Mark, yesterday by the grace of God I found your channel. Today I listened to the audio version of your book, Authorized. Thank you for being used by our Lord to bring truth to me. I have repented of my sin of idolatry of the KJV and am delighting in the freedom to study the word of God as He leads me. Galatians 5:1. Praying for you and your family. Thank you
I have gone through my PHD doctoral Bible Exposition program using mostly the NJKV. Now writing my dissertation with mostly the NKJV. But we all know that many other translations are helpful and do better than one single translation. So be flexible my friends.
I tried for many years to read the KJV because its all we had growing up. My family wasn't opposed to other bibles though. But I will say that I never could get into reading the KJV because I never felt I understood it. When I hit 16 I bought an NIV and learned more in a few days than I had in years. Fast forward 15ish years and I have a nice collection of bibles and cross reference quite frequently. Currently using the NIV and NET study bible. Thank God I found your channel, I have learned so much from you about translations I had never knew. God Bless and much love!
@@guymontag349 Yeah, a lot of hotdogs nowadays are advertised as 100% beef. Don't know how often it's true, but one can hope. I've never actually been to Costco because the closest one to me is at least a half hour's drive away, but my mom lives in another state and shops there regularly. And I'd be lying if I said I haven't heard of their hotdog/pizza and Pepsi combos (formerly Coke).
Amen! Accuracy of translation is good, but understanding the message is more important. To quote a teacher who I respect, "the best Bible is the one you read."
Hey Mark I just want to thank you and the recovering fundamentalist podcast for your work. I fell prey to KJVO doctrine a few months ago. The theory seemed great to have a perfect Bible that didn’t have to refer to the original languages or any other translation. Through your work I came to realize how much difficulty I was having understanding the text. I read through the KJV twice and it got easier over time, but I also taught Sunday School from it. I found myself spending extra time looking up words and basically inserting my own translation into the KJV to make it understandable. I also learned the historical facts do not line up with how God chose to preserve His word. The KJVO crowd spread many lies or speak from ignorance on many topics. I now use the LSB and NKJV as my main translations. God bless and thank you again. Don’t grow weary in doing good. You are making an impact to reach the other side. I testify as such.
Read and search Gail Riplinger her study tells you and show you in awe of thy word how there is a build in dictionary only in the KJV she teaches you that KJV words are 5th grade words contrary to the Nkjv that use longer and more difficult words. God put in a letter and word structure that is absolut amazing. Gail Riplinger has many videos on TH-cam also and even if they are older, give your self the time to study what is being taught. You will be amazed. Also search truth is Christ channel
Great Stuff. I'm a KJV-preferred person. I do use other translations to enhance my study. The KJV is such a beautiful read and knowing you are reading virtually identical words that the greatest theologians and Christians have read for the past 400 + years really inspires you.
I grew up reading the KJV, loving the language but missing much of the understanding. I am grateful for my many translations and study Bibles. I would love for Mark to do a verse by verse study of the entire Bible or at least provide tools for us non scholarly educated folks. You know best commentaries or books, online sites for example without needing to know Hebrew Greek Arabic.
Try to find Matthew 17:21 in NIV or ESV or most other versions.. it’s not there. As for NKJV, it does not have the power and conviction that the KJV does. I used to read solely NKJV because I thought it was just an easier version of KJV, that isn’t the case. I actually found that some verses do not mean the same thing when I read them side by side. A quick google search and some personal research will show you that some verses, such as acts 3:26 was changed in the NKJV where Jesus is called God’s “servant” in a verse that calls him God’s “Son” in the KJV. It may seem harmless, but when you ask yourself “why would they change that?” when studying these things you start to see a pattern. Things that absolutely do not need to be changed and shouldn’t be.. it’s God’s Word! It’s very serious. Changing the word “Son” to “servant” changes the entire purpose and meaning of the verse. There are more verses like this. A lot of people can testify of not having any spiritual growth until they used the KJV and I am one of those people. As for the translation of the KJV, People were imprisoned and killed to translate the King James Version.. it was translated directly from the Greek and Hebrew. it’s worth a try to pray about it and read it. There’s nothing like it.
I agree the KJV is God’s inspired words and it has proved it self for over 400 years. Gail Riplingers book In AWE of thy word is full of proves. She also show you that there is a build-in dictionary and how to use it. Brandon’s TH-cam channel “truth is Christ” shows you an amazing way God have number statements hidden by counting of words like Jesus Christ and so forth. None of the others have this or the build-in dictionary so people can study the book without any other source which to me is a clear prove on how God can use that one day to prove truth of his inspired words and where to find them. Those who dig into words and language can study and become aware and very wise those who love numbers and look for it will not only be amazed tremendously they will be absolute convicted. There is no excuse if you look for truth in this world. If you like science you can look for Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design is a 2009 book about intelligent design by philosopher and intelligent design advocate Stephen C. Meyer.if you search for him here on TH-cam you will find tons of videos. KJV is God’s true inspired words❤️🙏🏻
🔥🔥When I read the name of John Frame as one of the endorsers of Mark Ward's Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible I immediately got interested in his TH-cam vlogs. I'm happy I did because Mark became my new go-to trusted authority when understanding issues on Bible translations. His explanations and the words he used are simple and easy to understand. He is not dogmatic; he explains things clearly and fairly.🔥🔥
I wish our King James only Brothers and Sisters would realize the only perfect word of God is Christ Jesus, what we have is an abundance of perfectly acceptable translations of his word.
Original Hebrew and Greek are perfect. Man lives by every word of God. There is provision implied. Coming to a consensus on what is every word of God is the challenge.
@@trappedcat3615 but perfect in what way? If God is relationship minded then having some kind of mathematical precise text may not be necessary for his purposes.
My honest confession? For many years I did not read the Bible because I had a KJV that I absolutely hated reading. It was not until I met a very god loving Christian woman who operated our church bookstore. She GAVE me a wonderful NKJV and I ordered a couple other translations. But my go to version is the NKJV that I always read ever since then.
What I especially like about my favorite Nelson NKJV (1985) is that the helps mention the various renderings depending of what text is used that differs from the TR. I consider the NKJV is a bridge between the two main testual pathways.
I love the New King James. I found a Dr. David Jeremiah Study bible NKJV on eBay for $14.00. For that price I had to buy it. It is a NKJV and I'm surprised at how easy reading it is. My biggest problem is obeying what it says.
I have to wonder what the KJV translators would think of this debate. They worked so hard to update the scriptures for their generation. Would they deny us the same privilege? It’s hard to imagine.
As always I thoroughly appreciate the level of specificity and detail that you provide in this video I also appreciate how extensive your humility is (which can be exceptional rare within th world at large) but also how effective you did your homework One word of caution however Up North in Canada here 90% of our hotdogs are made by Maple Leaf I had the privilege of working for them and can say with absolute certitude that you can trust what goes into a hot dog in Canada and I am proud to out pork on my fork - though I recognize we usually eat them in a bun and they need to necessarily be pork etc etc etc haha Many many blessings on your ministry my friend Your work is a staple for my students I often refer to it in conversation and class and make it a requirement of my course work to engage with your material I appreciate you
I'm a supporter of the KJV, but I'm not a KJVO. It is by far my preferred version for study and devotion. I truly feel the Holy Spirit has pulled me to the KJV. I also occasionally read other translations like the ESV, NASB 95, and the NIV for clarity. I came across your channel searching for false friends. Even though we are somewhat on opposite sides of the debate, you won me over with your level headed and fair arguments. Im proud to say I bought your book "Authorized" and really enjoyed it. Not all of us KJV guys are so narrow minded. Keep up the good work!
I REALLY appreciate this! Though we disagree over the continued utility of the KJV in pulpits (or so I assume), we agree on the more important point that we all ought to do our best to understand God's word! That is super important common ground.
I appreciate you taking the time to make this video. It was very informative. Just recently I was preparing a sermon and was a little confused about Beelzebub and Beelzebul. Thanks for the explanation!
Pray for me! One reason I'm planning to be done tackling KJV-Onlyism by the end of 2024 is that I don't know how long I can keep such a tone. Fighting error wears on me, as does the treatment I receive from some KJV defenders.
@@markwardonwordsas much as we and the Lord would love for them to stop…I am reminded (though I know this is not the same situation) when Jesus lamented over the whole of Jerusalem in Mathew 23:37-39. We must remember that this is a certain hardness of their hearts that we must just let them go (at least not let it consume us). It is sooooo hard enough to see the non-believers and the RC etc., stay the way they are as well. We must not give up hope for all these things, but it’s in Gods hands and we must not get bogged down by it in our hearts. To God be the glory of the steadfast work He has wrought and still doing in and through you. Keep your video’s up, fight when the Holy Spirit tells you to fight, but rest when He tells you to rest my loving brother.
@@markwardonwords God's blessings to you Mark for your very, very long-suffering approach. By now you have plenty online already that will stand on its own for a long time anyway. I have to say that I appreciate your intensive work as it helps bring into focus just how we do trust that the Almighty HAS and DOES keep his essential and crucial message intelligible. In my case, back in 1977, as a newly-believing young adult Theist from out of a materialist background, I'd never read any Bible, nor was I inclined to do so. But I had an unforgettable encounter with the Almighty who ordered me, "Go buy a Bible, and read it." As much as I did not want to read the Bible, I even more did not want to displease the Almighty, so within a few days, at a second-hand bookstore in mid-Texas, I found a used Bible for like $2.00, which I bought. It turned out to be the Moffatt translation, which was at least modern, readable English. That version was the prime-mover in guiding me to Messiah Yeshua - Jesus Christ. I lost that Bible a long time ago, and these days I use Accordance to compare lots of Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic and English. The one thing that strikes me as very odd with KJV only-ism, is what about the earlier German translation of Luther, and wasn't there a French version - Olivetan Bible of the Huguenots. Lutherans and French protestants paid much blood for their faith. Were those translations equal to the KJV, and do those translations differ from the KJV?
There's a concept that I like to call "subconscious plagiarism." What this basically involves is hearing something somewhere, and then using it later without realizing you didn't come up with it. A subconscious thing, because the brain stores so much information that it can't remember where it heard every single thing. What I'm getting at here is the NKJV translators may have utilized readings from other texts merely subconsciously without thinking about it, without considering it, and without directly referencing them. They may have read those other texts in the past, had the reading from them in their head, but, while reading the Scrivener text for translation "remembered" the other reading without realizing it was a textual variant, and assumed it was a valid way to translate the text in front of them simply because of "subconscious bias," if you catch my drift. It might be a bit of a stretch, but it's worth considering at any rate.
Honestly, that supposition makes more sense than, "The NKJV translators secretly snuck a few CT readings into the NKJV at these random, meaningless places!"
I'm just a standard B.R.E. non doctoral layman when it comes to T.C. I've learned a good deal over the years but admitadly I can't read any ancient Greek or Hebew beyond a few letters. This is why I love your explanations. They are fair thoughtful and logical. Keep up the good work Mark.
Bless you sir. Thank you for your channel. When I got saved in 84 I bought a Nkjv Bible and read, studied and taught Sunday school classes from it. I heard the all the usual criticisms. So I got a Kjv Bible and besides the language I didn't find a lot of differences between the two. I like to refer to the fourteenth chapter of Romans when dealing with the haters. I've never been to college and not studied Greek or Hebrew but I have studied God's word. So thank you so much for what you are doing
Thanks for this video, brother Mark. There's no reason why KJV-onlyists shouldn't switch to this more modern version. It's readable, in good English and reliable. I've used it for years.
NKJV is my favorite mainstream translation. I enjoy other translations as well, particularly the RSV and NET. I particularly like the RSV Catholic education despite not being a Catholic myself its very similar to the ESV which I also like. I also love the old KJV, especially the psalms which are so beautiful.
Interesting. I recently switched from ESV to NKJV because it does a better job at preserving the traditional vocabulary of the KJV. Also, the Textus Receptus is the same manuscript basis used by Martin Luther and all Reformation-era Protestants. As a Lutheran, I prefer the longer ending of Mark, especially the verse, "He that believes and is baptized will be saved." Lastly, I like using a Bible with a stable text for memorization that won't be updated frequently.
"Lastly, I like using a Bible with a stable text for memorization that won't be updated frequently." I watched a recent video from @anickelsworthbiblereviews stating this very fact and it's suddenly made me want to switch from ESV to NKJV. I would like to see how it reads. Of all the commonly used translations, NKJV is one that I rarely ever see/hear. I haven't been too much of a fan of the Thomas Nelson website, though. It's not very user-friendly as far as comparing their different editions.
@@Yesica1993 I recommend giving it a try. Many churches use it, like Calvary Chapel. However, I think the ESV reads more smoothly in many places than the NKJV. Despite that, I still prefer the traditional language of the NKJV, words like "brethren" and "epistle."
Mark, I love your content, brother, and greatly appreciate your love for the Lord’s people and the ministry you have of seeking to unite brethren. Thank you. There are two things I wanted to get your thoughts on: 1) It seems to me that the variety of Gk. manuscripts and the variety of English translations are similar to the variety of gospels in the Bible. We have four different accounts from four different people which tell us about the life of Christ. These accounts vary in length, word choice, details within the accounts they give, and even verses that are in some but not others. So it is with the manuscripts and translations we have. The whole story is faithfully preserved in the parts. 2) Has there even been an effort to compile what I would call a majority aggregate text? What I mean is a compilation of the critical, majority, and received texts which includes all the passages that people love to debate, and simply uses the majority readings from whatever extant manuscripts we have of those passages. For example, John’s Comma, which doesn’t have much witness, perhaps, would still be included and would follow whatever the majority says. The same for passages that do have much witness. It seems that doing this would end much contention. I am an ignoramus and neophyte in this world of bible translation and texts, so this might all be cute nonsense. Whatever the case, I’d love to hear your thoughts.
1. Perceptive. Must consider. 2. Yeah, this betrays a misunderstanding. There isn’t always a clear majority reading. Check out www.amazon.com/dp/1433564092?tag=3755-20.
As always, another excellent video dealing with the continuing and tiresome arguments for King James only arguments. I grew up with the KJV, so I have no hate towards it.
Thank you for your comments, Mark. Like many others, I grew up reading the KJV and hearing it read during worship services. These days I'm quite fond of the NKJV. That said, I read from a broad range of texts from formal to dynamic equivalent translations.
Great presentation brother. I'm 72 and grew up with the KJV, and I still love it and use it practically everyday. But I also use the NKJV and think that it's an excellent translation. I do have a question that I hope you can help me with. In the 1611 KJV, 1st Jn. 5:12 reads, " He that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son hath not life." In the 1769 KJV it reads, " He that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life." I would like to know if the words, 'of God' are in the Textus Receptus that the KJV translators used, and if not, why were they added to the 1769 edition? Or if the words, 'of God' were in their Textus Receptus, why did they leave them out of their translation? Just curious. God bless.
That is an interesting observation. Both Scrivener and Stephanus have "of God". I don't know about other TR manuscripts. My 1611 reads as yours does but my Tyndale 1534 has "of God." My guess is that it was a printer mistake in the 1611 version, but without consulting the other TR mss, it is hard to tell.
Here is a huge problem with the KJV and NKJV. Luke 23:43 has placed a comma before the word “,today”. In the Greek manuscripts there is no punctuation. There is no way that the thief could have been with Jesus the same day as the crucifixion. Firstly, Jesus was dead for three days. Secondly, he spent another forty days on earth after his resurrection before fully ascending into the 3rd heaven, see Acts 1:3. However, if you place the comma after the word “today,” the verse makes complete sense and doesn’t contradict the rest of scripture. Only a few newer translations correctly place the comma in Luke 23:43. Think of how much confusion has been caused by just one misplaced comma? “And he said to him, “Truly I say to you today, you will be with me in the Paradise.” REV online bible.
@@TheCrucifixFishTestifiesAnd on Resurrection Morning, we are told in John 20:17 that Jesus said to Mary Magdalene, "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father". Apparently, Jesus had not yet ascended to Heaven upon his death.
@@TruthLivesNow Luke 16:19-31 is a parable of the resurrections, not about where you go after you die. Abraham’s bosom isn’t a real place. This was an erroneous belief held by the Pharisees. The Sadducees didn’t believe in the resurrections (Luke 20:27, Acts 23:6-8). Sheol and hades are synonymous and mean the grave, or the state of being dead. “And in hades he lifted up his eyes…” In other words, from the grave the rich man opened his eyes. This was the 2nd resurrection. Lazarus had already been resurrected, the 1st resurrection of the just.
Mark Ward: "As I've quoted once or a million times before..." (16:14) Wrong. 😡 I have watched every single video on Ward's channel, going through every single video in excruciating detail, and I have counted exactly 999,999 times when Mark Ward has done so, not 1 million times as he claims. Therefore Ward is WRONG about the KJB and everything else because he is not exact on this point! Sincerely, King James Man (Obviously this is said with tongue firmly planted in cheek! 😊 But sometimes this does seem to be the kind of nitpicking mentality some, not all, KJB Only advocates have toward others.)
I'm a KJV/NKJV only person for a very simple reason; I like them. NKJV is my translation of choice. I find it easier to read. What can I say? I'm simple.
@@markwardonwords I think it just comes down to a familiarity for me. I grew up hearing the KJV, and the NKJV has (mostly) the same flow. I get tripped up trying to read many of the modern translations, to be honest. I don't begrudge anyone's personal choices concerning what translation they read. I do think that the KJV-only crowd goes too far, as you point out continually.
🙌🏻 That’s the closest I could find to a touchdown signal emoji. 😂 I was not aware of these TR deviation instances. If only the modern KJVO crowd would be as humble as the KJV translators. Thanks for the effort, brother.
Currently out of the many bible translations I use daily, I read most often first from the NKJV. Ironically I quote most often from the NKJV hoping, perhaps without justification, that the KJV onlyists will accept the veracity of the quote I cite.
@@markwardonwords my family travelled for 7 years with a History of the English Bible exhibit. We would go into churches and I would teach on the history of the English translation. At that time I was KJVO. We had either whole Bibles or leaves of each of the English bibles up to the KJV, along with other language translations. We had a Ge’ez Bible and several others. We would also sell folio leaves like yours to help support our ministry.
@16:00 James White already did the work you are talking about with regard to Rev 16:5. Beza created/did an emendation to his version of the TR. No Greek manuscript nor any other translation omitted "Holy One" prior to the TR. He goes into depth about it in his book The King James Only Controversy which I am guessing you have read. Yeah, Revelation in the TR is kinda "sus" as the kids would say 😀
I am uncomfortable with TR and Critical. The TR supporters think it's their golden scroll due to the KJV. The Critical text supporters think it's their golden scroll because of the assumption of it's age. The Majority Text is a scientific, logical, and reasonable approach to the Word using what the majority of the nearly 6000 manuscripts actually say. I prefer the Majority Text. It's a process and not a golden scroll.
@Me2Lancer BUT the point that has been made on Mark Ward's channel over and over again is the unChristlike attitude people have often taken in this arena. Especially unwilling to even listen to Mark at all or have honest conversation on the issues. (Granted, there is not a significant difference between the Greek and Hebrew texts. ) The Majority Text is a reasonable, scientific, logical process that takes into account all the manuscripts we have.
Honestly, the TC also takes into account all the texts and so notes them. I can see why they use the earliest as their base, but I don’t think it answers all the questions. I am happy that we have such an embarrassing riches of text! God preserves His word!
Good video. Yes, the NKJV is a wonderful work. You tried to be objective, and succeeded. Point out the terribly interpretive mistranslation of Daniel 9:24-27. Your thoughtful work is to be commended. Pastor Greg
This was an excellent video bro. I come from a background of KJV onlyism and i was leaning heavily toward that claim until i tried to prove it for a new believers class. I came to the conclusion that KJV onlyism was a error and i couldn't deny it and i sure wasnt going to teach it to a class of new christians. My wife and i eventually left that church and joined an SBC church and now im pastoring my own church now in Odessa Texas. Although i wasnt introduced to your content until about six months ago, im truly thankful for people like you who have given loving, encouraging, and clarifying teachings on this topic! God bless man!
Yes, I have heard that, too. But it rather runs against their normal stated principles-such as their idea that we should stick with the majority of New Testament manuscripts, and/or that we should use the perfectly preserved TR (of course, other TRs do not have this reading).
Thank you for this video. I have just recently found your channel and am on a steep learning curve. I wonder if you could kindly direct me to a video you may have that would address the following statement, taught in the KJBO churches in my country. Please forgive me if this very video has addressed exactly this; I need to become more familiar with the terms regarding bible translation! May God continue to bless your work for Him. The statement is: Of the 5200 plus Greek manuscripts of the New Testament we have, 96% of them agree. There are no contradictions between them and are called the Majority Text. The other 6% rarely agree with each other and are loosely called the Alexandrian Text. In the English language, only the King James Bible is translated from the Majority Text. Every other English ‘bible’ is translated from the Alexandrian text. The translators of these ‘bibles’ are able to pick and choose what they decide belongs in scripture. The 6% pile of manuscripts represent those pieces of the New Testament that the devil was able to insert with corruption. Often non-Christians were involved in copying the Bible so could not have been part of God’s preservation of His word.
You have represented accurately what is actually a mass of confusion. I do address these claims, but I'd rather point you to this book, one I didn't write: www.amazon.com/dp/1433564092?tag=3755-20. This is where I tell people to start with the issues.
Even if you accept the idea that the majority of manuscripts generally attest to the best New Testament text, you still have the NKJV, along with many more obscure versions such as the MEV and SKJV, that use the same New Testament text tradition as the KJV. While there are plenty of false claims in the statement you quoted, the biggest one by far is that only the KJV offers a text that resembles the majority text.
@markwardonwords Have you reviewed the MEV or the KJ21? I know the KJ21 is out of print, but it is a translation available on the Life Bible app. Curious if you find these to be accurate to the Masoratic and TR as a modern update to the KJV.
I have scrolled through most of your videos. My question is do you discuss the differences between complimentarianism, egalitarianism, patriarchy? I would find this discussion very helpful. Yet It is a hot topic. Not wanting insults from anyone but just biblical sound instructive sound doctrine. Mark you are the epitome of instructive biblical sound doctrine.
Hi Mark, I've been following you on TH-cam not sure how I can ask you a question so this is the only way I found. I have a question about a verse and wanted an expert opinion on. The verse is Daniel 8:14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. I have been looking at this with the tools that I have and have an idea that the word "sanctuary" might be better translated as Holy like most other places in the bible. I know that the word is translated as sanctuary other places but from what I see there is other letters added that could change the meaning. The second word is "cleansed" , it seem this is the only place that this word is translated as cleansed. In other places it is justified. If this is so than the last part could read The justified would be made Holy. Thank you for your time.
Let's look at Daniel 8.11-14 in Lutheran God's Word translation: *Then it attacked the commander of the army so that it took the daily burnt offering from him and wrecked his holy place.* *In its rebelliousness it was given an army to put a stop to the daily burnt offering. It threw truth on the ground. The horn was successful in everything it did.* *Then I heard a holy one speaking. Another holy one said to the one who was speaking, “How long will the things in this vision-the daily burnt offering, the destructive rebellion, the surrender of the holy place, and the trampling of the army-take place?”* *He told me, “For 2,300 evenings and mornings. Then the holy place will be made acceptable to God.”* This translation committee was thankfully very consistent. The words "holy place" in verse 11 represent two Hebrew words, so it's certain that this verse must be speaking of the sanctuary. The words "holy one" and "holy place" in verses 13-14 are always translating a single Hebrew word, so there is a bit more ambiguity. But "holy one" is translating an adjective, whereas "holy place" is translating a noun in these two verses. Additionally, the noun is singular here, so it can't be taken to mean "holy ones" unless they're all being spoken of as a single figure (comparable to the "army"). With all that being said, the Medieval Jewish commentator Rashi took verse 14 the way you take it. He said, "The iniquity of Israel shall be expiated to bring an end to the decrees of their being trodden upon and crumbled since they were exiled in their first exile to Egypt, until they will be redeemed and saved with a perpetual salvation by our king Messiah" (Sefaria).
Yes yes yes! I have used the NKJV for years, from shortly after it first came out, until now. Here is another thing; I just bought a Geneva Bible and it is so much larger than a KJV, which someone pointed out to me the KJV has omitted a lot of verses from the Geneva, so is the KJV missing anything important? lol. Oh my, I plan on driving myself nuts with this research. 😵💫🙂
@@markwardonwords It is my hope. She did show an example, and sure enough a whole sentence which was in the Geneva, was not showing up in the KJV. However, that sentence seemed to be quite irrelevant to the subject in the Bible. Very curious she would show that.
Hey Mark, in Ruth chapter 3, verse 15 wouldn’t the correct translation be her and not him as it indicates in verse 16 that it is Ruth? Just looking for clarification on my understanding of that point!
It is possible that Boaz gave her the loads of barley in verse 15, then went into the city. She went separately to her mother. There does not have to be a continuity of who the active agent is from one sentence to the next; it can be "Boaz did this" followed by "Ruth did that." The question is: What does the Hebrew say? If it says "he went into the city" then that is the correct translation, and we find that translation in the Jewish Publication Society translation, as well as the ASV and the NRSV. Others follow the KJV. I don't know what the Hebrew says. But the esteemed Hebrew commentators Keil and Delitzsch are emphatic that "he went into the city" is the correct translation. Once again, the Septuagint and Vulgate seem to be the points of departure that produced "she went into the city" which K&D claim derive from the misunderstanding we are discussing (i.e. continuity of active agents from sentence to sentence).
While this was the finding of a layperson and such I may not have known all of the resources available for investigating such a passage, I concluded that Revelation 16:5 is definitely an error. In fact it is so blindingly an error that this passage is the one the dislodged me from the KJVO belief, forcing me to use just weights. I researched as deeply as I could find, and have written at length my thoughts on this and how no matter what version of KJVO you hold to, Revelation 16:5 is a defeater for all of them. Keep in mind when I was doing this research I was looking for any reason to hold onto the KJV as the only Bible of English speakers, but no version of KJVO perfect preservation is consistent with Revelation 16:5 in the KJV, and I'm confident about that.
@17:30 Ruckman: “I received a very frustrating letter from an irritated brother in Australia one time. He was trying to impress me with the fact that not even the AV (1611) had stuck to the Greek Receptus in all cases. Exactly why he didn’t think I knew this before he wrote is beyond me. We have never stated that an exact translation of any Receptus text would “do the job” nor that God would use it if it were done. Our thesis is that God has preserved for this century-in the universal language of the globe-an infallible translation without proven error in it.” (Peter S. Ruckman, The Book of Acts (Pensacola: BB Bookstore, 1974, 2003 rev.) 641)
6:45 --- that's how I memorized that verse! I literally just said that verse in my mind yesterday I was thinking how odd words like "wast" and "wert" were : ) coincidence??
1. Brilliant, Dr. Ward. 2. You may have endured a touchback at the beginning, but you earned an extra point after the touchdown with the 16:52 - 18:10 passage that starts with: "KJV-Onlyists in my experience tend to tell themselves one of two neat and tidy stories ... [MT-TR & Ruckmanite]" 3. I find one overburdening aspect of KJV-Onlyism is its undue Anglophilia. 4. You rectify that with your eloquent and universal "bridge of trust" passage from 18:18 - 19:41 that, to my mind, recalls the salvation history of Hebrews Chapter 11 which begins with "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (NKJV) 5. Speaking of just weights, may I assume that your large hardback NKJV includes the Apocrypha while your slim red leather bound 1769 KJV does not?
Point 3 is very pertinent because KJVO people don't get how ridiculous the whole concept is for billions of people around the world whose native tongue is not english! I've even heard some of them suggest the whole world NEEDS to learn english in order to read the "perfectly preserved" word of God instead of learning hebrew or koiné greek.
I’m a king James preferred minister. Though my main daily reading is mostly NASB 95 now. I will grant you a first down. Touchdown will be saved for after they find the autographs in the Vatican closets 😅
I'd like to get your thoughts some time on Revelation 22: 14. In most non-TR translations, it's translated, "Blessed are they that wash their robes, that they may have right to the tree of life," but in the KJV and NKJV, "wash their robes" is changed to "do His commandments." This rendering seems very strongly to endorse salvation by works, which contradicts everything else the Bible says about salvation. Why does this never come up in discussions about the merits and demerits of the KJV?
Briefly: the New Testament uses language like this in other places; it doesn't alarm me at all. It can be harmonized with Paul's language of salvation by grace. But if we applied to this passage the kind of evaluation used by KJV-Onlyists, we could easily say that the TR promotes salvation by works!
I have an example of a problem in the KJV that is not exactly a false friend, and this video is as good a place as any to ask about it. Galatians 6:2 says to bear one another's burdens (NKJV) while Galatians 6:5 says each one shall carry his own load. Commentaries and word studies note that two different Greek words are being used, hence the two different English words. In context, the implication of the Greek bare (from the root baros) in verse 2 is a weight that is becoming too much to bear yourself, while the implication of the Greek phortion in verse 5 is a normal load that is customary to bear, e.g. a load on a donkey's back or a ship's cargo. So, the NKJV does a good job. Bear your own normal load, but if it becomes impossible to bear alone, help each other with that burden. The KJV translates both words as "burden" which is confusing: "Bear ye one another's burdens .... For every man shall bear his own burden." I think the problem here might have been a lack of knowledge in 1611 of the development of koine Greek, but perhaps it was simply a poor translation choice. The NKJV is clearly superior to the KJV here. I would like to ask any KJVO readers: If the situation were reversed, and the KJV used "burden" in verse 2 and "load" in verse 5, and it had been taught to you for your entire life that Paul chose two different Greek words and there is no conflict here, but then a new version (say, the NKJV) came out and used "burden" in both verses, making them appear to contradict each other, what would your reaction have been? Question for Ruckmanites: Explain how Galatians 6:5 in the KJV is a perfect translation? Question for those who have access: Does Scrivener simply reflect that there are two different Greek words? I am almost certain that he does, because there are two different Greek words in any TR edition.
What exactly was the point of Scrivener creating a TR that was based off of an English Translation that doesn’t even completely follow and other revision of the TR? Can someone explain his purpose in making a Greek translation that’s reverse translated from English? Is it just so they would have a TR that would actually perfectly match the King James Bible? Why? That would be like taking an ESV or a NASB and translating them back into Greek. What would be the purpose ?
I believe the idea was to allow people to study the Greek text without having to do their own textual criticism, since those are two very different disciplines. Otherwise, someone who reads the KJV and wanted to study the underlying Greek would have to root through different TR editions to determine which textual base the KJV is reflecting in any given verse.
Scrivener didn't really back-translate into Greek. He consulted the printed Hebrew and Greek texts that the KJV translators would have had in their possession and determined which readings they followed. Where it appeared that they didn't follow any of them, he checked the Vulgate and anything else they might have used. It's not any different than the edition of the Greek New Testament that was released in 1964 to display the textual choices made by the NEB. (The one difference is that R.V.G. Tasker, the man who put together this edition, didn't have to make an educated guess as to the underlying text: he was on the NEB's New Testament committee.)
@@bibleprotector, That’s really my point. Scrivener’s TR is basically pointless. We know that the KJV translators used either Beza’s 1589 or 1598 revision of the TR and several current (to their time) English and other language Bible translations. I haven’t seen Scrivener’s TR used for anything except to deceptively present it as proof that the TR perfectly matches the King James Bible. I’ve seen this done several times to uninformed Christians.
@@shawnglass108 More like ignorantly than deceptively, but yes, the choice really is between the KJB in English versus a certain interpretative approach regarding the corpus of Greek MSS (aka modern critical approach).
Per ca 3 minute point: Where is this appendix to the NKJV which says they will use Scrivener? My copy of NKJV, copyright 1983, has an article at the end (The Story of the New King James) which says, “…while the Scrivener Greek Text was the basis of the New Testament.” The word “basis” being key.
I would say, at this point, don't we have enough going on without having the argument about which translation is the true word of God? Isn't the best translation the one that is picked up and read, within reason. There are certain translations that shouldn't be read by anyone. Christians seem to be more worried about what makes them better than everyone else, rather than uniting and working together to bring Jesus to the world. Now more than ever this world needs Jesus.
I have a question… I thought the Tyndale was credited for being the first person to translate from the Greek manuscripts, and it was Scofield that used the vulgate?
On Luke 1:35, the head verb is a future passive, the translation in question is "that holy one which is to be born" - τὸ γεννώμενον ἅγιον κληθήσεται υἱὸς Θεοῦ. Here we do not have a verb, but a present passive participle, connected to a future passive verb. The tense of a participle does not communicate absolute time, just aspect. The tense of the participle is connected to the head verb. Present tense participles indicate contemporaneous time. Aorist participles indicate something done prior to the head verb, except for when an aorist is connected to an aorist verb, then it is contemporaneous too. So, long story short, the present passive participle is contemporaneous to the future passive verb, indicating future action, so the proper translation is, "that holy thing which is to be born to you shall be called the Son of God." (or, that which is born to you shall be called holy - The Son of God.)
@@markwardonwords The UBS5 Apparatus records the reading of γεννώμενον as virtually certain. The only variant of note is γινόμενον, which is a present middle part. of γινομαι, to be, or γενομενον which is an aorist middle participle. Pronunciation wise, each of these are virtually identical in 1st C.-3rd C. pre-Byzantine pronunciation. From what I can see, it seems more like a syntax issue than a textual one. The TR, UBS5, WH, Text-Critical Majority, Greek Byzantine Synodal, all have γεννώμενον.
I did some digging and found you are right about Genesis 4:25. the last phrase is כִּ֥י הֲרָג֖וֹ קָֽיִן׃ It literally translates to “for Cain killed him” the word כִּ֥י is a very common Hebrew word that I have translated many many times. It typically introduces a causal clause (ie the reason for what was previously talked about) the KJV translates כִּ֥י as “whom” which is how the LXX and the Latin reads. Standard Hebrew lexicons, such as Brown-Driver-Briggs (BDB) and The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT), do not list "whom" or any relative pronoun as a meaning for כִּ֥י. They primarily list meanings like "because," "that," "for," or "when." I don’t think the KJV strictly followed the Hebrew here.
The Jewish Publication Society translation also has "for Cain slew him." Among the non-Jewish translations, "for/since Cain killed/slew/murdered him" is the pattern of the ASV, RSV, NASB, NIV, HCSB, CSB, ESV, NRSV, NET, LEB. Among the limited resources I have, I only find the "whom Cain killed" pattern in KJV, NKJV, Apostolic Bible Polyglot, Brenton's English Septuagint, and the Septuagint itself. Perhaps the Septuagint is the origin of this pattern. Only translations following the Septuagint or KJV. Addendum: The Vulgate uses the "whom Cain killed" pattern: "quem occidit Cain." Was the Vulgate influenced by the Septuagint? I suppose Jerome knew Greek better than Hebrew, even though he studied Hebrew in Jerusalem for years to prepare for his translation work. I wonder if the KJV was following the Vulgate, which was following the Septuagint, which was imperfect on this phrase.
I don't think you should lose much sleep over 'upsetting the faith' of some in the cheap seats. Their faith has already been upset by the KJVO non-rationalists and you are only attempting to remedy that problem. For those who haven't had their faith upset by those clanging cymbals, they are in no danger from your careful corrections. 👍
Hi Mark. Interesting video. I think you meant to say at 13:29 that modern KJV translations will say “she” went into the city but you accidentally said “he” 😅
I fell into the KJV onlyism for a season. I modified that stance pretty quickly to a Byzantine priority stance. I don’t know why the majority of the Christian world fell into the critical text brought forth by wescot and hort who weren’t even Bible believers.
You can see it for yourself at kjvparallelbible.org/which-tr-stephanus-vs-beza/. Just click the big picture of one page from the book, and you'll be taken to the book on archive.org.
13:10 This one is highly interesting, because I've had a lot of King James Only advocates tell me that the revisions to the KJV "do not change meaning in the text." This particular one is pretty blatantly a change in meaning.
I predict that the only straight answer I'll get to this, if I get any at all, is from Ruckmanites. Their answer is always the same: the KJV is inspired.
Here's another confusing verse: 2 Cor. 3:16 15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. 16 Nevertheless when "it" shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. What or who is the "it" the passage is referring to is unclear. It's referring to the heart, and this seems to be carried over from the Bishop's Bible. The NKJV has when "one" turns ...
Brother, these videos contain way too much important notitia to have to remember or find in YT videos. You really need to compile these details in a new book. It would be helpful to us and you'd make a little money, which would let you do even more of this research. Please consider it!
Fascinating stuff, Mark, and further vindication of the wonderful NKJV! I read (or heard) somewhere that the King James translators also used the Latin Vulgate when translating Isaiah 14:12. 12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! The Vulgate called the morning star, or son of the dawn, "Lucifer". And so the name Lucifer has been ascribed to Satan ever since - even in the NKJV. Do you know if this is true?
Yep, this is correct. The Wycliffe Bible of the late 1300s translated it that way, as that was a translation from the Latin Vulgate into Middle English and all the English translations leading up to the KJV followed suit. The Latin for "Lucifer" is based off the Greek Septuagint use of the word, Eosphorus (Ἑωσφόρος - which is where we get Phosphorus from by the way, as it emits light), which was a word for the morning star, referring to the god of the Planet Venus and the word means "dawn-bringer". As an adjective, it means "light-bringing", which is what the Latin word Lucifer means.
Mark, I have question: Today, if you had to pick between the KJV and the NKJV which one would you choose as your ‘main’ translation? Because readability is so important to you I’m guessing your would hold hands with the NKJV but I’m not sure. Seems to me you still ‘ embrace’ the KJV.
You may need to watch a few more of my videos… ;) I can embrace both! I love them both! But if I'm forced to choose, I go with 1 Cor 14's instruction that edification requires intelligibility.
The true reading was preserved in only one manuscript? And we don't have it? TR defenders usually tell me that we should stick with the great majority against a tiny minority.
@@markwardonwords btw TR isn’t perfect. The death blow to KJVO is Revelation 1:8 The vast majority of manuscripts include God especially the Majority/Byzantine. Only 4 Greek Manuscripts that we have don’t include God. 3 of them date after Erasmus’ first edition where he had God on the Latin side, but he appeared to make a mistake and miss it on the Greek side of his text. The 4th manuscript is a 12th century one from Spain which we have no evidence that Erasmus had. It also cuts off more of the verse so if Erasmus used it the verse would have even more left off. All other manuscripts include God.
Great video! I agree wholeheartedly. One comment on the mainstream KJVO vs. Ruckmanite distinction: I think most kf the mainstream KJVOs believe the KJV translators produced a perfect translation by means of remarkable skill, while the Ruckmanites believe they did so by inspiration. While there are some who are truly TR advocates (and thus not true KJVOs), most still see any deviation from the KJV as the definition of corrupting God's word.
That's an excellent way of putting it: "The mainstream KJVOs believe the KJV translators produced a perfect translation by means of remarkable skill, while the Ruckmanites believe they did so by inspiration." And my answer is that of Charles Hodge: treating something as perfect, no matter the reason, means treating it as divine.
@@markwardonwords I agree. I don't think most KJVO have any idea how complex Bible translation really is. They just assume that of course incredibly skilled translators always get it right. I tell them that's like saying the 1927 New York Yankees were the greatest baseball team of all time, of course they never lost a game.
If you're really interested in textual criticism, he NKJV does a much better job of providing variant readings in its footnotes than the ESV does. Like most modern versions, the ESV doesn't note every major variant in the New Testament, even if that variant has fairly strong attestation in the manuscript tradition (e.g., 1 Corinthians 6.20; the longer ending is in a majority of MS, but it isn't noted at all). The only disadvantage of the NKJV is that its notes haven't been updated since the 1980s.
The NKJV consistently translates the Greek word "diatheke" as "covenant". Why is this important? The battle between the two covenants began in Acts chapter 15 and continues to the present time. New Covenant Whole Gospel: How many modern Christians cannot honestly answer the questions below? Who is the King of Israel in John 1:49? Is the King of Israel now the Head of the Church, and are we His Body? Who is the “son” that is the “heir” to the land in Matthew 21:37-43? Why did God allow the Romans to destroy the Old Covenant temple and the Old Covenant city, about 40 years after His Son fulfilled the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 in blood at Calvary? What the modern Church needs is a New Covenant Revival (Heb. 9:10) in which members of various denominations are willing to re-examine everything they believe and see if it agrees with the Bible, instead of the traditions of men. We need to be like the Bereans. It will be a battle between our flesh and the Holy Spirit. It will not be easy. If you get mad and upset when someone challenges your man-made Bible doctrines, that is your flesh resisting the truth found in God's Word. Nobody can completely understand the Bible unless they understand the relationship between the Old Covenant given to Moses at Mount Sinai and the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary. God is not now a “racist”. He has extended His love to all races of people through the New Covenant fulfilled by His Son’s blood at Calvary. The Apostle Paul warned against using “genealogies” in our faith in 1 Tim. 1:4, and Titus 3:9. What brings all local churches together into one Body under the blood of Christ? The answer is found below. Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him. He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth. Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by husband unto them, saith the LORD: Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? What did Paul say about Genesis 12:3 in Galatians 3:8, 3:16? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis? Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart. Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36) We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Hebrews 12:22-24. 1Jn 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. 1Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. 1Jn 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. The following verses prove the Holy Spirit is the master teacher for those now in the New Covenant. Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Mar 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. 1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. 1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. Watch the TH-cam videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.
Its like you say no one is trying to take away the king james version and i praise God for that version. There is nothing wrong with an update. I also like the mev. The missing verses bother me so i dont use it for my main study and i dont like gender neutral language in some modern translations.
Just weights, I liked that one. So few even know where this comes from. Without the Law/Prophets and Writings that argument would have no punch. Rabbit trail now, I will jab the antinominians with that. 🤔😁
Mark, yesterday by the grace of God I found your channel. Today I listened to the audio version of your book, Authorized. Thank you for being used by our Lord to bring truth to me. I have repented of my sin of idolatry of the KJV and am delighting in the freedom to study the word of God as He leads me. Galatians 5:1. Praying for you and your family. Thank you
Wonderful! May the Lord bless you with understanding, love, and obedience. And me too!
I have gone through my PHD doctoral Bible Exposition program using mostly the NJKV. Now writing my dissertation with mostly the NKJV. But we all know that many other translations are helpful and do better than one single translation. So be flexible my friends.
The NKJV is my favorite commercial translation as a majority text guy. Great videos Mark, may God keep blessing your ministry.
I tried for many years to read the KJV because its all we had growing up. My family wasn't opposed to other bibles though. But I will say that I never could get into reading the KJV because I never felt I understood it. When I hit 16 I bought an NIV and learned more in a few days than I had in years. Fast forward 15ish years and I have a nice collection of bibles and cross reference quite frequently. Currently using the NIV and NET study bible. Thank God I found your channel, I have learned so much from you about translations I had never knew. God Bless and much love!
“It can be a little disconcerting to find out what goes into the hotdog.” 😂😂😂 I love your sense of humor.
Buy your hot dogs at Costco - purportedly they are 100% beef!
@@guymontag349 Yeah, a lot of hotdogs nowadays are advertised as 100% beef. Don't know how often it's true, but one can hope.
I've never actually been to Costco because the closest one to me is at least a half hour's drive away, but my mom lives in another state and shops there regularly. And I'd be lying if I said I haven't heard of their hotdog/pizza and Pepsi combos (formerly Coke).
You’re one of the most reliable people. We need more of you in the world brother.
Amen! Accuracy of translation is good, but understanding the message is more important. To quote a teacher who I respect, "the best Bible is the one you read."
Yes!
Hey Mark I just want to thank you and the recovering fundamentalist podcast for your work. I fell prey to KJVO doctrine a few months ago. The theory seemed great to have a perfect Bible that didn’t have to refer to the original languages or any other translation.
Through your work I came to realize how much difficulty I was having understanding the text. I read through the KJV twice and it got easier over time, but I also taught Sunday School from it. I found myself spending extra time looking up words and basically inserting my own translation into the KJV to make it understandable.
I also learned the historical facts do not line up with how God chose to preserve His word. The KJVO crowd spread many lies or speak from ignorance on many topics.
I now use the LSB and NKJV as my main translations. God bless and thank you again.
Don’t grow weary in doing good. You are making an impact to reach the other side. I testify as such.
Many thanks. This means a lot! May the Lord preserve both of us from sin and error!
Read and search Gail Riplinger her study tells you and show you in awe of thy word how there is a build in dictionary only in the KJV she teaches you that KJV words are 5th grade words contrary to the Nkjv that use longer and more difficult words. God put in a letter and word structure that is absolut amazing. Gail Riplinger has many videos on TH-cam also and even if they are older, give your self the time to study what is being taught. You will be amazed. Also search truth is Christ channel
@Packhorse-bh8qn no read Gail Riplingers book in awe of thy word.
Great Stuff. I'm a KJV-preferred person. I do use other translations to enhance my study. The KJV is such a beautiful read and knowing you are reading virtually identical words that the greatest theologians and Christians have read for the past 400 + years really inspires you.
The 1611th Mention of LORD (And Why It's a Really Big Deal)
Truth is Christ
I grew up reading the KJV, loving the language but missing much of the understanding. I am grateful for my many translations and study Bibles. I would love for Mark to do a verse by verse study of the entire Bible or at least provide tools for us non scholarly educated folks. You know best commentaries or books, online sites for example without needing to know Hebrew Greek Arabic.
Try to find Matthew 17:21 in NIV or ESV or most other versions.. it’s not there. As for NKJV, it does not have the power and conviction that the KJV does. I used to read solely NKJV because I thought it was just an easier version of KJV, that isn’t the case. I actually found that some verses do not mean the same thing when I read them side by side. A quick google search and some personal research will show you that some verses, such as acts 3:26 was changed in the NKJV where Jesus is called God’s “servant” in a verse that calls him God’s “Son” in the KJV. It may seem harmless, but when you ask yourself “why would they change that?” when studying these things you start to see a pattern. Things that absolutely do not need to be changed and shouldn’t be.. it’s God’s Word! It’s very serious. Changing the word “Son” to “servant” changes the entire purpose and meaning of the verse. There are more verses like this. A lot of people can testify of not having any spiritual growth until they used the KJV and I am one of those people. As for the translation of the KJV, People were imprisoned and killed to translate the King James Version.. it was translated directly from the Greek and Hebrew. it’s worth a try to pray about it and read it. There’s nothing like it.
I agree the KJV is God’s inspired words and it has proved it self for over 400 years.
Gail Riplingers book In AWE of thy word is full of proves. She also show you that there is a build-in dictionary and how to use it.
Brandon’s TH-cam channel “truth is Christ” shows you an amazing way God have number statements hidden by counting of words like Jesus Christ and so forth. None of the others have this or the build-in dictionary so people can study the book without any other source which to me is a clear prove on how God can use that one day to prove truth of his inspired words and where to find them. Those who dig into words and language can study and become aware and very wise those who love numbers and look for it will not only be amazed tremendously they will be absolute convicted. There is no excuse if you look for truth in this world.
If you like science you can look for Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design is a 2009 book about intelligent design by philosopher and intelligent design advocate Stephen C. Meyer.if you search for him here on TH-cam you will find tons of videos. KJV is God’s true inspired words❤️🙏🏻
The NKJV is a great translation that has corrected at least 6 errors in the KJV. Much more readable as well.
🔥🔥When I read the name of John Frame as one of the endorsers of Mark Ward's Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible I immediately got interested in his TH-cam vlogs. I'm happy I did because Mark became my new go-to trusted authority when understanding issues on Bible translations. His explanations and the words he used are simple and easy to understand. He is not dogmatic; he explains things clearly and fairly.🔥🔥
Many thanks! Yes, I was greatly honored to have Frame endorse my book!
@@markwardonwords You're welcome and God bless you Mark!🙂
I wish our King James only Brothers and Sisters would realize the only perfect word of God is Christ Jesus, what we have is an abundance of perfectly acceptable translations of his word.
Agreed. That's my prayer.
This was especially helpful! Can't wait to share it!
Well said!
Original Hebrew and Greek are perfect. Man lives by every word of God. There is provision implied. Coming to a consensus on what is every word of God is the challenge.
@@trappedcat3615 but perfect in what way? If God is relationship minded then having some kind of mathematical precise text may not be necessary for his purposes.
Approx 12:56
THERE'S NO "COAT OF MANY COLORS"?! You mean, Dolly Parton lied to me all these years?!
And Dolly doesn't work 9 to 5, either!
@@guymontag349 Hahahahaha! Well played!
LOL! Good one!
My honest confession? For many years I did not read the Bible because I had a KJV that I absolutely hated reading. It was not until I met a very god loving Christian woman who operated our church bookstore. She GAVE me a wonderful NKJV and I ordered a couple other translations. But my go to version is the NKJV that I always read ever since then.
The NKJV is the translation I always recommend when asked. I love it.
You knocked this one out of the park... sorry, switched metaphors on you! ;-)
Yahtzee!
Yes. It indeed was a slam dunk. 🤣
What I especially like about my favorite Nelson NKJV (1985) is that the helps mention the various renderings depending of what text is used that differs from the TR. I consider the NKJV is a bridge between the two main testual pathways.
I love the New King James. I found a Dr. David Jeremiah Study bible NKJV on eBay for $14.00. For that price I had to buy it. It is a NKJV and I'm surprised at how easy reading it is. My biggest problem is obeying what it says.
RIGHT!
I have to wonder what the KJV translators would think of this debate. They worked so hard to update the scriptures for their generation. Would they deny us the same privilege? It’s hard to imagine.
I don't have to wonder! I read what they think in their preface! I'm on their side!
My Dad's view is, "If the KJV translators came back to life today, they'd ask, "Why are you still using ours??"
well, there is updating, which is fine, and then there is altering, which is not.
I like the New Revised Standard Version.
As always I thoroughly appreciate the level of specificity and detail that you provide in this video
I also appreciate how extensive your humility is (which can be exceptional rare within th world at large) but also how effective you did your homework
One word of caution however
Up North in Canada here 90% of our hotdogs are made by Maple Leaf
I had the privilege of working for them and can say with absolute certitude that you can trust what goes into a hot dog in Canada and I am proud to out pork on my fork - though I recognize we usually eat them in a bun and they need to necessarily be pork etc etc etc haha
Many many blessings on your ministry my friend
Your work is a staple for my students
I often refer to it in conversation and class and make it a requirement of my course work to engage with your material
I appreciate you
I'm a supporter of the KJV, but I'm not a KJVO. It is by far my preferred version for study and devotion. I truly feel the Holy Spirit has pulled me to the KJV. I also occasionally read other translations like the ESV, NASB 95, and the NIV for clarity. I came across your channel searching for false friends. Even though we are somewhat on opposite sides of the debate, you won me over with your level headed and fair arguments. Im proud to say I bought your book "Authorized" and really enjoyed it. Not all of us KJV guys are so narrow minded. Keep up the good work!
I REALLY appreciate this! Though we disagree over the continued utility of the KJV in pulpits (or so I assume), we agree on the more important point that we all ought to do our best to understand God's word! That is super important common ground.
@@markwardonwords Absolutely! I appreciate your reply!
I appreciate you taking the time to make this video. It was very informative. Just recently I was preparing a sermon and was a little confused about Beelzebub and Beelzebul. Thanks for the explanation!
Glad it was helpful!
Appreciate your gentle compassionate tone.
Pray for me! One reason I'm planning to be done tackling KJV-Onlyism by the end of 2024 is that I don't know how long I can keep such a tone. Fighting error wears on me, as does the treatment I receive from some KJV defenders.
@@markwardonwords Will do. I think you've done a great job with KJV only and should release yourself to move on.
@@markwardonwordsas much as we and the Lord would love for them to stop…I am reminded (though I know this is not the same situation) when Jesus lamented over the whole of Jerusalem in Mathew 23:37-39. We must remember that this is a certain hardness of their hearts that we must just let them go (at least not let it consume us). It is sooooo hard enough to see the non-believers and the RC etc., stay the way they are as well. We must not give up hope for all these things, but it’s in Gods hands and we must not get bogged down by it in our hearts.
To God be the glory of the steadfast work He has wrought and still doing in and through you. Keep your video’s up, fight when the Holy Spirit tells you to fight, but rest when He tells you to rest my loving brother.
@@markwardonwords God's blessings to you Mark for your very, very long-suffering approach. By now you have plenty online already that will stand on its own for a long time anyway. I have to say that I appreciate your intensive work as it helps bring into focus just how we do trust that the Almighty HAS and DOES keep his essential and crucial message intelligible.
In my case, back in 1977, as a newly-believing young adult Theist from out of a materialist background, I'd never read any Bible, nor was I inclined to do so. But I had an unforgettable encounter with the Almighty who ordered me, "Go buy a Bible, and read it." As much as I did not want to read the Bible, I even more did not want to displease the Almighty, so within a few days, at a second-hand bookstore in mid-Texas, I found a used Bible for like $2.00, which I bought. It turned out to be the Moffatt translation, which was at least modern, readable English. That version was the prime-mover in guiding me to Messiah Yeshua - Jesus Christ. I lost that Bible a long time ago, and these days I use Accordance to compare lots of Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic and English.
The one thing that strikes me as very odd with KJV only-ism, is what about the earlier German translation of Luther, and wasn't there a French version - Olivetan Bible of the Huguenots. Lutherans and French protestants paid much blood for their faith. Were those translations equal to the KJV, and do those translations differ from the KJV?
There's a concept that I like to call "subconscious plagiarism." What this basically involves is hearing something somewhere, and then using it later without realizing you didn't come up with it. A subconscious thing, because the brain stores so much information that it can't remember where it heard every single thing.
What I'm getting at here is the NKJV translators may have utilized readings from other texts merely subconsciously without thinking about it, without considering it, and without directly referencing them. They may have read those other texts in the past, had the reading from them in their head, but, while reading the Scrivener text for translation "remembered" the other reading without realizing it was a textual variant, and assumed it was a valid way to translate the text in front of them simply because of "subconscious bias," if you catch my drift.
It might be a bit of a stretch, but it's worth considering at any rate.
Honestly, that supposition makes more sense than, "The NKJV translators secretly snuck a few CT readings into the NKJV at these random, meaningless places!"
I'm just a standard B.R.E. non doctoral layman when it comes to T.C. I've learned a good deal over the years but admitadly I can't read any ancient Greek or Hebew beyond a few letters. This is why I love your explanations. They are fair thoughtful and logical. Keep up the good work Mark.
Bless you sir. Thank you for your channel. When I got saved in 84 I bought a Nkjv Bible and read,
studied and taught Sunday school classes from it. I heard the all the usual criticisms. So I got a Kjv Bible and besides the language I didn't find a lot of differences between the two. I like to refer to the fourteenth chapter of Romans when dealing with the haters. I've never been to college and not studied Greek or Hebrew but I have studied God's word. So thank you so much for what you are doing
Thank you so much! Very helpful on a difficult subject. Prayers for you.
Glad it was helpful!
Thanks for this video, brother Mark. There's no reason why KJV-onlyists shouldn't switch to this more modern version. It's readable, in good English and reliable. I've used it for years.
Right!
NKJV is my favorite mainstream translation. I enjoy other translations as well, particularly the RSV and NET. I particularly like the RSV Catholic education despite not being a Catholic myself its very similar to the ESV which I also like. I also love the old KJV, especially the psalms which are so beautiful.
Interesting. I recently switched from ESV to NKJV because it does a better job at preserving the traditional vocabulary of the KJV. Also, the Textus Receptus is the same manuscript basis used by Martin Luther and all Reformation-era Protestants. As a Lutheran, I prefer the longer ending of Mark, especially the verse, "He that believes and is baptized will be saved." Lastly, I like using a Bible with a stable text for memorization that won't be updated frequently.
"Lastly, I like using a Bible with a stable text for memorization that won't be updated frequently."
I watched a recent video from @anickelsworthbiblereviews stating this very fact and it's suddenly made me want to switch from ESV to NKJV. I would like to see how it reads. Of all the commonly used translations, NKJV is one that I rarely ever see/hear. I haven't been too much of a fan of the Thomas Nelson website, though. It's not very user-friendly as far as comparing their different editions.
@@Yesica1993 I don't think you'll be unhappy with the NKJV over the ESV.
@@Nick-wn1xw I definitely want to at least try it out.
@@Yesica1993 I recommend giving it a try. Many churches use it, like Calvary Chapel. However, I think the ESV reads more smoothly in many places than the NKJV. Despite that, I still prefer the traditional language of the NKJV, words like "brethren" and "epistle."
@@Steadfast-Lutheran Thanks!
Mark, I love your content, brother, and greatly appreciate your love for the Lord’s people and the ministry you have of seeking to unite brethren. Thank you.
There are two things I wanted to get your thoughts on:
1) It seems to me that the variety of Gk. manuscripts and the variety of English translations are similar to the variety of gospels in the Bible. We have four different accounts from four different people which tell us about the life of Christ. These accounts vary in length, word choice, details within the accounts they give, and even verses that are in some but not others. So it is with the manuscripts and translations we have. The whole story is faithfully preserved in the parts.
2) Has there even been an effort to compile what I would call a majority aggregate text? What I mean is a compilation of the critical, majority, and received texts which includes all the passages that people love to debate, and simply uses the majority readings from whatever extant manuscripts we have of those passages. For example, John’s Comma, which doesn’t have much witness, perhaps, would still be included and would follow whatever the majority says. The same for passages that do have much witness. It seems that doing this would end much contention.
I am an ignoramus and neophyte in this world of bible translation and texts, so this might all be cute nonsense. Whatever the case, I’d love to hear your thoughts.
1. Perceptive. Must consider.
2. Yeah, this betrays a misunderstanding. There isn’t always a clear majority reading. Check out www.amazon.com/dp/1433564092?tag=3755-20.
Thank you. You have helped me to leave kjv only.
May the Lord bless you-and protect us both from doctrinal error in the future!
As always, another excellent video dealing with the continuing and tiresome arguments for King James only arguments. I grew up with the KJV, so I have no hate towards it.
Thank you for your comments, Mark. Like many others, I grew up reading the KJV and hearing it read during worship services. These days I'm quite fond of the NKJV. That said, I read from a broad range of texts from formal to dynamic equivalent translations.
Thanks for sharing!
Great video and argument. Touchdown.
The Rebels blew up the death star.
And it was Col. Mustard in the library with a candlestick.
Great presentation brother. I'm 72 and grew up with the KJV, and I still love it and use it practically everyday. But I also use the NKJV and think that it's an excellent translation. I do have a question that I hope you can help me with. In the 1611 KJV, 1st Jn. 5:12 reads, " He that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son hath not life." In the 1769 KJV it reads, " He that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life." I would like to know if the words, 'of God' are in the Textus Receptus that the KJV translators used, and if not, why were they added to the 1769 edition? Or if the words, 'of God' were in their Textus Receptus, why did they leave them out of their translation? Just curious. God bless.
That is an interesting observation. Both Scrivener and Stephanus have "of God". I don't know about other TR manuscripts. My 1611 reads as yours does but my Tyndale 1534 has "of God." My guess is that it was a printer mistake in the 1611 version, but without consulting the other TR mss, it is hard to tell.
Here is a huge problem with the KJV and NKJV. Luke 23:43 has placed a comma before the word “,today”. In the Greek manuscripts there is no punctuation. There is no way that the thief could have been with Jesus the same day as the crucifixion. Firstly, Jesus was dead for three days. Secondly, he spent another forty days on earth after his resurrection before fully ascending into the 3rd heaven, see Acts 1:3. However, if you place the comma after the word “today,” the verse makes complete sense and doesn’t contradict the rest of scripture. Only a few newer translations correctly place the comma in Luke 23:43. Think of how much confusion has been caused by just one misplaced comma? “And he said to him, “Truly I say to you today, you will be with me in the Paradise.” REV online bible.
@@TheCrucifixFishTestifiesAnd on Resurrection Morning, we are told in John 20:17 that Jesus said to Mary Magdalene, "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father". Apparently, Jesus had not yet ascended to Heaven upon his death.
Paradise and Sheol, is not the same place as Heaven. Paradise is Abraham's Bosom as described in Luke 16:22-31.
@@TruthLivesNow Luke 16:19-31 is a parable of the resurrections, not about where you go after you die. Abraham’s bosom isn’t a real place. This was an erroneous belief held by the Pharisees. The Sadducees didn’t believe in the resurrections (Luke 20:27, Acts 23:6-8). Sheol and hades are synonymous and mean the grave, or the state of being dead. “And in hades he lifted up his eyes…” In other words, from the grave the rich man opened his eyes. This was the 2nd resurrection. Lazarus had already been resurrected, the 1st resurrection of the just.
Mark Ward: "As I've quoted once or a million times before..." (16:14)
Wrong. 😡
I have watched every single video on Ward's channel, going through every single video in excruciating detail, and I have counted exactly 999,999 times when Mark Ward has done so, not 1 million times as he claims.
Therefore Ward is WRONG about the KJB and everything else because he is not exact on this point!
Sincerely,
King James Man
(Obviously this is said with tongue firmly planted in cheek! 😊 But sometimes this does seem to be the kind of nitpicking mentality some, not all, KJB Only advocates have toward others.)
Yes, this is the kind of treatment anyone gets who tries to argue for anything on the internet!
@@markwardonwords Good point!
I'm a KJV/NKJV only person for a very simple reason; I like them. NKJV is my translation of choice. I find it easier to read.
What can I say? I'm simple.
No complaints here. If you don't make this a doctrine and don't divide from other Christians over this, I have no complaints.
@@markwardonwords I think it just comes down to a familiarity for me. I grew up hearing the KJV, and the NKJV has (mostly) the same flow. I get tripped up trying to read many of the modern translations, to be honest. I don't begrudge anyone's personal choices concerning what translation they read.
I do think that the KJV-only crowd goes too far, as you point out continually.
@@BrotherPaulVickers Amen on all points!
🙌🏻 That’s the closest I could find to a touchdown signal emoji. 😂
I was not aware of these TR deviation instances. If only the modern KJVO crowd would be as humble as the KJV translators. Thanks for the effort, brother.
There could probably be some more humility all 'round, yes!
Currently out of the many bible translations I use daily, I read most often first from the NKJV. Ironically I quote most often from the NKJV hoping, perhaps without justification, that the KJV onlyists will accept the veracity of the quote I cite.
I preach in a KJV church, but I do all my Bible study in the NKJV. I find the NKJV opens your eyes on many passages in the Bible.
Awesome! Got a good example that happened recently?
What year are the folio leaves in the background? Also what passages?
1611 KJV! 1 Cor 14!
@@markwardonwords my family travelled for 7 years with a History of the English Bible exhibit. We would go into churches and I would teach on the history of the English translation. At that time I was KJVO. We had either whole Bibles or leaves of each of the English bibles up to the KJV, along with other language translations. We had a Ge’ez Bible and several others. We would also sell folio leaves like yours to help support our ministry.
Thanks!
You bet!
@16:00 James White already did the work you are talking about with regard to Rev 16:5. Beza created/did an emendation to his version of the TR. No Greek manuscript nor any other translation omitted "Holy One" prior to the TR. He goes into depth about it in his book The King James Only Controversy which I am guessing you have read. Yeah, Revelation in the TR is kinda "sus" as the kids would say 😀
Thank you, Mark. I grew up on the KJV but now days read from multiple translations based on the TR & Critical Text.
I am uncomfortable with TR and Critical.
The TR supporters think it's their golden scroll due to the KJV.
The Critical text supporters think it's their golden scroll because of the assumption of it's age.
The Majority Text is a scientific, logical, and reasonable approach to the Word using what the majority of the nearly 6000 manuscripts actually say.
I prefer the Majority Text. It's a process and not a golden scroll.
Every position described here is within one's Christian liberty to take! More power to you all!
@@markwardonwords
But I also agree with Mark Ward that there are not any significant differences between the TR and CR and Byzantine Texts.
@Me2Lancer
BUT the point that has been made on Mark Ward's channel over and over again is the unChristlike attitude people have often taken in this arena. Especially unwilling to even listen to Mark at all or have honest conversation on the issues. (Granted, there is not a significant difference between the Greek and Hebrew texts. )
The Majority Text is a reasonable, scientific, logical process that takes into account all the manuscripts we have.
Honestly, the TC also takes into account all the texts and so notes them. I can see why they use the earliest as their base, but I don’t think it answers all the questions. I am happy that we have such an embarrassing riches of text! God preserves His word!
Good video. Yes, the NKJV is a wonderful work. You tried to be objective, and succeeded. Point out the terribly interpretive mistranslation of Daniel 9:24-27. Your thoughtful work is to be commended. Pastor Greg
This was an excellent video bro. I come from a background of KJV onlyism and i was leaning heavily toward that claim until i tried to prove it for a new believers class. I came to the conclusion that KJV onlyism was a error and i couldn't deny it and i sure wasnt going to teach it to a class of new christians. My wife and i eventually left that church and joined an SBC church and now im pastoring my own church now in Odessa Texas. Although i wasnt introduced to your content until about six months ago, im truly thankful for people like you who have given loving, encouraging, and clarifying teachings on this topic! God bless man!
Many thanks for this kind note!
i have been told by some KJVOs that beza had a manuscript that supported his translation of rev 16:5. but they did not have it
Yes, I have heard that, too. But it rather runs against their normal stated principles-such as their idea that we should stick with the majority of New Testament manuscripts, and/or that we should use the perfectly preserved TR (of course, other TRs do not have this reading).
Awesome work! Those final rhetorical questions were phenomenal and thought provoking! God bless
Glad you enjoyed it!
I do wish that more preachers, teachers and seminarians used the nkjv. As I have commented before the nkjv is my Swiss army knife of a translation
Yes!
Thank you for this video. I have just recently found your channel and am on a steep learning curve. I wonder if you could kindly direct me to a video you may have that would address the following statement, taught in the KJBO churches in my country. Please forgive me if this very video has addressed exactly this; I need to become more familiar with the terms regarding bible translation!
May God continue to bless your work for Him.
The statement is: Of the 5200 plus Greek manuscripts of the New Testament we have, 96% of them agree. There are no contradictions between them and are called the Majority Text. The other 6% rarely agree with each other and are loosely called the Alexandrian Text. In the English language, only the King James Bible is translated from the Majority Text. Every other English ‘bible’ is translated from the Alexandrian text. The translators of these ‘bibles’ are able to pick and choose what they decide belongs in scripture. The 6% pile of manuscripts represent those pieces of the New Testament that the devil was able to insert with corruption. Often non-Christians were involved in copying the Bible so could not have been part of God’s preservation of His word.
You have represented accurately what is actually a mass of confusion. I do address these claims, but I'd rather point you to this book, one I didn't write: www.amazon.com/dp/1433564092?tag=3755-20. This is where I tell people to start with the issues.
Even if you accept the idea that the majority of manuscripts generally attest to the best New Testament text, you still have the NKJV, along with many more obscure versions such as the MEV and SKJV, that use the same New Testament text tradition as the KJV. While there are plenty of false claims in the statement you quoted, the biggest one by far is that only the KJV offers a text that resembles the majority text.
Thank you Mark!
Thank you so much!
@markwardonwords Have you reviewed the MEV or the KJ21? I know the KJ21 is out of print, but it is a translation available on the Life Bible app. Curious if you find these to be accurate to the Masoratic and TR as a modern update to the KJV.
I've seen both, but I've only really spent time with the MEV. It had a few minor problems, but I recommend it overall.
I have scrolled through most of your videos. My question is do you discuss the differences between complimentarianism, egalitarianism, patriarchy? I would find this discussion very helpful. Yet It is a hot topic. Not wanting insults from anyone but just biblical sound instructive sound doctrine. Mark you are the epitome of instructive biblical sound doctrine.
I may hit that topic one day. Mike Winger is someone who touches the topic with grace and care. I'd point you to him.
Hi Mark, I've been following you on TH-cam not sure how I can ask you a question so this is the only way I found. I have a question about a verse and wanted an expert opinion on. The verse is Daniel 8:14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.
I have been looking at this with the tools that I have and have an idea that the word "sanctuary" might be better translated as Holy like most other places in the bible. I know that the word is translated as sanctuary other places but from what I see there is other letters added that could change the meaning. The second word is "cleansed" , it seem this is the only place that this word is translated as cleansed. In other places it is justified. If this is so than the last part could read The justified would be made Holy. Thank you for your time.
Let's look at Daniel 8.11-14 in Lutheran God's Word translation:
*Then it attacked the commander of the army so that it took the daily burnt offering from him and wrecked his holy place.*
*In its rebelliousness it was given an army to put a stop to the daily burnt offering. It threw truth on the ground. The horn was successful in everything it did.*
*Then I heard a holy one speaking. Another holy one said to the one who was speaking, “How long will the things in this vision-the daily burnt offering, the destructive rebellion, the surrender of the holy place, and the trampling of the army-take place?”*
*He told me, “For 2,300 evenings and mornings. Then the holy place will be made acceptable to God.”*
This translation committee was thankfully very consistent. The words "holy place" in verse 11 represent two Hebrew words, so it's certain that this verse must be speaking of the sanctuary. The words "holy one" and "holy place" in verses 13-14 are always translating a single Hebrew word, so there is a bit more ambiguity. But "holy one" is translating an adjective, whereas "holy place" is translating a noun in these two verses. Additionally, the noun is singular here, so it can't be taken to mean "holy ones" unless they're all being spoken of as a single figure (comparable to the "army").
With all that being said, the Medieval Jewish commentator Rashi took verse 14 the way you take it. He said, "The iniquity of Israel shall be expiated to bring an end to the decrees of their being trodden upon and crumbled since they were exiled in their first exile to Egypt, until they will be redeemed and saved with a perpetual salvation by our king Messiah" (Sefaria).
Yes yes yes! I have used the NKJV for years, from shortly after it first came out, until now. Here is another thing; I just bought a Geneva Bible and it is so much larger than a KJV, which someone pointed out to me the KJV has omitted a lot of verses from the Geneva, so is the KJV missing anything important? lol. Oh my, I plan on driving myself nuts with this research. 😵💫🙂
No, neither version is missing anything important. Both are trustworthy!
@@markwardonwords It is my hope. She did show an example, and sure enough a whole sentence which was in the Geneva, was not showing up in the KJV. However, that sentence seemed to be quite irrelevant to the subject in the Bible. Very curious she would show that.
Can you post a link of that kjv bible please? Would like to purchase it.
There you go! It's a good one. www.amazon.com/dp/0785295143?tag=3755-20
Love the NKJV
I do like the NKJV, although I’m not as slavish to the TR. Nothing in the CT or the LXX sets off any alarms from whay I’ve seen.
Hey Mark, in Ruth chapter 3, verse 15 wouldn’t the correct translation be her and not him as it indicates in verse 16 that it is Ruth?
Just looking for clarification on my understanding of that point!
It is possible that Boaz gave her the loads of barley in verse 15, then went into the city. She went separately to her mother. There does not have to be a continuity of who the active agent is from one sentence to the next; it can be "Boaz did this" followed by "Ruth did that."
The question is: What does the Hebrew say? If it says "he went into the city" then that is the correct translation, and we find that translation in the Jewish Publication Society translation, as well as the ASV and the NRSV. Others follow the KJV. I don't know what the Hebrew says.
But the esteemed Hebrew commentators Keil and Delitzsch are emphatic that "he went into the city" is the correct translation. Once again, the Septuagint and Vulgate seem to be the points of departure that produced "she went into the city" which K&D claim derive from the misunderstanding we are discussing (i.e. continuity of active agents from sentence to sentence).
While this was the finding of a layperson and such I may not have known all of the resources available for investigating such a passage, I concluded that Revelation 16:5 is definitely an error. In fact it is so blindingly an error that this passage is the one the dislodged me from the KJVO belief, forcing me to use just weights. I researched as deeply as I could find, and have written at length my thoughts on this and how no matter what version of KJVO you hold to, Revelation 16:5 is a defeater for all of them. Keep in mind when I was doing this research I was looking for any reason to hold onto the KJV as the only Bible of English speakers, but no version of KJVO perfect preservation is consistent with Revelation 16:5 in the KJV, and I'm confident about that.
Yes, this is a passage I probably ought to talk about before I get off of the KJV issue on the channel at the end of 2024.
@17:30 Ruckman: “I received a very frustrating letter from an irritated brother in Australia one time. He was trying to impress me with the fact that not even the AV (1611) had stuck to the Greek Receptus in all cases. Exactly why he didn’t think I knew this before he wrote is beyond me. We have never stated that an exact translation of any Receptus text would “do the job” nor that God would use it if it were done. Our thesis is that God has preserved for this century-in the universal language of the globe-an infallible translation without proven error in it.” (Peter S. Ruckman, The Book of Acts (Pensacola: BB Bookstore, 1974, 2003 rev.) 641)
Of course, Elizabethan English is not the universal language of the globe, so his point is absurd.
6:45 --- that's how I memorized that verse!
I literally just said that verse in my mind yesterday
I was thinking how odd words like "wast" and "wert" were : )
coincidence??
I see you have the same Flaw as Paul did. What's that you ask. Using sports analogies as he did. 🤔👏
Paul's boxing/footrace analogies > Mark's American football analogies
(We should all just admit that U.S. football is just overdressed rugby.)
Just be glad I don't use more frisbee analogies! That's my favorite sport to play!
@@markwardonwords 👍😁
Can we have that list that brother sent you of the AV readings that following the Vulgate or LXX?
1. Brilliant, Dr. Ward.
2. You may have endured a touchback at the beginning, but you earned an extra point after the touchdown with the 16:52 - 18:10 passage that starts with: "KJV-Onlyists in my experience tend to tell themselves one of two neat and tidy stories ... [MT-TR & Ruckmanite]"
3. I find one overburdening aspect of KJV-Onlyism is its undue Anglophilia.
4. You rectify that with your eloquent and universal "bridge of trust" passage from 18:18 - 19:41 that, to my mind, recalls the salvation history of Hebrews Chapter 11 which begins with "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (NKJV)
5. Speaking of just weights, may I assume that your large hardback NKJV includes the Apocrypha while your slim red leather bound 1769 KJV does not?
Ha! On 5-no, no Apocrypha anywhere!
Point 3 is very pertinent because KJVO people don't get how ridiculous the whole concept is for billions of people around the world whose native tongue is not english! I've even heard some of them suggest the whole world NEEDS to learn english in order to read the "perfectly preserved" word of God instead of learning hebrew or koiné greek.
I’m a king James preferred minister. Though my main daily reading is mostly NASB 95 now. I will grant you a first down. Touchdown will be saved for after they find the autographs in the Vatican closets 😅
Ha! Ok, I'll take it!
Thank you! This was very helpful!
Glad it was helpful!
I'd like to get your thoughts some time on Revelation 22: 14. In most non-TR translations, it's translated, "Blessed are they that wash their robes, that they may have right to the tree of life," but in the KJV and NKJV, "wash their robes" is changed to "do His commandments." This rendering seems very strongly to endorse salvation by works, which contradicts everything else the Bible says about salvation. Why does this never come up in discussions about the merits and demerits of the KJV?
Briefly: the New Testament uses language like this in other places; it doesn't alarm me at all. It can be harmonized with Paul's language of salvation by grace. But if we applied to this passage the kind of evaluation used by KJV-Onlyists, we could easily say that the TR promotes salvation by works!
I have an example of a problem in the KJV that is not exactly a false friend, and this video is as good a place as any to ask about it.
Galatians 6:2 says to bear one another's burdens (NKJV) while Galatians 6:5 says each one shall carry his own load. Commentaries and word studies note that two different Greek words are being used, hence the two different English words. In context, the implication of the Greek bare (from the root baros) in verse 2 is a weight that is becoming too much to bear yourself, while the implication of the Greek phortion in verse 5 is a normal load that is customary to bear, e.g. a load on a donkey's back or a ship's cargo.
So, the NKJV does a good job. Bear your own normal load, but if it becomes impossible to bear alone, help each other with that burden.
The KJV translates both words as "burden" which is confusing: "Bear ye one another's burdens .... For every man shall bear his own burden." I think the problem here might have been a lack of knowledge in 1611 of the development of koine Greek, but perhaps it was simply a poor translation choice. The NKJV is clearly superior to the KJV here.
I would like to ask any KJVO readers: If the situation were reversed, and the KJV used "burden" in verse 2 and "load" in verse 5, and it had been taught to you for your entire life that Paul chose two different Greek words and there is no conflict here, but then a new version (say, the NKJV) came out and used "burden" in both verses, making them appear to contradict each other, what would your reaction have been?
Question for Ruckmanites: Explain how Galatians 6:5 in the KJV is a perfect translation?
Question for those who have access: Does Scrivener simply reflect that there are two different Greek words? I am almost certain that he does, because there are two different Greek words in any TR edition.
What exactly was the point of Scrivener creating a TR that was based off of an English Translation that doesn’t even completely follow and other revision of the TR? Can someone explain his purpose in making a Greek translation that’s reverse translated from English? Is it just so they would have a TR that would actually perfectly match the King James Bible? Why? That would be like taking an ESV or a NASB and translating them back into Greek. What would be the purpose ?
I believe the idea was to allow people to study the Greek text without having to do their own textual criticism, since those are two very different disciplines.
Otherwise, someone who reads the KJV and wanted to study the underlying Greek would have to root through different TR editions to determine which textual base the KJV is reflecting in any given verse.
Scrivener didn't really back-translate into Greek. He consulted the printed Hebrew and Greek texts that the KJV translators would have had in their possession and determined which readings they followed. Where it appeared that they didn't follow any of them, he checked the Vulgate and anything else they might have used.
It's not any different than the edition of the Greek New Testament that was released in 1964 to display the textual choices made by the NEB. (The one difference is that R.V.G. Tasker, the man who put together this edition, didn't have to make an educated guess as to the underlying text: he was on the NEB's New Testament committee.)
Scrivener was trying to work out the sources the KJB men used, but as a text, his work is next to pointless for us English favoritists.
@@bibleprotector, That’s really my point. Scrivener’s TR is basically pointless. We know that the KJV translators used either Beza’s 1589 or 1598 revision of the TR and several current (to their time) English and other language Bible translations. I haven’t seen Scrivener’s TR used for anything except to deceptively present it as proof that the TR perfectly matches the King James Bible. I’ve seen this done several times to uninformed Christians.
@@shawnglass108 More like ignorantly than deceptively, but yes, the choice really is between the KJB in English versus a certain interpretative approach regarding the corpus of Greek MSS (aka modern critical approach).
There is no period after "shalt be" the verse
I'd still love to have a complete Bible with the Septuagint as the OT besides my Orthodox Study Bible.
Is that list of places where the KJV followed LXX readings publicly available? I have a soft spot for both the LXX and Targums.
Per ca 3 minute point: Where is this appendix to the NKJV which says they will use Scrivener? My copy of NKJV, copyright 1983, has an article at the end (The Story of the New King James) which says, “…while the Scrivener Greek Text was the basis of the New Testament.” The word “basis” being key.
bit.ly/3AAL6LC
I would say, at this point, don't we have enough going on without having the argument about which translation is the true word of God? Isn't the best translation the one that is picked up and read, within reason. There are certain translations that shouldn't be read by anyone. Christians seem to be more worried about what makes them better than everyone else, rather than uniting and working together to bring Jesus to the world. Now more than ever this world needs Jesus.
I have a question… I thought the Tyndale was credited for being the first person to translate from the Greek manuscripts, and it was Scofield that used the vulgate?
No. You're basically right about Tyndale, but it's the Douay-Rheims English Bible
(Roman Catholic) of 1582 that used the Vulgate.
@@markwardonwords
Thank you for your taking time to respond! I love you man! I’ve learned so much from you! Blessings!
On Luke 1:35, the head verb is a future passive, the translation in question is "that holy one which is to be born" - τὸ γεννώμενον ἅγιον κληθήσεται υἱὸς Θεοῦ. Here we do not have a verb, but a present passive participle, connected to a future passive verb. The tense of a participle does not communicate absolute time, just aspect. The tense of the participle is connected to the head verb. Present tense participles indicate contemporaneous time. Aorist participles indicate something done prior to the head verb, except for when an aorist is connected to an aorist verb, then it is contemporaneous too.
So, long story short, the present passive participle is contemporaneous to the future passive verb, indicating future action, so the proper translation is, "that holy thing which is to be born to you shall be called the Son of God." (or, that which is born to you shall be called holy - The Son of God.)
Perhaps I relied too heavily on Scrivener-or misunderstood him!
@@markwardonwords The UBS5 Apparatus records the reading of γεννώμενον as virtually certain. The only variant of note is γινόμενον, which is a present middle part. of γινομαι, to be, or γενομενον which is an aorist middle participle. Pronunciation wise, each of these are virtually identical in 1st C.-3rd C. pre-Byzantine pronunciation.
From what I can see, it seems more like a syntax issue than a textual one.
The TR, UBS5, WH, Text-Critical Majority, Greek Byzantine Synodal, all have γεννώμενον.
I did some digging and found you are right about Genesis 4:25. the last phrase is כִּ֥י הֲרָג֖וֹ קָֽיִן׃
It literally translates to “for Cain killed him”
the word כִּ֥י is a very common Hebrew word that I have translated many many times. It typically introduces a causal clause (ie the reason for what was previously talked about)
the KJV translates כִּ֥י as “whom” which is how the LXX and the Latin reads.
Standard Hebrew lexicons, such as Brown-Driver-Briggs (BDB) and The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT), do not list "whom" or any relative pronoun as a meaning for כִּ֥י. They primarily list meanings like "because," "that," "for," or "when."
I don’t think the KJV strictly followed the Hebrew here.
The Jewish Publication Society translation also has "for Cain slew him." Among the non-Jewish translations, "for/since Cain killed/slew/murdered him" is the pattern of the ASV, RSV, NASB, NIV, HCSB, CSB, ESV, NRSV, NET, LEB. Among the limited resources I have, I only find the "whom Cain killed" pattern in KJV, NKJV, Apostolic Bible Polyglot, Brenton's English Septuagint, and the Septuagint itself. Perhaps the Septuagint is the origin of this pattern. Only translations following the Septuagint or KJV.
Addendum: The Vulgate uses the "whom Cain killed" pattern: "quem occidit Cain." Was the Vulgate influenced by the Septuagint? I suppose Jerome knew Greek better than Hebrew, even though he studied Hebrew in Jerusalem for years to prepare for his translation work.
I wonder if the KJV was following the Vulgate, which was following the Septuagint, which was imperfect on this phrase.
I don't think you should lose much sleep over 'upsetting the faith' of some in the cheap seats. Their faith has already been upset by the KJVO non-rationalists and you are only attempting to remedy that problem. For those who haven't had their faith upset by those clanging cymbals, they are in no danger from your careful corrections. 👍
I appreciate this. Nonetheless, I'm told to be gentle!
Hi Mark. Interesting video. I think you meant to say at 13:29 that modern KJV translations will say “she” went into the city but you accidentally said “he” 😅
You're probably right!
I fell into the KJV onlyism for a season. I modified that stance pretty quickly to a Byzantine priority stance. I don’t know why the majority of the Christian world fell into the critical text brought forth by wescot and hort who weren’t even Bible believers.
Friend, if you don’t know why, perhaps you ought to ask!
What’s the name of the book that Scrivener wrote about the text of the king James?
You can see it for yourself at kjvparallelbible.org/which-tr-stephanus-vs-beza/.
Just click the big picture of one page from the book, and you'll be taken to the book on archive.org.
Thanks. I love the NKJV but not because I'm KJVO. I just love the prose.
13:10 This one is highly interesting, because I've had a lot of King James Only advocates tell me that the revisions to the KJV "do not change meaning in the text." This particular one is pretty blatantly a change in meaning.
I predict that the only straight answer I'll get to this, if I get any at all, is from Ruckmanites. Their answer is always the same: the KJV is inspired.
@@markwardonwords But that still brings up the questions as to "which KJV?" The 1611 and most of the 1769 editions differ here.
Here's another confusing verse:
2 Cor. 3:16 15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. 16 Nevertheless when "it" shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.
What or who is the "it" the passage is referring to is unclear. It's referring to the heart, and this seems to be carried over from the Bishop's Bible. The NKJV has when "one" turns ...
Brother, these videos contain way too much important notitia to have to remember or find in YT videos. You really need to compile these details in a new book. It would be helpful to us and you'd make a little money, which would let you do even more of this research. Please consider it!
Hmm. I've thought about making all my scripts available on a website. I don't know exactly how I'd pull everything together in a book…
@@markwardonwordswhatever you decide to do…take that break first
Fascinating stuff, Mark, and further vindication of the wonderful NKJV! I read (or heard) somewhere that the King James translators also used the Latin Vulgate when translating Isaiah 14:12.
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
The Vulgate called the morning star, or son of the dawn, "Lucifer". And so the name Lucifer has been ascribed to Satan ever since - even in the NKJV. Do you know if this is true?
Yep, this is correct. The Wycliffe Bible of the late 1300s translated it that way, as that was a translation from the Latin Vulgate into Middle English and all the English translations leading up to the KJV followed suit. The Latin for "Lucifer" is based off the Greek Septuagint use of the word, Eosphorus (Ἑωσφόρος - which is where we get Phosphorus from by the way, as it emits light), which was a word for the morning star, referring to the god of the Planet Venus and the word means "dawn-bringer". As an adjective, it means "light-bringing", which is what the Latin word Lucifer means.
@@eclipsesonic Interesting! Thank you.
Another possible source for Gn 4.25 is the Vulgate, which reads "quem occidit Cain."
I like the New Living Translation (though the NKJV will do in a pinch).
Mark, I have question: Today, if you had to pick between the KJV and the NKJV which one would you choose as your ‘main’ translation? Because readability is so important to you I’m guessing your would hold hands with the NKJV but I’m not sure. Seems to me you still ‘ embrace’ the KJV.
You may need to watch a few more of my videos… ;) I can embrace both! I love them both! But if I'm forced to choose, I go with 1 Cor 14's instruction that edification requires intelligibility.
@@markwardonwords
I watched almost all of your videos.
Wow!! I’m honored! And so you can see why I’d choose the NKJV if I were forced to choose between the two. But I’m not! I can love and use them both!
Eph 6:12, with its "world-rulers" comes to mind. The Geneva has it, along with Young's and others as well. The KJV tweaked that out as did the NKJV.
Beza said he had a manuscript with that Rev 16:5 reading. So there was manuscript evidence that we don’t have today.
Btw I am TR preferred NKJV user.
The true reading was preserved in only one manuscript? And we don't have it?
TR defenders usually tell me that we should stick with the great majority against a tiny minority.
@@markwardonwords copied to the TR. 😉
@@markwardonwords btw TR isn’t perfect. The death blow to KJVO is Revelation 1:8
The vast majority of manuscripts include God especially the Majority/Byzantine.
Only 4 Greek Manuscripts that we have don’t include God. 3 of them date after Erasmus’ first edition where he had God on the Latin side, but he appeared to make a mistake and miss it on the Greek side of his text.
The 4th manuscript is a 12th century one from Spain which we have no evidence that Erasmus had. It also cuts off more of the verse so if Erasmus used it the verse would have even more left off.
All other manuscripts include God.
TOUCHDOWNNNN!!!🙌
Yeah!
Great video! I agree wholeheartedly. One comment on the mainstream KJVO vs. Ruckmanite distinction: I think most kf the mainstream KJVOs believe the KJV translators produced a perfect translation by means of remarkable skill, while the Ruckmanites believe they did so by inspiration. While there are some who are truly TR advocates (and thus not true KJVOs), most still see any deviation from the KJV as the definition of corrupting God's word.
That's an excellent way of putting it: "The mainstream KJVOs believe the KJV translators produced a perfect translation by means of remarkable skill, while the Ruckmanites believe they did so by inspiration."
And my answer is that of Charles Hodge: treating something as perfect, no matter the reason, means treating it as divine.
@@markwardonwords I agree. I don't think most KJVO have any idea how complex Bible translation really is. They just assume that of course incredibly skilled translators always get it right. I tell them that's like saying the 1927 New York Yankees were the greatest baseball team of all time, of course they never lost a game.
What’s the benefit of the NKJV over the ESV?
Not a ton, honestly. I like ESV editions better-they are really well done.
If you're really interested in textual criticism, he NKJV does a much better job of providing variant readings in its footnotes than the ESV does. Like most modern versions, the ESV doesn't note every major variant in the New Testament, even if that variant has fairly strong attestation in the manuscript tradition (e.g., 1 Corinthians 6.20; the longer ending is in a majority of MS, but it isn't noted at all). The only disadvantage of the NKJV is that its notes haven't been updated since the 1980s.
The NKJV consistently translates the Greek word "diatheke" as "covenant". Why is this important? The battle between the two covenants began in Acts chapter 15 and continues to the present time.
New Covenant Whole Gospel: How many modern Christians cannot honestly answer the questions below?
Who is the King of Israel in John 1:49? Is the King of Israel now the Head of the Church, and are we His Body? Who is the “son” that is the “heir” to the land in Matthew 21:37-43? Why did God allow the Romans to destroy the Old Covenant temple and the Old Covenant city, about 40 years after His Son fulfilled the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 in blood at Calvary?
What the modern Church needs is a New Covenant Revival (Heb. 9:10) in which members of various denominations are willing to re-examine everything they believe and see if it agrees with the Bible, instead of the traditions of men. We need to be like the Bereans. It will be a battle between our flesh and the Holy Spirit. It will not be easy. If you get mad and upset when someone challenges your man-made Bible doctrines, that is your flesh resisting the truth found in God's Word. Nobody can completely understand the Bible unless they understand the relationship between the Old Covenant given to Moses at Mount Sinai and the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary.
God is not now a “racist”. He has extended His love to all races of people through the New Covenant fulfilled by His Son’s blood at Calvary. The Apostle Paul warned against using “genealogies” in our faith in 1 Tim. 1:4, and Titus 3:9.
What brings all local churches together into one Body under the blood of Christ? The answer is found below.
Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him.
He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth.
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? What did Paul say about Genesis 12:3 in Galatians 3:8, 3:16? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis?
Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart.
Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36)
We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Hebrews 12:22-24.
1Jn 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
1Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
1Jn 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
The following verses prove the Holy Spirit is the master teacher for those now in the New Covenant.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Mar 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
Watch the TH-cam videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.
Its like you say no one is trying to take away the king james version and i praise God for that version. There is nothing wrong with an update. I also like the mev. The missing verses bother me so i dont use it for my main study and i dont like gender neutral language in some modern translations.
I love the NKJV almost as much as the KJV
Just weights, I liked that one. So few even know where this comes from. Without the Law/Prophets and Writings that argument would have no punch. Rabbit trail now, I will jab the antinominians with that. 🤔😁