grand and great grandparents, the one that I remember easily even with a bad memory- that’s the one I’ll stick with till I die!
@@ProverbspsalmsProverbs 4:7 “Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.” So the Holy Spirit who inspired Solomon to write that is actually the devil?
Very helpful explanation. I am torn too whether to take TR or Critcal Text as most accurate. At the end I chose the most readable, like NIV or ESV and most resourceful versions like NASB and NET. But occasionally I would refer to KJV or NKJV for study and research. So what I am saying is no one can claim their version is the most accurate. The best way is to have both and cross check for studying purposes.
lol, you never met my dad,,K.J.V. ONLY SON!! get it right. which prompted my studies into translation methods and history. and actually there are "most accurate translations" documented charts spanning the entire literal to dynamic translations. and you got some of the most accurate ones already.
Why cross check anything. Clearly the NIV has many missing verses in it!! Why use a incomplete Bible with at least 10 to 15 missing verses in it. Why I use KJV only.
Incorrect. You either have all of Gods preserved word, or God is a liar, who couldn't preserve and protect his word. There HAS to be a surviving text. Otherwise, how can you trust God AT ALL if he couldn't even keep this promise. I reference Psalms.12:6-7
@@patrickoxley581this logic defeats the kjv from being the fulfillment of psalm 12, because it is also an eclectic text that came into its form at 1611 and does not match perfectly any Greek text or bible in any language before it. This is a self defeating position.
Which text under-girded 'The Great Awakening and most revivals through the last few hundred years? The Alexandrian text was sitting on a shelf during all this! If the LORD needed the critical text for these revivals why didn't He have the Alexandrian Text retrieved for them. Is the Alexandrian Text linked to any great revivals through history? I prefer the NKJV myself.
@@RoastBeefSandwich I agree, and over the centuries (or millennia) people have come to the Lord by word of mouth. I understand huge amounts of people have come to the Lord from reading 'Critical Text' Bibles and people have grown by reading them, myself included, but that doesn't change the fact that under-girding the great revivals was the Textus Receptus. Luther and Calvin used it I believe and look what came out of that. We owe the Textus Receptus much greater respect than it has been given I believe. I personally believe the Textus Receptus is by far the best.
Thank you so much for explaining this. Rather people agree with you or not. At least you explained the different text. Which is more than most people do. They just mention them but don’t even explain.
I like the KJV. As for others, I do not like how they change words every couple years. Why do they do that? Say for instance a 2000 version and a 2020 version; will have different words used, yet the same bible type i.e. ESV.
The modern Bible versions like the ESV say the opposite of the KJV in certain verses. For example, the KJV calls those who worshipped idols “superstitious,” whereas the ESV calls idol worshippers “religious.” “Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.” (Acts 17:22 KJV) “So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious.” (Acts 17:22 ESV) The Zionist disciples of Satan were able to change their Bibles to make Israel a "spreading vine" in the NIV and even a "luxuriant vine" in the NASB, ESV, and the LSB in Hosea 10:1. God, however, states that "Israel is an empty vine" in his KJV Holy Bible at Hosea 10:1. “Israel is an empty vine, he bringeth forth fruit unto himself: according to the multitude of his fruit he hath increased the altars; according to the goodness of his land they have made goodly images.” (Hosea 10:1 KJV) “Israel is a luxuriant vine that yields its fruit. The more his fruit increased, the more altars he built; as his country improved, he improved his pillars.” Hosea 10:1 ESV) So we know from that issue that the KJV is God’s word or the modern Bible versions are God’s word. They cannot say the opposite of one another and both be God’s word. This is a foundational issue. This is a major issue. There is no middle ground here. "Choose ye this day whom ye will serve." Joshua 24:15. Edward Hendrie Author of "HOAX of Biblical Proportions"
Thank you! In these discussions I don't think I hear that the early church fathers quoted from the New Testament. I seem to remember hearing that most of the New testament could be reconstructed from their writing though I've never seen a source on this. To me it would be interesting to know what longer readings are or are not represented in the writings of the earliest church fathers. I also think getting a nice history of the TR and CR could be helpful. I've always leaned toward the CR and I read and listen to pthe NIV most often but I do like the NKJV.
I appreciate the ESV and NIV, but because of the “missing verses”, I trust the NKJV and KJV more. The Orthodox Study Bible is based on Byzantine texts.
If those verses were added later (which all the evidence points to), then the KJV is actually less trustworthy. What we want is what the apostles actually wrote. We don’t want extra added verses because those added verses aren’t inspired.
@@Grizzmc13 I personally don't care if the first part of 1John 5: 7-8 actually rightfully belongs in the text or not. The doctrine of the Trinity does not hang on that verse alone. Although I believe some would say it does. I have grown used to it being there, and. my preference is for TR readings.
Why can't people figure out that first thing Satan did was question God's word and that's what all these versions are, I get so tired of hearing " WE DON'T HAVE THE ORIGINALS" when Jesus read in the synagogue he didn't have them either. If u don't have the kjv u have a corrupted word.
While this video is 3 years old, it is wrong and I'll briefly explain why. If you love God’s word then you would use traditional text. If the Greek compilation or translations you use take Jesus’ Deity out of 1Timothy 3:16 and John 3:16 or make Jesus lie to his brothers in John chapter 7 concerning going to the feast then that is not traditional text. Modern Bible translators translate from a corrupted set of codex's which jesuits, catholics and satanists compiled. They worked to replace reliable codex's to translate from, instead using Codex Sinaiticus which WAS CREATED IN THE 1800’s which they pass off as the oldest and best “old” Bible; Sinaiticus, they claim is 1500ish years older than it truly is. Then there is codex Alexandrinus which “appeared” about ten years after KJV 1611 was published, and codex Vaticanus which appeared in the Vatican around the 1400’s and was rejected by the scholars that worked on the KJV. Sinaiticus is responsible for the greatest changes to The modern Bibles, Alexandrinus for changes to mainly Revelation due partly to scribe error. Not every verse in scripture was changed but there are changes throughout. In a nutshell, handing Bible Translators something “messed up” to translate “from” makes whatever they translate “to” wrong from the start.
The earlier translations were from original Greek. After that; Classical Greek was used. Like slang English, which we speak now. We do not speak original English. When studying history; it is better to ask those who were there in the time of the event, and not 100's of years later. Check and see how many textual scholars were involved in the writers of the KJV.
Its not a condpiracy theory....its a fact. Please read Acts 8:36-38 in KJV/NKJV then read ESV.....the way of salvation is omitted from ESV. I don't think this was just an innocent change
I am going to step on a few toes here. The ESV is definitely missing verses. Yet some of you tell me that it is the best, and most accurate bible. Compared to what? The New World Translation? Yep, they both throw out the same verses. So does anyone want to guess what book the ESV will sit next to- on my book shelf? Surprisingly, the NWT does not remove "yet" from Jn 7:9
Some key words seem to be missing from the ESV. For example: Did Jesus lie to his brothers? In Jn 7:9 Jesus tells his brothers that he is not going to the festival, but in verse 10 he sneaks off to that very event. Other bibles, like the NIV and HCSB add a small word. YET. So which bible should I believe? That the Way, the Truth... is a liar? Or that the small word that the ESV avoided is more likely? And that is but one of many examples I can think of where subtle word changes have repercussions.
Well I’m not sure how relevant this is or if anyone cares. Since the video is dealing with age of manuscripts let’s take a look a St Jerome. He translated the Bible into Latin, which was still a know and used language at the time, hence the name Vulgate. Definition of vulgate 1 capitalized : a Latin version of the Bible authorized and used by the Roman Catholic Church 2 : a commonly accepted text or reading 3 : the speech of the common people and especially of uneducated people He used manuscripts that were even closer to the originals. Now the Douay-Rheims version of the English Bible was translated from the Vulgate, predating the King James by the way. The Douay-Rheims contains the so called missing verses in Mark. Now I know many will said, but this is a Catholic Bible and can’t be trusted, remember prior to the reformation there was one Church. Keep in mind that King James himself had input in his translation due to the anti right of kings implied in the Geneva Bible. One other thing to remember, the KJV has no copyright and therefore can be printed and copied by anyone. Newer version belong to whatever publisher commissioned them, and receive royalties. Instead of missing the forest for the trees, let us all answer the question our Lord asked his disciples, “Who do men say that I Am”?
Also in line with leading people astray please watch this video about Catholic bible and others and the modernists who changed language even in the Catholic bible.....everyone should have a Douey Reihms bible for reference because it was translated by St Jerome from the Latin Vulgate. St Jerome had access to manuscripts that we don't today...he knew Aramiac, Greek, Hebrew and Latin so it is a great literal translation. The point is the modern changes can change meanings.....and undermind doctrine when we try apologetics...be wary....also some of the notes by modernists dont necessary line up by to Catholic Dogma...the NAB, NSRV, SRV CE all have some modernist word changing trying to impose 20 century meaning on ancient texts...they are not all bad on the whole but you need to be aware if something doesn't sound right cross reference with Douey Reims...surprisingly the KJV is closer to Douey Reihms because it was influenced by that translation but still has errors becuase this Protestant text waters down the importance of Mary and removes the sacrifice of the mass plus is missing many books from the Catholic bible that everyone followed for 1500 years. Dr. Taylor Marshall has a youtube video on why traditional catholics should know the bible better than Protestants you should check that video out....there is a book recommended called Introduction to the Holy Bible by Timothy S. Flanders.....he has a table comparing the different bible translations . The Douey Reihms pocket edition can be bought from Barones Press Watch this video Watch "Why So Many Different Bibles?" on RUclips ruclips.net/video/HUdzhFh9yXc/видео.html
Pastor Mathew at 8:02 you say " that explains it for the most part" you disn't even referrence one of the multiple texts that are not found in ESV. I think your too intelligent to not know that your deliberately undermining the significance of missing text. Please read Acts 8:36-38 in KJV or NKJV then read the same text in ESV. This is not an incidental or honest omission in ESV. It is deliberate
KING JAMES ALL DAY LONG. All other bibles have the Vatican all over them. People are ill informed. Cardinal Carlos Martini worked with Kurt Aland in 1952 on the Revised standard bible. I will not read a bible that is approved by the wicked vatican
@@DanielHoerle-ww9so what a bout a bible that’s named after a homosexual king. Im not trying to be hateful. But just something to think about. Please do think about. God is able to use what someone has intended for evil for good
@@DanielHoerle-ww9so The King James version Bible will lose its popularity in the near future. It is still commonly used at sermons today....Most younger generations will not accept the KJV translation. Elizabethan English is not the #1 choice to many today. .
Every versions differs from our English version KJV, public domain. Those are not Bibles or the the word of God. The Alexandrians are the corrupters, not a conspiracy just a fact.
The Byzantine and Alexandrian manuscripts do not contradict one another. Textual criticism of all of these manuscripts proves that Genesis through Revelation is the word of God. Slight variances and grammatical structure do not alter the message that God has for us. Our problem is a lack of obedience and pride. Not a bible translation problem. Find a bible translation that you like and savor the message that God has given.
A lot here in the comments have missed the point why we read only the KJV . God did NOT give us multiple choice , evil men do to sow doubt and confusion , so which one then , God sent his only begotten son. Or God sent his only son. From John 3 v16 One is a lie ? And robs us of our adoption. It doesn't matter what that old text said or how many manuscripts were or are avaliable for some scolars to interpret, what matters is what does my Bible say
Kjv is the original one and genuine after researching in this area. Of course, it is in old English, but nothing is deleted or added .Please go for King James Verse Bible.
Yes it's not a conspiracy n more than philosophy but principle of text n translation. (One can't translate something that not there - it becomes faking word[s] or verse[s]) Saying this is simple - but this principle has n continues to stumble n mess up a great many believers (especially weaker, younger n less diligent) who fail to study n understand this. But the explanation in this video on nkjv doesn't help n may stumble esp. the nkjv isn't based on the TR bcoz they leave out many words n verses - not consistent with their revising philosophy but nkjv based on all other texts (notes - are so small that they cant be read) Sorry Matthew Good thing of this video - it explains directly only the NT part but in overview covers many similar issues of OT as well - which should help many bible students
For me the principle and philosophy established n used by each versions are important to the believer using it 1_Niv wanted style over accuracy - the version I try to avoid bcoz inaccurate 2_Nkjv wanted to update kjv based on rv - terrible approach n totally inconsistent 3_Esv wanted to update / revised on rv /asv - making it as accurate as possibly - for me - very accurate n consistent so far (only kjv is better) 4_Kjv - bcoz this version is the most studied (if there are inconsistency or "errors" or doubts) someone studied it n we have the info. (But these are very few) And most of all no other version has singular 2nd person pronoun like kjv (super useful)!!!! Ps: sorry I m so long winded Pss: God's word is still so powerful that God still saves ppl thru these "flawed" new versions - Praise God!!!!!
I think it boils down to do you want to use a translation based on half a dozen manuscripts that are 12th century or newer manuscripts or do you want use a translation based on 6000 manuscripts going back to the early 2nd century?
Your video is a really good summary of what many people experience when comparing some translations. I'm not sure if you mentioned it but it is worth noting the reason for modern translations to include the older manuscripts within the text. This is because it is more likely that the newer manuscripts are different because of additions than older manuscripts are different from the originals because of deletions. Referencing the "other mss" in the notes is helpful and anyone can inspect to find that no significant changes with respect to doctrine exists in the differences.
Everything I’ve seen or read of the words that aren’t in the Alexandrian text were because the manuscripts, when found, were heavily edited and redacted.. I’ve never heard that they were just shorter readings. So Alexandrian texts were hundreds vice thousands and heavily edited and redacted. Looking forward to part 2!
I appreciate your videos. One of the things I feel is missing from most all translations is emotion. There are, as you know, very expressive words in Hebrew and Greek, but these seem to be translated in a very muted way, perhaps because they offended the religiosity of the translators, who may have wanted things to appear prim and proper. I am not a proponent of the Passion Translation, but one thing it does attempt to do is put emotion into the "translation."
Thank you for the you do I have question I'm interested in the esv but I notice the revelation 22:14 is not translated correctly I know you are very good on Greek and wil Your input
Thanks for doing the research on this issue. This wasn't an issue for me until I saw your video title. Then, I thought, maybe this guy is a member of one of those churches that thinks the only reputable version of the bible is the King James version and their church doesn't allow any other bible version. Thankfully, you're not a cult member as far as I can tell, and you're not hung up on some crazy belief. I see a guy that is truly trying to get to the truth of the matter without adding personal prejudice. I'm glad I watched and listened. Personally, I'm a NKJV fan and user and I have an ESV waiting to be read. Gotta wonder what the dead give away would be in determining if someone reads and knows the ESV as opposed to the KJ. With all we know today, there has to be a new bible version out there that is undisputably the best most accurate translation of the original text.
Mark 9: 29 KJV AND NKJV finish this verse but by prayer and fasting,alright Christians if you been a believer for awhile you understand this verse. Fasting is not given enough explanation Bible Study Nites or Sunday Mornings. It is essential I guarantee you that !" Yes their is power in prayer but when you combine the two,something extraordinary takes place in the spiritual realm as well as the natural realm in your favor. To important to be left out of the verse or put in the footnotes no sir."
Old does not always mean it is better. Texus Receptus. What about the Vaticanus? What about Westcott and Hort? Who both did not believe that the word off GOD is GOD inspired.
Agreed. The assumption the critical text adherents make is the older text must be the right one. I am not an expert but through my prayer and study I mostly stick to the textus receptus/byzantine text.
@@Nick-wn1xw Excuse me, Jesus is the Word of God. Jesus left us His Church, members of which penned the New Testament. They also collected the Old Testament writings for use in the churches! I believe that the Scriptures are authoritative, because of the Church.
are you sure? because the oldest manuscripts don't have them meaning it was added later so you think changed scripture is more better then the original scripture
No actually the New King James prefers the Critical Text like the ESV so it's not like the KJV with the Textus Receptus. I don't know where you got that the NKJV and the ESV are revisions of the KJV but that's also false. Again they're both derived from the Critical Text so they're not revisions of the KJV. If you think the only difference with Alexandrian manuscripts is that they decided to use "shorter wording" as you put it than you don't understand the full scope of the issue and it explains your cavalier attitude about the subject. I suggest you do more research. Also if the NKJV and footnotes does such a good job explaining things like you said then why did that person have to consult with you? Why couldn't they figure things out on their own?
Easy answer, by the way. Super simple answer. The ESV is translated from the Dead Sea Scrolls, which is the oldest living manuscript we have of the Bible in it's most accurate and original form, and those Scrolls don't have those verses. So those verses don't have to be put into the Bible because they were never there in the first place originally. They were added in later on by whoever it was who added and took away books from the Bible to create the canon we have now. That's all.
“In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:” Colossians 1:14 KJV I keep going back and forth from the KJV and the NASB if only they made a version where they fix the errors on the KJV which the NASB fix some but left out others as well I can show you many where the KJV got it wrong and the NASB got it right but also where the NASB like this verse got it wrong and the KJV got it right. “in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” Colossians 1:14 NASB
What no one seems to be able to show is that the NASB does not anywhere teach that redemption is through His blood. If the Alexandrian text includes in other passages the teaching that is "missing" in one particular passage then it is really a stretch to say that it is trying to pervert the word of God. If you were going to excise a teaching you would want to be sure to remove it everywhere.
I love The Lxx, especially the Torah agrees with the Dead Sea Scrolls and Samaritan Pentateuch, wich Jews nowadays say are rubish, but again I don't trust anything the Jews say. Sorry, there is no Judaism, there is and it was many Judaisms. I trust Jesus and the apostles, they used mostly ( 80% I think ) the LXX or a Hebrew/Aramaic version which predates the LXX. I don't care the Masoretes ware so careful and iada iada iada, the Jews are not angels and they never ware. I keep The Lord's Day Sunday and not some mix and match old and new Sda Sabbath or some weird sect.
With the far majority of the texts we have today being the Byzantine texts or manuscripts and the fact they were much more scattered around the world yet they all agree almost word for word Thats enough to make me believe the Alexandrian texts although older are not as reliable since their missing words or even entire sentences that are in the Byzantine texts. I'm sticking to the KJV
It doesn’t matter how new the methods, or how old the copies. The statistical methodologies used by the Byzantine texts are by far the most probable to being closest to the original. More scripts, spread out over more area, accepted by more believers. The Alexandrian texts are older because they weren’t being used, why weren’t they being used if people took them to be the correct scripts?
![Tee Grizzley - Blow for Blow (feat. J. Cole) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wNLN5xsx5dc/mqdefault.jpg)
Great video Matthew... There is one thing that needs to be noted here... There is a verse in ESV missing that most all modern Critical Text scholars agree belongs in the text... That’s Matthew 12:47...
Also it needs to be noted the base text of the modern translations take readings that are “harder readings” even if it is out of context. But great video bro!
mathew 12:47 is an interesting case actually, it's in most versions except the ESV and RSV, I can see it here in my NIV. I think it's down to the manuscripts the ESV use, they do explain it in the footnote.
One thing I like about the NASB95 is that most of those disputed verses/passages are kept in the text in brackets. Good video
you said most... which ones are left out ???
i was thinking about getting a NASB95 but I want all the TR verses tbh (I like the way the NASB renders words over the NKJV)
Thank you for sharing this about the NASV having kept the texts in question in brackets. I appreciate that way of dealing with questionable material. Put it out there for ALL of us to see.❤
Same old is true for the NASB 2020
The KJV has them with no brackets.
This is accurate the words are lacking so I did not use it ...ESV
As an archaeologist, I can say, that the idea of the “oldest and best manuscripts” being spoken of as a matter of fact by 20th century scholars, is utter nonsense. There are too many intricacies and much missing context to support the older/better. We don’t know that they are older, and their only claim to superiority is this idea that they are “older”. The 2-3 main manuscripts upon which the newer translations are approximately 90+% based are of questionable origin and condition and their acquisition dubious at best, and the idea that scholars are completely objective about the this subject (or any other) is a fallacy. Regardless of whether one is a KJV proponent or a supporter of modern translations, there is NO WAY to conclusively prove older/better. It is a matter of opinion, being put forth as fact…with many inconsistencies being ignored. The theory has become dogma.
To Pastor Everhard, I enjoy your videos (I bought a Turquoise after watching your review), and I appreciate what you do. My comments here are in no way intended to discredit your point of view. I’m just sharing my thoughts on this subject which so often comes up, and which seem to lead a lot of people to question/doubt the Bible’s authenticity and divine inspiration, one way or another.
Do archaeologists do source critisims of texts?
My grandmother just mentioned this this past weekend. Her pastor said people didn’t know what words in ESV meant and verses were missing and I was trying to tell her there’s no conspiracy. My other grandmother believes if it’s not an old King James, it doesn’t include the Gospel. Both my grandmothers seem slightly horrified I became a Reformed Baptist and moved away from Dispensationalism.
i always wondered what people meant by "missing verses" as my ESV has them all, it just has a little note before them that says "not found in X but commonly found in Y"
That's a nice note. Most ESV will have the verse in a footnote rather than in the body of the text.
Nkjv does the same thing it has texts missing and words changed
@@KeithEasley-vc1mb really? Tell me which texts are "missing" from the nkjv. And of course it has ords changed! English has changed since 1611!
NKJV: Matt 12:46-47- “ While he was still talking to the multitudes, behold, his mother and his brother stood outside seeking to speak with him.Then one said to him, look your mother and your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak with you.”
ESV: Matt 12:46- “While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brother stood outside asking to speak to him.”
Maybe the author of the ESV version took out 47 because it was repetitive?
Anyway, NKJV is my go-to
And thus it has zero doctrinal impact. A pretty lame conspiracy as such things go. :D
I actually like ESV and NASB as well.
Based on Is.28:10 similar to a computer code or intel code. If a portion is missing, other verses will contain the missing doctrinal material.
Good video. Could u do a review in the notebook /wallet at the end?
Done! See newest
Matthew Everhard already did thanks man. Another great video.
Older does NOT relate to authenticity since the ORIGINS of the text are different and they matter.
Would the idea that the manuscripts from Alexandria didn't get read much explain why they survived till today? Most of the early church didn't mess those Egyptian manuscripts.
It would probably be safe to say that not one single "conservative" seminary has the works of John Dean Burgon on its list for required reading. One of the greatest textual scholars of the 19th Century, Burgon was the greatest critic of the new Critical Text being promoted by Westcott/Hort, which leaves out so many words and verses. That the Byzantine Text "adds" verses and words presumes that the arguments of Critical Text position is correct. The idea that the "oldest manuscripts" (which simply means the oldest extant manuscripts) are ipso facto closer to the autographs is a non sequitur of the highest order. In the real life of the Church, manuscripts were used, worn out, and recopied. It is no wonder that the "older manuscripts" would be the ones that the Church did not use. Footnotes pointing out Critical Text readings are important IF those readings come from good manuscripts, but not important IF those readings come from corrupt manuscripts. In that event, they are no more worthy of the reader's attention than would be the "alternate readings" of, for example, the New World Translation.
My question to you - Who cam up with biblical manuscript dating, and how do they date a manuscript?
This is the narrative missing in this discussion the oldest writings we have are the Greek Fathers and they quote the missing scriptures long before the critical text. ruclips.net/video/33SoPt-UPnk/видео.html
My ESV is missing Acts 8:37 and one verse from Matthew too. God bless you brotha
In mine, verse 37 is in the footnotes, was very trippy at first I was like it skipped! But it’s in the footnotes, in my ESV at least.
Thank you for this video.Personally 10 yrs if I come across your video I would stop watching the moment you mention critical text as older and has most number of copies because I was a KJV only.But reading the book One Bible Only by Roy E.Beacham and Kevin T.Bauder made me understand the real issue and I decided to quit being a KJV only and become a KJV/NKJV preferred.
Nkj has nothing to do with king james
Nkj is another niv
Other fathers have died for king james
I was lost in niv. Trust me i used niv for over 20 yrs
I agree that NIV is not great, as I grew to the word. I decided to leave the NIV and go to KJV with the missing scriptures. May God Guide the actual seekers.
The New King James is deceptive they did not exclusively use the TR they used the Von Soden, text in places
Nkjv only has the same name kjv
Yes u r right
Even though they say they are based on kjv - their selection of text and translation choice are very similar with niv
N makes it difficult to do indepth study
Even ESV😬 is better nkjv
I would suggest getting a kjv with apocrypha( the oldest version translate to English) as they hold lots of answers which were removed
I had it in my hand Jehovah witness Bible as well and there Abraham left to north but old versions are saying he went up out of Egypt to south
Brace yourself for the comments :-)
😂 no kidding
Just do some research on Wescott & Hort and Alexandria text. They believed in Catholism, prayed to the dead. Worshipped Mary. Didn’t believe in Genesis and creation…. Etc….. I’ve never been a KJV only but after researching translations and the changes done and omitted words and verses,I question why we don’t question these other translations more or even use them.
Kjv only bible that is not copy written. To earn a copy write one must change things so man changes things he has no right to do. Just think about that.
64.000 missing words are not a conspiracy theory or a theory. They are effectively missing. As someone who speaks 3 languages I have lost appreciation for the ESV recently. It's translation doesn't ring true.
Just my humble opinion.
FYI:the NKJV does Mention that the 2nd half of Mark 6:11 was omitted the part your parishioner brought up. So I like the fact that NKJV does acknowledge when something does not necessarily have to be listed/read even if they include it. )Love both KJV and ESV)
Good video.
Noticed that you explained that the Byzantine texts were from a wide area, but you didn't mention the small area of the Alexandrian text, because the reason for that is very important. The Alexandrian's were a sect that believed a few things we would find heretical today. It has been theorized that one reason those copies survived was because they weren't used for very long. I assume you are aware of these things, and you had to choose how deep to go into various aspects of the translations, but I've found that most of the thoughtful "King James Only" people I've talked to site this very reason for their refusal to use newer translations, as they are all, or mostly, influenced by that older, and therefore supposedly "better" translation. I agree with you that there was a great deal that was not known about ancient Greek in the 15 and 16 hundreds that we are aware of today. There were so few examples of any Greek, that certain words were thought to have been invented by God specifically for use in the Bible. But since then, we've found a treasure trove of personal and business correspondence that allowed translators to realize the New Testament was written in the common Greek of the day, not the scholarly Greek there were more examples of prior to those discoveries.
Thanks for doing what you're doing and bringing salt and light to the often dark environs of RUclips.
This is not true. There were both faithful and heretical elements in BOTH Byzantine and Alexandrian "sects". This is a red herring spread by King James Onlyists. We must be Bereans, willing to prayerfully examine ALL the evidence.
The critical text could be a fraud. I wont spend my money on a translation that is based on a manuscript with so much controversy.
You guys need to research this in depth. Also, Westcott practiced in the ocult, and started something called the ghost guild in Britain.
I'll stick with good old King James.
Pastor Matt, thank you for the video. The modern critical text is drawn 95% from only two Alexandrian manuscripts, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus. These two disagree with each other in about 12000 places, and disagree with the Textus Receptus (TR) in about 18000 places. The Majority text manuscripts, which consist of over 5280 complete New Testament manuscripts, including the TR manuscripts, are largely in agreement with each other, with only minor variations here and there.
The Alexandrian texts have no known antecedents or descendants. They are older by about 100 years but they are in remarkably good condition, as if they had not been used much.
Where early church fathers quote from the Scriptures, their quotations line up with the Majority text, and not the Alexandrian rexts.
Draw your own conclusions.
Thank-you!! I had heard this years ago. It’s nice to refresh my memory & have a place to refer to if needed.
I appreciate the study and all but Gods word is forever settled in heaven. I wouldn't want to be someone messing with Bible! I trust the KJV because of the manuscripts it came from. The Lord Jesus Christ is able to triumph over heretics.
You...didn't watch the video then.
Adding verses is just as dangerous
The reason I don't read the ESV , Philippines 4:13 , this verse leaves out the word Christ, and replace it with "he". I'll stick with KJV.
Keep to the kjv it's intact no omissions!
The Alexandrian text was changed on purpose by corrupt evil people. So yes it was done on purpose and not done accidentally. Look at A Lamp in the Dark, Tares among the Wheat and Road to Babylon for the truth.
the real text is always in a majority text. there was no regression, you're right. out of 600+ manuscripts there are only 2 (vaticanus+sinaiticus) that don't have mark 16:9-20. I stick with the majority(byzantine text).
Why do you support a Bible that omits the actual words of Jesus when he red from the scroll of Isaiah fulfilling prophesy in his Nazareth synagogue, ‘he hath sent me to heal the broken hearted’ Luke 4:18
Lol - missing is not missing - really ? Footnotes are a form of hiding. You have to get a magnifying glass to read them. The Alexandrian version was not widely used for a reason. Older is not equivalent to better or more authentic.
This is why kjv is the best authentic Bible the rest have been perverted sadly to say and made Christianity get attacked by unbelievers especially Muslims which I used to be but this is the reason unbelievers mock and won't believe the Gospel very unfortunate 😭
If Christ spoke it. It should be in it. If it was omitted… then that’s a problem.
Great Job on your video presentation, however there is a couple issues I too have with this confusion I suppose is one way of looking at it. I don’t have a degree in this field of study so my opinion is rather subjective, however I know how to study and ask questions. The Alexandrian text don’t have a single one of their mss agree with each other( big problem). Also the notes, etc from early church Father’s agree roughly 80% of the time with the Majority text. Also Simply “because a mss is older” does not prove authenticity or correctness! I choose the mss they agree more evenly and are found all over, then a small group in which claims to be older and doesn’t agree in its own writings.
The same scriptures are missing in a lot of the other newer translations as well. I just decided to go back to nkjv
Why foot note when it is true.
It is doubtful. Not good. Go for kjv.
well done. I facilitate a means bible study on Saturday mornings at my church. Often I encourage the men to read the verses we are studying in more than one version of the scriptures. I find in most cases when we discuss the differences it brings clarity to what is being said. My question for this post is where does the NASB fall in all this? As far as reading the Bible daily it is my go-to. My pastor preaches out of the NKJ as we have some in our fellowship(Calvary Chapel) who have once been baptist or AOG ... this has helped with their transition and helps deepen their study. Thank you for your faithfulness in service.
@@Imsaved777 thank you. I love pastor Matt's Posts as they help me balance out how I study the bible...even though I fellowship in a different tradition.
I have trouble believing that the early church did not have as good of version as us with critical text. Why would God allow the Majority text in the Early church to have less?
This is particularly why I love the 1995 NASB. It keeps much of the TR differences in there with the NASB style of translation. IMO it’s a perfect middle ground translation.
@Andrew Cole -- Would you please explain Acts 20:27 to me from the NASB95? I don't get it at all. HOW close is "purpose of God" to the "whole counsel of God"? What IS the "whole purpose of God" anyway? People need to reading the King James Bible. The Versions are deceptive, and so many are blind to it. Steevie Wonder shouldn't see better than one in Christ who is seeking TRUTH.
Agreed.
I use the 1966 Jerusalem Doubleday ... I hear it is compatible with the LSB .... I have a ESV and that is why I am thanking you sir
The devil has people so caught up in “understanding” Gods word. He’s blinded their minds and people don’t realize this is spiritual, and the word is our sword against the enemy. They don’t know it’s not all about understanding- which that’s what the Holy Ghost is for anyway, that they forget it’s about the power behind Gods word. The kjv clearly says angels hearken unto the voice of Gods word. So when we speak his word angels move on our behalf , and demons hate the true word. They are tripped up by it, because it thwarts their plans. Even when a demon is being cast out of someone, I notice they tend to use thee, and thus. Why is that? Why don’t they quote the niv or the others? Because even they know the true word. Niv, and all that other crap doesn’t even register with demons. If I say get THEE behind me Satan. They understand the kjv better than we ever will on this side of heaven. Therefore- I don’t need anything except the Bible that the devil is attacking. The one you can hardly find now. The one that’s hidden in my heart, even before I got saved. The one that worked when I quoted when I got saved. The one that ran demons out of the Alzheimer’s nursing home when I read it 23 years ago. The one people lost their lives over to get it printed. The one without the witchcraft symbol like nkjv. The one that gave me peace when I quoted it at night when I could hear what sounded like demons knocking on my window. The one that nobody had a problem with 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago- and worked for our grand and great grandparents, the one that I remember easily even with a bad memory- that’s the one I’ll stick with till I die!
Agree with you Little light 🕯️ Please Interpreters don't simply remove including the texts with brackets of explanation is beneficial for me. So I am therefore leaning towards nas and or LSB. I need a Bible so I will be looking more into THIS because accuracy is more important to me than ease of reading. 🤔
I understand why this happens, and overall, I don't have a problem with it. But consider Acts 8:37. This is omitted from the ESV and other newer translations. Irenaeus quotes that verse in his work On Heresies. That was written in the year 180. That early of a date should override the reasons for its omission. I noticed this quite by accident and it makes me wonder...
I am team Byzantine and support the majority text tradition.
It's a bit disconcerting that the Alexandrian manuscripts are only "accidentally" older because of climate. Also, if you actually study scribal errors, they delete much more often than they add. It's just easier to skip stuff than to make up new stuff
Using multiple translations helps convey the critical underlying ideas. It’s like walking around a green before taking a putt. That, and what Matt said.
🙄🙄🙄🙄 The devil has people so caught up in “understanding” Gods word. He’s blinded their minds and people don’t realize this is spiritual, and the word is our sword against the enemy. They don’t know it’s not all about understanding- which that’s what the Holy Ghost is for anyway, that they forget it’s about the power behind Gods word. The kjv clearly says angels hearken unto the voice of Gods word. So when we speak his word angels move on our behalf , and demons hate the true word. They are tripped up by it, because it thwarts their plans. Even when a demon is being cast out of someone, I notice they tend to use thee, and thus. Why is that? Why don’t they quote the niv or the others? Because even they know the true word. Niv, and all that other crap doesn’t even register with demons. If I say get THEE behind me Satan. They understand the kjv better than we ever will on this side of heaven. Therefore- I don’t need anything except the Bible that the devil is attacking. The one you can hardly find now. The one that’s hidden in my heart, even before I got saved. The one that worked when I quoted when I got saved. The one that ran demons out of the Alzheimer’s nursing home when I read it 23 years ago. The one people lost their lives over to get it printed. The one without the witchcraft symbol like nkjv. The one that gave me peace when I quoted it at night when I could hear what sounded like demons knocking on my window. The one that nobody had a problem with 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago- and worked for our grand and great grandparents, the one that I remember easily even with a bad memory- that’s the one I’ll stick with till I die!
Thank you for your explanation of missing verses in ESV. I prefer them being included in the Bible with brackets and explanations than removal.
@@ProverbspsalmsProverbs 4:7 “Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.”
So the Holy Spirit who inspired Solomon to write that is actually the devil?
@@Matthew-307 you’re foolishness that you typed as has absolutely nothing to do with what I typed 11 months ago. Goodbye.
@@Proverbspsalms That’s very kind and gentle of you.
Very helpful explanation. I am torn too whether to take TR or Critcal Text as most accurate. At the end I chose the most readable, like NIV or ESV and most resourceful versions like NASB and NET. But occasionally I would refer to KJV or NKJV for study and research. So what I am saying is no one can claim their version is the most accurate. The best way is to have both and cross check for studying purposes.
lol, you never met my dad,,K.J.V. ONLY SON!! get it right. which prompted my studies into translation methods and history. and actually there are "most accurate translations" documented charts spanning the entire literal to dynamic translations. and you got some of the most accurate ones already.
Why cross check anything. Clearly the NIV has many missing verses in it!! Why use a incomplete Bible with at least 10 to 15 missing verses in it. Why I use KJV only.
Incorrect. You either have all of Gods preserved word, or God is a liar, who couldn't preserve and protect his word. There HAS to be a surviving text. Otherwise, how can you trust God AT ALL if he couldn't even keep this promise. I reference Psalms.12:6-7
@@TheirsHopewithJesusChrist_277 You clearly didn't watch the video
@@patrickoxley581this logic defeats the kjv from being the fulfillment of psalm 12, because it is also an eclectic text that came into its form at 1611 and does not match perfectly any Greek text or bible in any language before it. This is a self defeating position.
Which text under-girded 'The Great Awakening and most revivals through the last few hundred years? The Alexandrian text was sitting on a shelf during all this! If the LORD needed the critical text for these revivals why didn't He have the Alexandrian Text retrieved for them. Is the Alexandrian Text linked to any great revivals through history? I prefer the NKJV myself.
God Almighty is not limited by our translations or even our extant manuscripts. Hallelujah!
@@RoastBeefSandwich I agree, and over the centuries (or millennia) people have come to the Lord by word of mouth. I understand huge amounts of people have come to the Lord from reading 'Critical Text' Bibles and people have grown by reading them, myself included, but that doesn't change the fact that under-girding the great revivals was the Textus Receptus. Luther and Calvin used it I believe and look what came out of that. We owe the Textus Receptus much greater respect than it has been given I believe. I personally believe the Textus Receptus is by far the best.
Nkjv is awesome
@@andypink5167the textus receptuses (yes multiple) are also critical eclectic texts.
Thank you so much for explaining this. Rather people agree with you or not. At least you explained the different text. Which is more than most people do. They just mention them but don’t even explain.
A lot of them don't know. I have seen a lot of people just jump to the conclusion this version or that version is corrupt.
I like the KJV. As for others, I do not like how they change words every couple years. Why do they do that? Say for instance a 2000 version and a 2020 version; will have different words used, yet the same bible type i.e. ESV.
Words change meaning overtime. They also lose copyright if they don't keep it different. Both are likely the cause.
This is why I steadfastly read the NASB.... going back to when only the New Testament had been released -- in the early-to-mid 1960s!
You should have a TR Bible for study, but for everyday use other translations are fine. Just stay away from “cult” Bibles.
The modern Bible versions like the ESV say the opposite of the KJV in certain verses. For example, the KJV calls those who worshipped idols “superstitious,” whereas the ESV calls idol worshippers “religious.”
“Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.” (Acts 17:22 KJV)
“So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious.” (Acts 17:22 ESV)
The Zionist disciples of Satan were able to change their Bibles to make Israel a "spreading vine" in the NIV and even a "luxuriant vine" in the NASB, ESV, and the LSB in Hosea 10:1. God, however, states that "Israel is an empty vine" in his KJV Holy Bible at Hosea 10:1.
“Israel is an empty vine, he bringeth forth fruit unto himself: according to the multitude of his fruit he hath increased the altars; according to the goodness of his land they have made goodly images.” (Hosea 10:1 KJV)
“Israel is a luxuriant vine that yields its fruit. The more his fruit increased, the more altars he built; as his country improved, he improved his pillars.” Hosea 10:1 ESV)
So we know from that issue that the KJV is God’s word or the modern Bible versions are God’s word. They cannot say the opposite of one another and both be God’s word. This is a foundational issue. This is a major issue. There is no middle ground here. "Choose ye this day whom ye will serve." Joshua 24:15.
Edward Hendrie
Author of "HOAX of Biblical Proportions"
Thank you! In these discussions I don't think I hear that the early church fathers quoted from the New Testament. I seem to remember hearing that most of the New testament could be reconstructed from their writing though I've never seen a source on this. To me it would be interesting to know what longer readings are or are not represented in the writings of the earliest church fathers. I also think getting a nice history of the TR and CR could be helpful. I've always leaned toward the CR and I read and listen to pthe NIV most often but I do like the NKJV.
I appreciate the ESV and NIV, but because of the “missing verses”, I trust the NKJV and KJV more.
The Orthodox Study Bible is based on Byzantine texts.
Yep :)
If those verses were added later (which all the evidence points to), then the KJV is actually less trustworthy. What we want is what the apostles actually wrote. We don’t want extra added verses because those added verses aren’t inspired.
The comma johanneum shouldn’t be there.
Love the nkjv
@@Grizzmc13 I personally don't care if the first part of 1John 5: 7-8 actually rightfully belongs in the text or not. The doctrine of the Trinity does not hang on that verse alone. Although I believe some would say it does.
I have grown used to it being there, and. my preference is for TR readings.
Why can't people figure out that first thing Satan did was question God's word and that's what all these versions are, I get so tired of hearing " WE DON'T HAVE THE ORIGINALS" when Jesus read in the synagogue he didn't have them either. If u don't have the kjv u have a corrupted word.
While this video is 3 years old, it is wrong and I'll briefly explain why. If you love God’s word then you would use traditional text. If the Greek compilation or translations you use take Jesus’ Deity out of 1Timothy 3:16 and John 3:16 or make Jesus lie to his brothers in John chapter 7 concerning going to the feast then that is not traditional text.
Modern Bible translators translate from a corrupted set of codex's which jesuits, catholics and satanists compiled. They worked to replace reliable codex's to translate from, instead using Codex Sinaiticus which WAS CREATED IN THE 1800’s which they pass off as the oldest and best “old” Bible; Sinaiticus, they claim is 1500ish years older than it truly is. Then there is codex Alexandrinus which “appeared” about ten years after KJV 1611 was published, and codex Vaticanus which appeared in the Vatican around the 1400’s and was rejected by the scholars that worked on the KJV. Sinaiticus is responsible for the greatest changes to The modern Bibles, Alexandrinus for changes to mainly Revelation due partly to scribe error.
Not every verse in scripture was changed but there are changes throughout. In a nutshell, handing Bible Translators something “messed up” to translate “from” makes whatever they translate “to” wrong from the start.
The earlier translations were from original Greek. After that; Classical Greek was used.
Like slang English, which we speak now. We do not speak original English.
When studying history; it is better to ask those who were there in the time of the event, and not 100's of years later. Check and see how many textual scholars were involved in the writers of the KJV.
I like my bibles how I like my firearms. Full/standard capacity. KJV mostly, sometimes NKJV only for me.
Its not a condpiracy theory....its a fact. Please read Acts 8:36-38 in KJV/NKJV then read ESV.....the way of salvation is omitted from ESV. I don't think this was just an innocent change
I am going to step on a few toes here. The ESV is definitely missing verses. Yet some of you tell me that it is the best, and most accurate bible. Compared to what? The New World Translation? Yep, they both throw out the same verses. So does anyone want to guess what book the ESV will sit next to- on my book shelf? Surprisingly, the NWT does not remove "yet" from Jn 7:9
Some key words seem to be missing from the ESV. For example: Did Jesus lie to his brothers? In Jn 7:9 Jesus tells his brothers that he is not going to the festival, but in verse 10 he sneaks off to that very event. Other bibles, like the NIV and HCSB add a small word. YET. So which bible should I believe? That the Way, the Truth... is a liar? Or that the small word that the ESV avoided is more likely?
And that is but one of many examples I can think of where subtle word changes have repercussions.
Well I’m not sure how relevant this is or if anyone cares. Since the video is dealing with age of manuscripts let’s take a look a St Jerome. He translated the Bible into Latin, which was still a know and used language at the time, hence the name Vulgate. Definition of vulgate
1 capitalized : a Latin version of the Bible authorized and used by the Roman Catholic Church
2 : a commonly accepted text or reading
3 : the speech of the common people and especially of uneducated people
He used manuscripts that were even closer to the originals. Now the Douay-Rheims version of the English Bible was translated from the Vulgate, predating the King James by the way. The Douay-Rheims contains the so called missing verses in Mark. Now I know many will said, but this is a Catholic Bible and can’t be trusted, remember prior to the reformation there was one Church. Keep in mind that King James himself had input in his translation due to the anti right of kings implied in the Geneva Bible. One other thing to remember, the KJV has no copyright and therefore can be printed and copied by anyone. Newer version belong to whatever publisher commissioned them, and receive royalties. Instead of missing the forest for the trees, let us all answer the question our Lord asked his disciples, “Who do men say that I Am”?
Also in line with leading people astray please watch this video about Catholic bible and others and the modernists who changed language even in the Catholic bible.....everyone should have a Douey Reihms bible for reference because it was translated by St Jerome from the Latin Vulgate. St Jerome had access to manuscripts that we don't today...he knew Aramiac, Greek, Hebrew and Latin so it is a great literal translation. The point is the modern changes can change meanings.....and undermind doctrine when we try apologetics...be wary....also some of the notes by modernists dont necessary line up by to Catholic Dogma...the NAB, NSRV, SRV CE all have some modernist word changing trying to impose 20 century meaning on ancient texts...they are not all bad on the whole but you need to be aware if something doesn't sound right cross reference with Douey Reims...surprisingly the KJV is closer to Douey Reihms because it was influenced by that translation but still has errors becuase this Protestant text waters down the importance of Mary and removes the sacrifice of the mass plus is missing many books from the Catholic bible that everyone followed for 1500 years. Dr. Taylor Marshall has a youtube video on why traditional catholics should know the bible better than Protestants you should check that video out....there is a book recommended called Introduction to the Holy Bible by Timothy S. Flanders.....he has a table comparing the different bible translations . The Douey Reihms pocket edition can be bought from Barones Press
Watch this video
Watch "Why So Many Different Bibles?" on RUclips
ruclips.net/video/HUdzhFh9yXc/видео.html
God bless you. Totally agree. We need to get back to the Douay-Rheims...
Pastor Mathew at 8:02 you say " that explains it for the most part" you disn't even referrence one of the multiple texts that are not found in ESV. I think your too intelligent to not know that your deliberately undermining the significance of missing text. Please read Acts 8:36-38 in KJV or NKJV then read the same text in ESV. This is not an incidental or honest omission in ESV. It is deliberate
Good explanation. I’m so torn between the NASB and ESV. I WISH THR ESV would put the verses in italic and brackets. That would be so good
KING JAMES ALL DAY LONG. All other bibles have the Vatican all over them. People are ill informed. Cardinal Carlos Martini worked with Kurt Aland in 1952 on the Revised standard bible. I will not read a bible that is approved by the wicked vatican
@@DanielHoerle-ww9so what a bout a bible that’s named after a homosexual king.
Im not trying to be hateful. But just something to think about. Please do think about. God is able to use what someone has intended for evil for good
@@DanielHoerle-ww9so try the MEV, it's based off the same source texts as the KJV
@@DanielHoerle-ww9so The King James version Bible will lose its popularity in the near future. It is still commonly used at sermons today....Most younger generations will not accept the KJV translation. Elizabethan English is not the #1 choice to many today. .
@@curtisstewart9426 true! I would love to understand the kjv but it's hard to understand since the the English is so old.
Every versions differs from our English version KJV, public domain. Those are not Bibles or the the word of God. The Alexandrians are the corrupters, not a conspiracy just a fact.
I just wanted to say that I enjoy your videos and more importantly, I see the Holy Spirit in you brother. Matthew 6:22
The Byzantine and Alexandrian manuscripts do not contradict one another. Textual criticism of all of these manuscripts proves that Genesis through Revelation is the word of God. Slight variances and grammatical structure do not alter the message that God has for us. Our problem is a lack of obedience and pride. Not a bible translation problem. Find a bible translation that you like and savor the message that God has given.
A lot here in the comments have missed the point why we read only the KJV .
God did NOT give us multiple choice , evil men do to sow doubt and confusion , so which one then ,
God sent his only begotten son.
Or
God sent his only son.
From John 3 v16
One is a lie ? And robs us of our adoption.
It doesn't matter what that old text said or how many manuscripts were or are avaliable for some scolars to interpret, what matters is what does my Bible say
Kjv is the original one and genuine after researching in this area. Of course, it is in old English, but nothing is deleted or added .Please go for King James Verse Bible.
It is not a conspiracy theory it is a philosophy of translation.
Yes it's not a conspiracy n more than philosophy but principle of text n translation. (One can't translate something that not there - it becomes faking word[s] or verse[s])
Saying this is simple - but this principle has n continues to stumble n mess up a great many believers (especially weaker, younger n less diligent) who fail to study n understand this.
But the explanation in this video on nkjv doesn't help n may stumble esp. the nkjv isn't based on the TR bcoz they leave out many words n verses - not consistent with their revising philosophy but nkjv based on all other texts (notes - are so small that they cant be read) Sorry Matthew
Good thing of this video - it explains directly only the NT part but in overview covers many similar issues of OT as well - which should help many bible students
For me the principle and philosophy established n used by each versions are important to the believer using it
1_Niv wanted style over accuracy - the version I try to avoid bcoz inaccurate
2_Nkjv wanted to update kjv based on rv - terrible approach n totally inconsistent
3_Esv wanted to update / revised on rv /asv - making it as accurate as possibly - for me - very accurate n consistent so far (only kjv is better)
4_Kjv - bcoz this version is the most studied (if there are inconsistency or "errors" or doubts) someone studied it n we have the info. (But these are very few) And most of all no other version has singular 2nd person pronoun like kjv (super useful)!!!!
Ps: sorry I m so long winded
Pss: God's word is still so powerful that God still saves ppl thru these "flawed" new versions - Praise God!!!!!
,how many letters were written to Alexandria? None. They would be copies of the Byzantine text. Older isn't necessarily better.
I think it boils down to do you want to use a translation based on half a dozen manuscripts that are 12th century or newer manuscripts or do you want use a translation based on 6000 manuscripts going back to the early 2nd century?
Jackson Frank Brown Nancy Lewis Thomas
Your video is a really good summary of what many people experience when comparing some translations. I'm not sure if you mentioned it but it is worth noting the reason for modern translations to include the older manuscripts within the text. This is because it is more likely that the newer manuscripts are different because of additions than older manuscripts are different from the originals because of deletions. Referencing the "other mss" in the notes is helpful and anyone can inspect to find that no significant changes with respect to doctrine exists in the differences.
Thompson Steven Johnson Charles Harris Joseph
Everything I’ve seen or read of the words that aren’t in the Alexandrian text were because the manuscripts, when found, were heavily edited and redacted.. I’ve never heard that they were just shorter readings. So Alexandrian texts were hundreds vice thousands and heavily edited and redacted. Looking forward to part 2!
Like you and your channel but sir your becoming part of the establishment. Sorry to hear that.
Chuck Missler addresses this issue.
I appreciate your videos. One of the things I feel is missing from most all translations is emotion. There are, as you know, very expressive words in Hebrew and Greek, but these seem to be translated in a very muted way, perhaps because they offended the religiosity of the translators, who may have wanted things to appear prim and proper. I am not a proponent of the Passion Translation, but one thing it does attempt to do is put emotion into the "translation."
Dr.Everhard, What do you think of the LXX as compared to the MT given the texts recovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls?
Thank you for the you do I have question I'm interested in the esv but I notice the revelation 22:14 is not translated correctly I know you are very good on Greek and wil
Your input
Thanks for doing the research on this issue. This wasn't an issue for me until I saw your video title. Then, I thought, maybe this guy is a member of one of those churches that thinks the only reputable version of the bible is the King James version and their church doesn't allow any other bible version. Thankfully, you're not a cult member as far as I can tell, and you're not hung up on some crazy belief. I see a guy that is truly trying to get to the truth of the matter without adding personal prejudice. I'm glad I watched and listened. Personally, I'm a NKJV fan and user and I have an ESV waiting to be read. Gotta wonder what the dead give away would be in determining if someone reads and knows the ESV as opposed to the KJ. With all we know today, there has to be a new bible version out there that is undisputably the best most accurate translation of the original text.
Great video! well said.
Mark 9: 29 KJV AND NKJV finish this verse but by prayer and fasting,alright Christians if you been a believer for awhile you understand this verse. Fasting is not given enough explanation Bible Study Nites or Sunday Mornings. It is essential I guarantee you that !" Yes their is power in prayer but when you combine the two,something extraordinary takes place in the spiritual realm as well as the natural realm in your favor. To important to be left out of the verse or put in the footnotes no sir."
Old does not always mean it is better. Texus Receptus. What about the Vaticanus? What about Westcott and Hort? Who both did not believe that the word off GOD is GOD inspired.
New translations should have left these parts in. They were part of the Christian canon for over 1,000 years.
Agreed. The assumption the critical text adherents make is the older text must be the right one. I am not an expert but through my prayer and study I mostly stick to the textus receptus/byzantine text.
Yep :)
So tradition of men trumps God’s word? I don’t think so.
@@Nick-wn1xw Excuse me, Jesus is the Word of God. Jesus left us His Church, members of which penned the New Testament. They also collected the Old Testament writings for use in the churches!
I believe that the Scriptures are authoritative, because of the Church.
are you sure? because the oldest manuscripts don't have them meaning it was added later so you think changed scripture is more better then the original scripture
No actually the New King James prefers the Critical Text like the ESV so it's not like the KJV with the Textus Receptus. I don't know where you got that the NKJV and the ESV are revisions of the KJV but that's also false. Again they're both derived from the Critical Text so they're not revisions of the KJV. If you think the only difference with Alexandrian manuscripts is that they decided to use "shorter wording" as you put it than you don't understand the full scope of the issue and it explains your cavalier attitude about the subject. I suggest you do more research. Also if the NKJV and footnotes does such a good job explaining things like you said then why did that person have to consult with you? Why couldn't they figure things out on their own?
Easy answer, by the way. Super simple answer. The ESV is translated from the Dead Sea Scrolls, which is the oldest living manuscript we have of the Bible in it's most accurate and original form, and those Scrolls don't have those verses. So those verses don't have to be put into the Bible because they were never there in the first place originally. They were added in later on by whoever it was who added and took away books from the Bible to create the canon we have now.
That's all.
This is the reason i Call it.. English Selection/selfish Version.
My president 4life is Jesus 2020 and beyond
“In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:”
Colossians 1:14 KJV
I keep going back and forth from the KJV and the NASB if only they made a version where they fix the errors on the KJV which the NASB fix some but left out others as well I can show you many where the KJV got it wrong and the NASB got it right but also where the NASB like this verse got it wrong and the KJV got it right.
“in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.”
Colossians 1:14 NASB
What no one seems to be able to show is that the NASB does not anywhere teach that redemption is through His blood. If the Alexandrian text includes in other passages the teaching that is "missing" in one particular passage then it is really a stretch to say that it is trying to pervert the word of God. If you were going to excise a teaching you would want to be sure to remove it everywhere.
Now look for the books that are omitted and then your on track
Why wasn’t there any added verses in ESV!!?!!
NIV is the same way earlier or later manuscripts didn't have those scriptures.
The handy-dandy chart helps a lot!
👍✨Great informative session📖God gave you the Gift of teaching Pastor 🙏✨
Matthew is traditionally the first Gospel. Evolutionists made that stuff up about Mark being first. I trust the TR for NT and LXX for OT
I love The Lxx, especially the Torah agrees with the Dead Sea Scrolls and Samaritan Pentateuch, wich Jews nowadays say are rubish, but again I don't trust anything the Jews say.
Sorry, there is no Judaism, there is and it was many Judaisms.
I trust Jesus and the apostles, they used mostly ( 80% I think ) the LXX or a Hebrew/Aramaic version which predates the LXX.
I don't care the Masoretes ware so careful and iada iada iada, the Jews are not angels and they never ware.
I keep The Lord's Day Sunday and not some mix and match old and new Sda Sabbath or some weird sect.
With the far majority of the texts we have today being the Byzantine texts or manuscripts and the fact they were much more scattered around the world yet they all agree almost word for word Thats enough to make me believe the Alexandrian texts although older are not as reliable since their missing words or even entire sentences that are in the Byzantine texts. I'm sticking to the KJV
Its the WTBS ! AT IT AGAIN! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Your chart doesn't make since to me .
Your cart doesn't make since to me.
It doesn’t matter how new the methods, or how old the copies. The statistical methodologies used by the Byzantine texts are by far the most probable to being closest to the original. More scripts, spread out over more area, accepted by more believers. The Alexandrian texts are older because they weren’t being used, why weren’t they being used if people took them to be the correct scripts?