I read from 5 translations. I have the KJV as my standard for the entire Bible. But i accompany my reading with particular translations. NKJV for the OT. ESV for Job, Psalms, and Proverbs. And I read from the NASB ‘95 and NIV for the NT. Keep in mind i use the KJV as the primary. I’ll read a chapter and immediately follow up with one of the respective translations. Its been fantastic and my understanding of both the OT & NT has really felt beneficial when combining multiple translations. Of course I have my Interlinear and Strongs on the side with a Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary. All in all I think you find a method that delivers Gods Word the best for you and jump in!!! God Bless🙏
Thank you for the video. I think that you provide a very good explanation. I am not a Bible scholar; however, I have become much more acquainted with Biblical history and texts over the last few years. I appreciate the KJV for what it is. In fact, while I don't actively use it as my primary Bible, I almost always consult back to it to find out how its translators worded certain passages, phrases or words. Each morning, my wife and I read through the Word of God together. Simply put: I read it aloud and she follows along reading it. We typically read it cover-to-cover (i.e., Genesis through Revelation). However, we have taken different paths through reading it as a whole. Our last read-through of the New Testament started with gospels -- Matthew, Mark, John and then Luke -- followed by Acts (in this order because Luke wrote both Luke and Acts). As we read through Acts, I interject the Epistles based upon when and where they were most likely written. This provided some great context as we read through -- particularly for both Acts and for the epistles themselves. We finish by reading the remaining epistles in order of their writing followed by the Revelation. It was a great experience...and we might take that path the next time. For the Old Testament, we typically just follow the books in order as they appear in the bound canon (i.e., Genesis through Malachi). We did attempt a chronological reading (such as reading Job around the time of Abraham given the potential dating of that book's writing); however, this was much more difficult for the Old Testament as the New. It didn't quite flow as well as it did for the New Testament. Typically, it takes about eight or nine months to complete an entire read-through of the Bible during our morning read-throughs. It's an amazing experience each morning. It doesn't replace independent or topical study (mostly done on our own). However, it does offer a significant strong foundational basis for understanding God's Word to us. As for translations: For each read through, we use a different translations. We've used the KJV, NASB, ESV, NIV (the first edition) and the NIV (newest edition). In other words, for one read-through, we will read the entirety of that version from start to finish. Throughout our readings (when there is questions about wording), I will refer to other translations and, more often, the Blue Letter Bible to see how the MT Hebrew and TR Greek are rendered there. In certain situations, I will also look through the Septuagint -- as it seems that Jesus and the New Testament writers sometimes either cited Scripture using the Greek Septuagint or, in the very least, a version of Hebrew that agreed with the Septuagint's text renderings. I do the same with a published translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls (that includes English translation along with the original Hebrew and Aramaic). In most cases, I feel that the KJV had the best academic approach to the rendering of words and phrases. However, this isn't always the case (and there are a few clear examples of where the KJV's wording was incorrect). On a personal level, I don't like the "high church" and traditional choices for words, phrases and titles that were sometimes used. For instance, I don't prefer words like "bishop," "presbyter," etc. I prefer "elders" for "presbyters" or "presbytery" (as in I Timothy 4:14). I also prefer use of "visiting overseer" or even "visiting watchman" rather than "bishop" as a translation for the Greek "episkope" because it is a more literal wording and explanation of that role. Then again, the word "church" (ekkelsia) would probably be best rendered as "gathering, "congregation" or "assembly" in English rather than the traditionally-used proto-English basis used for the word "church." There are plenty of other words that retained certain vernacular traditional renderings at the time. In many cases, I think the clear, beautiful simplicity of those words was lost to a more traditional set of liturgical terms. And, of course, the KJV translators didn't have access to certain source texts to consult. Given what we know of the translation committee, I strongly suspect that they would have consulted those other source texts if they had been available prior to 1611. Interestingly, although my wife appreciates the KJV (and how often I consult it even when reading other versions), she struggles when we read through it. We are both well-educated (we both hold post-graduate degrees from secular universities). However, English is not her first language; so, the archaic language of the Elizabethan era is a bit more difficult for her to grasp. It's not as difficult if we read a more modern (or even more literal) English version yet still consult the KJV. However, as the Bible used for straight read-through, it is much more difficult for her. As for the preservation of God's Word: I do believe that God preserved his Word. With that in mind, I don't believe that it is found as a singular document of collection of specifically-translated texts. In the New Testament, we find that Jesus and the apostles likely quoted both the Hebrew texts of that day as well as the Greek Septuagint texts (or, at least, a set of Hebrew texts that were more closely related to the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic). In other times, it almost seems that passages cited from Old Testament scripture was paraphrased rather than provided as a word-for-word rendering. While the Lord's use of Scripture in this manner could be explained as he is the Word of God, it is interesting that the apostles, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, cited Scripture using specific wording that differs slightly (at times) from the source Masoretic texts. Thus, while it was preserved for them in the first century, it is quite possible that they used and consulted both a Hebrew and Greek version of Old Testament scripture. This is similar to what many modern translations of the Bible also seek to accomplish -- particularly when they use both the Masoretic and the Septuagint. I do appreciate the translations that include alternate renderings when there is a difference. Of course, in the vast majority of the Scriptures, they are in agreement. I disagree with those who think that the versions of the Bible do not matter. Obviously, there are some bad translations out there. There are even some (such as the Jehovah's Witnesses) that are motivated out of evil (unwitting as the evil motivation might be). Rather, I believe that the translation efforts are vitally important. This is probably why the Roman Catholics preferred their readings only in Latin -- because a proper translation would expose how the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church were a departure from what is clear in Scripture. The same might be said of other tradition-oriented denominations and sects based upon ancient traditions that differ from Scripture. The opposite can also be true -- as exemplified by the many liberal denominations that attempt to explain away Bible doctrines by interpreting older English renderings but refusing to acknowledge what is clearly expressed in the Greek and Hebrew text sources.
I am in agreement with this person's view of the translations of the scriptures. A few of my personal views: -I avoid paraphases for my main Bible reading but have used them similiar to commentaries. -The one exception to the versions this person recommended is that I do not use the ESV; it appears to have a strong bias to a Calvinist view of scripture. -The KJV can be difficult for many people to read and understand due to the natural change in word usage and meaning through the years. -It is very important to read and study the Bible regularly. -It is important to read verses in their original context; if not confusion is most likely to result. -It is of most importance to understand the main message in it is the eternal salvation of individuals of the human race. Salvation is by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ alone (Acts 16 30-31). It is not by works alone (Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 4:5-6, Titus 3:5), not by faith + works (Romans 11:6). The gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) is the power God uses (Romans 1:16) to bring eternal salvation to any one who places their faith, not a meer belief that Jesus existed but a trust, a reliance upon Him alone as Savior alone.
@@gmac6503 Reliance upon a so called scholar is not reliable always. Scholars exist that support different views of spiritual teaching. The best way to learn spiritual truth is for an individual to make sure of their salvation (1 John 5:13), pray to the Lord for understanding (John 16:13), realizing that even a child is able to learn spiritual truth if taught ( 2 Timothy 3:15).
@@billadams6232 it's amazing these king James only people don't learn Greek lol well, most believers don't even read their Bible so it's not surprising
@@billadams6232 so we have another person making a comment and replying to something I never said lol it's just this person's way of admitting the person doesn't read any scholarship lol it's so stupid and lame. Then this clown tells me the best way to learn spiritual truth is by going to first John and then John and then Timothy. By the way all those books are written by anonymous people lol this person probably believes that Paul wrote Timothy but that's because he doesn't read the scholarship. So this clown is telling me that reliance upon a 'so-called scholar' is not reliable 'always.' It's so stupid to even say something like that. Notice the so-called scholar and the word always. We've got another confused, ignorant believer that don't know his butt from a hole in the ground. And nobody in their right mind would say that a scholar is reliable always. They invent things in our head like this unlearned Bible believer and then they project outwards as if everybody else is as dumb as they are. Hilarious
Well said! (Do you understand what you read.)👍 I use the KJV for church , my preference is NASB 95 and NKJV for studying. Yet, I communicate in the simplistic language of the NKJV when evangelizing.
Given how highly-charged and divisive this subject usually is, I deeply appreciate your irenic tone. As someone who affirms inspiration and preservation, but who differs drastically with how that has played out vis a vis the manuscript tradition, I nevertheless enjoyed this video.
3 great translations. It is sad the MEV seems to be an abandoned project. I am not quite a KJV only, but I do use it almost exclusively with some use of the NKJV as well. I have been hesitant to use MEV that much since almost no one uses it. Glad to see you use it as well.
I really wish they would publish a "user-friendly" MT formal equivalence. I have the EMTV and WEB. Have you heard of those? A few years ago, I would have been in the same boat. Thanks for watching!
Thanks, this is very helpful. I'm 79 and have used the KJV most of the time. However I have also tried many other versions including all that you mentioned. The three you use regularly are also my three to use regularly, except the MEV - my wife likes it, so I'll be getting another copy of it.
New Subscriber here! 👣 I have so many Translations, that there are few I don't have. I grew up using the KJV, and the Scriptures are stuck in my head. However, there are many other Translations that I have that I use for comparison purposes. My favorites are the HCSB, NASB, Amplified Study Bible, The complete Jewish Study Bible, TNIV Study Bible, NLT Illustrated Study Bible, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible (NRSV). Of course I do have the ESV, NIV, NKJV, and a few other Study Bibles. I believe all versions are useful. But the one that you can't put down that feeds your spirit is the one to study from. Looking forward to more of your videos!
Thank you for this video. You explained your stance in a very clear and succinct manner, which I appreciate. I wholly agree. I came to the same conclusion about my preferred text base a couple of years ago. I have read six different translations in the past eight years. (I am a Jewish convert to Christ eight years ago.) Can any of those translations work for a believer? Absolutely. I was saved through reading a critical text-based Bible. However, I now am in the TR/Majority/Byzantine camp and don't plan on going back any time soon. (I used to hold the opposite opinion, in the beginning. I even gave my KJV-only friend a very hard time. That is, until I realized I was an onlyist! As a Jewish person, I only read the Masoretic text and NEVER the Septuagint. I admitted my hypocrisy to him, in the end, which we now laugh about.)
Well said. I consider myself a Byzantine prioritist similar in vain to Maurice Robinson, and so the New Testament text base I would use would be the Byzantine Textform... Other editions like the HF majority and Pickerings F35 are essentially the same. The TR is MUCH closer to the Byzantine text than the current critical methodologies so I prefer to use the NKJV and KJV. I'm not opposed to using other modern translation in sermon/teaching prep, neither would I force my translation of choice on someone else.
My position is similar to yours. I believe the KJV should be the standard. But I do read the NLT alongside the KJV and I’ve also been reading the NRSV recently.
I like the KJV , NKJV and MEV. The NKJV is my preferred go-to Bible for Bible studies I have attended over the years, but I also appreciate the need to be sensitive to the preferences of whoever is taking the studies. My first Bible was a GNB/TEV. One issue I had when using it in the 1980s was following along when someone was reading from a more formal or literal translation - the wording was different, shock horror!
Here are three questions! 1).....When Moses talked to Pharaoh undoubtedly they communicated in Egyptian, yet the written text was in Hebrew; if there is a discrepancy between these two originals, which one is more authoritative? 2)....What reading can you list that we possess today that the Authorized King James Bible translators did not have access to? 3).....Can it be proved conclusively that the English text of the Authorized King James Bible is not the perfect and infallible words of Almighty God in English, and that it is not exactly the way God wanted it in English?
Thank God almighty for the voice of sanity in a sea marked with much insanity and ignorance and arrogance and pride and idolatry and sensuality when it comes to the topic of bible translators. God bless you✌
Firstly, I really appreciate this video. But respectfully, I do feel the need to point out that the NKJV does not use the Masoretic Text for the basis of the Old Testament. The translators themselves say so in the preface. In it, they say they used the 1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of the Biblical Hebraica, the Bomberg edition of 1524-25, ancient versions and the Dead Sea scrolls.
I would love to use the KJV but I’m worried I won’t understand it because of the archaic language. Do you eventually absorb all the old terms where you can read more efficiently overtime and not have to look things up? How long do you think that would take? I’m just very interested because there is a lot to like about the KJV . Great poetry great church history, no one owns the rights to it.
I completely understand. Becoming acquainted with the language differences would probably take at least a year of regular use. For me, I used the Thomas Nelson reference KJV, which placed modern equivalents in the center column for most of the archaic wording. I chose to use the MEV for our family because of comprehension. Thanks for watching!
The important thing to know is - thee, thou, thy, thine all refer to one person and - you, your, ye and yours refer to groups of people. Also use the strong’s concordance to look up any word and be pleasantly impressed.
Personally, I use "critical scholarly" commentaries, exhaustive concordances, Bible dictionaries, and surveys of biblical literature. In college, I was trained to use Logos Bible software, which I still use for language and exegetical studies. Thanks for watching!
I personally prefer MT+CT Formal equivalence but very much love the NKJV as well. TR is absolutely amazing as far as proof that the Spirit absolutely was active in preserving the essence of His word.
Jehovah's Witnesses say that they have the right translation of the Bible: "New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures". This version uses the 21st Century English, easy to understand. King James Version uses an archaic English that no one speaks today . New King James Version is easy to understand. Thee, Thy, Thou, Ye, Hath...are no longer used. Too many Bible versions that are difficult to choose. 😮
Anabaptists are not a monolithic group, and there are variations among them. Some view the Eucharist as sacramental, while others view it as an ordinance. Thanks for watching!
@@AnabaptistTheology thank you for the response, I have been wrestling with the divisions in the church groups, 45,000 registered with the U.S. government and they all claim to be the true church!!! How can this be, to account for these divisions new doctrine s have been invented like the idea of an invisible church that all true believers are a part of, totally rejecting a church established by Jesus and the Apostles, I eventually came to the conclusion that Sola scriptura is at the heart of all the divisions
We have the Scriptures today and we have critical confidence in what God has given us the way He chose to do so, in the 25000 manuscripts, versions, lectionaries, church Father quotes. That's how God preserves his word in thus fallen cursed imperfect word. Consult Mark Ward for facts and info regarding this. My Legacy Standard Bible is the word of God containing all of God's truth stories miracles parables teachings laws etc. Jesus and the early ecclesia used the Septuigant Bible as God's word and it differs from the Massoretic OT.
Hello Keith, thank you for commenting! I held a similar position 15 years ago. I was won over by many of the points you made. However, after I learned the critical apparatus used to "restore a lost text," I had to abandon the position. This channel isn't directly about this issue. Still, the modern critical approach falls short because though it claims to represent at least 25,000 historical resources (like those you stated above), it only utilizes a small percentage (sometimes fractions of a percent) of those resources. The other problem is that early church writings usually did not quote passages verbatim and represented the Byzantine family just as much as the others. Moreover, there's a significant issue with assuming that the extant manuscripts we know today are a comprehensive representation of the vast manuscript transmission throughout church history. I could say more, but I believe God chose to preserve His Word through His people, not in a critical apparatus that treats inspired literature no differently from human literature. Blessings, Jonathan
Well. Ok Scripture has been preserved. Now we have different chriches having different manuscripts. What now? The eastern Orthodox have the texts Erasmus built to write the textus receptus while the Vulgate differs whith this not only by vocabulary but by content. So God chose to preserve the Bible of one Church and not the other? This doesn't make sense. Even if the texts changed a bit, the core was still preserved. And more especially, in their variety Scripture was preserved through many different manuscripts.
& from ICXC who is the faithful witnes & the firste begotten of the dede & the Lorde of the kinges of the erth unto hym that loued us & washed vs from oure synnes in His owne bloude & hath made vs kynges & priestes vnto God & Hys Father to Hym be glorye & dominyon for ever & ever Amen. Beholde He commeth wyth cloudes & every eye shal se Hym & all kyndredes of the erth shal wayle because of Hym euen so Amen.
Kjv only here. Occasionally I will peek at the Tyndale on a difficult passage or for historical purposes maybe the bishops or the geneva. Other than that it's kjv only. I wouldn't pick the other modern bibles out of the trash.
Galatians 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God for if righteousness came by the law then Christ IS DEAD (current tense) in vain. A contradiction of the resurrection. But then yet again should one expect anything less from one who is marked with arrogance and ignorance and pride and sensuality and idolatry?
Actually, it's much more than 20 minutes. I have a series discussing the theology of bibliology. In the video, I accept textual discrepancies and explain how I handle them. Thanks!
The King James is the perfect Word of God. All other Translations remove Words, Scripture, which takes away from the Deity of Christ and Salvation. These other Translations have contributed to the Falling Away of the Church as described in the Bible. When Lucifer tempted Eve and Christ, he did so by changing God's Word to confuse. This is exactly what other Translations accomplish, nothing but division and confusion.
The critical text position is that God’s words were corrupted early on(different readings etc) and Bart erhman etc are our authorities as to what is and is not the words originally written.
Bang on the money. Galatians 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God for if righteousness came by the law then Christ IS DEAD (current tense) in vain. A contradiction of the resurrection. The Living bible I am not one of those who treats Christs death as meaningless for if we could be saved by obeying Jewish laws then there was no need for Christ to die. As Job said all wisdom will die with you
Daniel 3:25 should have the word Gods and not God. You can look at the Aramaic language and see that would should be plural. Ncmpa in Aramaic Aramaic Noun: Common Masculine Plural Absolute. There is also a place in Ruth where the translators used the Latin vulgate and not the TR. The KJV translators never said the translation was perfect. Psalm 13:5. The word ḥeseḏ does not have an English equivalent. Some translate it mercy or steadfast love. Not to say these are errors but man had to choose the word to use. Only the manuscripts are inspired by God. I’m not against the KJV but it’s similar to translation issues even found in the critical text translated bibles.
Brother, all your doing is running in circles, confusing yourself, and others. The King King James is the only correctly translation from the Received Text which is from the old scrolls the apostles and early Christians used. All other Translations remove Words, Scripture, which all take away from the Deity of Christ and Salvation. If you can't understand the King James all you have to do is keep reading it and pray for understanding, it will come to you. It was written when the English Language was at it's most perfect state by people whom were more well educated on the Translation from Hebrew and Greek. In addition there's lots of Biblical Code involving the King James.
False. The Catholic Church and politics corrupted the KJV. The only “correct” version of the Bible are in the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, languages. If you are not reading the Bible in its original languages, you’re not reading the preserved version………. How cultish does that sound. You Kjv onlyers are very cult minded. Also it is proven with original manuscripts that the Kjv was very corrupted. So. There’s that.
The Apostles did not use the Textus Receptus- It did not exist Erasmus compiled it in 1516. In all Christian love, please do some objective research for yourself. We all need to be very careful of attributing things from God and/or the Holy Spirit to satan- Some believe doing so to be the unpardonable sin. The well- received newer translations absolutely DO NOT take away or lessen the Deity of Christ! If you’ll take the time to actually study than, you will know this. Nothing wrong with using the KJV if that’s what you prefer but this bashing of accurate & faithful modern translations such as the NASB & NIV needs to stop!
@@mfleming3911 as soon as they restore all of God's words back into the scriptures I will stop, but not until then! Many words, phrases, and verses have been purged out of the scriptures!
I read from 5 translations. I have the KJV as my standard for the entire Bible. But i accompany my reading with particular translations. NKJV for the OT. ESV for Job, Psalms, and Proverbs. And I read from the NASB ‘95 and NIV for the NT. Keep in mind i use the KJV as the primary. I’ll read a chapter and immediately follow up with one of the respective translations. Its been fantastic and my understanding of both the OT & NT has really felt beneficial when combining multiple translations.
Of course I have my Interlinear and Strongs on the side with a Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary.
All in all I think you find a method that delivers Gods Word the best for you and jump in!!!
God Bless🙏
That’s a pretty good idea of using specific backup translations for specific sections of the Bible. Thanks for sharing.
The ESV is great for Genesis and Deuteronomy as well it will really open up Understanding of Psalms
God bless you brother.
Thank you for the video. I think that you provide a very good explanation. I am not a Bible scholar; however, I have become much more acquainted with Biblical history and texts over the last few years. I appreciate the KJV for what it is. In fact, while I don't actively use it as my primary Bible, I almost always consult back to it to find out how its translators worded certain passages, phrases or words.
Each morning, my wife and I read through the Word of God together. Simply put: I read it aloud and she follows along reading it. We typically read it cover-to-cover (i.e., Genesis through Revelation). However, we have taken different paths through reading it as a whole.
Our last read-through of the New Testament started with gospels -- Matthew, Mark, John and then Luke -- followed by Acts (in this order because Luke wrote both Luke and Acts). As we read through Acts, I interject the Epistles based upon when and where they were most likely written. This provided some great context as we read through -- particularly for both Acts and for the epistles themselves. We finish by reading the remaining epistles in order of their writing followed by the Revelation. It was a great experience...and we might take that path the next time.
For the Old Testament, we typically just follow the books in order as they appear in the bound canon (i.e., Genesis through Malachi). We did attempt a chronological reading (such as reading Job around the time of Abraham given the potential dating of that book's writing); however, this was much more difficult for the Old Testament as the New. It didn't quite flow as well as it did for the New Testament.
Typically, it takes about eight or nine months to complete an entire read-through of the Bible during our morning read-throughs. It's an amazing experience each morning. It doesn't replace independent or topical study (mostly done on our own). However, it does offer a significant strong foundational basis for understanding God's Word to us.
As for translations: For each read through, we use a different translations. We've used the KJV, NASB, ESV, NIV (the first edition) and the NIV (newest edition). In other words, for one read-through, we will read the entirety of that version from start to finish. Throughout our readings (when there is questions about wording), I will refer to other translations and, more often, the Blue Letter Bible to see how the MT Hebrew and TR Greek are rendered there.
In certain situations, I will also look through the Septuagint -- as it seems that Jesus and the New Testament writers sometimes either cited Scripture using the Greek Septuagint or, in the very least, a version of Hebrew that agreed with the Septuagint's text renderings. I do the same with a published translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls (that includes English translation along with the original Hebrew and Aramaic).
In most cases, I feel that the KJV had the best academic approach to the rendering of words and phrases. However, this isn't always the case (and there are a few clear examples of where the KJV's wording was incorrect). On a personal level, I don't like the "high church" and traditional choices for words, phrases and titles that were sometimes used.
For instance, I don't prefer words like "bishop," "presbyter," etc. I prefer "elders" for "presbyters" or "presbytery" (as in I Timothy 4:14). I also prefer use of "visiting overseer" or even "visiting watchman" rather than "bishop" as a translation for the Greek "episkope" because it is a more literal wording and explanation of that role. Then again, the word "church" (ekkelsia) would probably be best rendered as "gathering, "congregation" or "assembly" in English rather than the traditionally-used proto-English basis used for the word "church." There are plenty of other words that retained certain vernacular traditional renderings at the time. In many cases, I think the clear, beautiful simplicity of those words was lost to a more traditional set of liturgical terms.
And, of course, the KJV translators didn't have access to certain source texts to consult. Given what we know of the translation committee, I strongly suspect that they would have consulted those other source texts if they had been available prior to 1611.
Interestingly, although my wife appreciates the KJV (and how often I consult it even when reading other versions), she struggles when we read through it. We are both well-educated (we both hold post-graduate degrees from secular universities). However, English is not her first language; so, the archaic language of the Elizabethan era is a bit more difficult for her to grasp. It's not as difficult if we read a more modern (or even more literal) English version yet still consult the KJV. However, as the Bible used for straight read-through, it is much more difficult for her.
As for the preservation of God's Word: I do believe that God preserved his Word. With that in mind, I don't believe that it is found as a singular document of collection of specifically-translated texts. In the New Testament, we find that Jesus and the apostles likely quoted both the Hebrew texts of that day as well as the Greek Septuagint texts (or, at least, a set of Hebrew texts that were more closely related to the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic). In other times, it almost seems that passages cited from Old Testament scripture was paraphrased rather than provided as a word-for-word rendering. While the Lord's use of Scripture in this manner could be explained as he is the Word of God, it is interesting that the apostles, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, cited Scripture using specific wording that differs slightly (at times) from the source Masoretic texts.
Thus, while it was preserved for them in the first century, it is quite possible that they used and consulted both a Hebrew and Greek version of Old Testament scripture. This is similar to what many modern translations of the Bible also seek to accomplish -- particularly when they use both the Masoretic and the Septuagint. I do appreciate the translations that include alternate renderings when there is a difference. Of course, in the vast majority of the Scriptures, they are in agreement.
I disagree with those who think that the versions of the Bible do not matter. Obviously, there are some bad translations out there. There are even some (such as the Jehovah's Witnesses) that are motivated out of evil (unwitting as the evil motivation might be). Rather, I believe that the translation efforts are vitally important.
This is probably why the Roman Catholics preferred their readings only in Latin -- because a proper translation would expose how the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church were a departure from what is clear in Scripture. The same might be said of other tradition-oriented denominations and sects based upon ancient traditions that differ from Scripture. The opposite can also be true -- as exemplified by the many liberal denominations that attempt to explain away Bible doctrines by interpreting older English renderings but refusing to acknowledge what is clearly expressed in the Greek and Hebrew text sources.
He's not a bible scholar either. Buy books by scholars. This guy is an apologist; and not a very good one - not that there are any good apologists
I am in agreement with this person's view of the translations of the scriptures. A few of my personal views:
-I avoid paraphases for my main Bible reading but have used them similiar to commentaries.
-The one exception to the versions this person recommended is that I do not use the ESV; it appears to have a strong bias to a Calvinist view of scripture.
-The KJV can be difficult for many people to read and understand due to the natural change in word usage and meaning through the years.
-It is very important to read and study the Bible regularly.
-It is important to read verses in their original context; if not confusion is most likely to result.
-It is of most importance to understand the main message in it is the eternal salvation of individuals of the human race. Salvation is by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ alone (Acts 16 30-31). It is not by works alone (Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 4:5-6, Titus 3:5), not by faith + works (Romans 11:6). The gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) is the power God uses (Romans 1:16) to bring eternal salvation to any one who places their faith, not a meer belief that Jesus existed but a trust, a reliance upon Him alone as Savior alone.
@@gmac6503
Reliance upon a so called scholar is not reliable always. Scholars exist that support different views of spiritual teaching.
The best way to learn spiritual truth is for an individual to make sure of their salvation (1 John 5:13), pray to the Lord for understanding (John 16:13), realizing that even a child is able to learn spiritual truth if taught ( 2 Timothy 3:15).
@@billadams6232 it's amazing these king James only people don't learn Greek lol well, most believers don't even read their Bible so it's not surprising
@@billadams6232 so we have another person making a comment and replying to something I never said lol it's just this person's way of admitting the person doesn't read any scholarship lol it's so stupid and lame.
Then this clown tells me the best way to learn spiritual truth is by going to first John and then John and then Timothy. By the way all those books are written by anonymous people lol this person probably believes that Paul wrote Timothy but that's because he doesn't read the scholarship.
So this clown is telling me that reliance upon a 'so-called scholar' is not reliable 'always.' It's so stupid to even say something like that. Notice the so-called scholar and the word always. We've got another confused, ignorant believer that don't know his butt from a hole in the ground. And nobody in their right mind would say that a scholar is reliable always. They invent things in our head like this unlearned Bible believer and then they project outwards as if everybody else is as dumb as they are. Hilarious
Well said! (Do you understand what you read.)👍 I use the KJV for church , my preference is NASB 95 and NKJV for studying. Yet, I communicate in the simplistic language of the NKJV when evangelizing.
Given how highly-charged and divisive this subject usually is, I deeply appreciate your irenic tone. As someone who affirms inspiration and preservation, but who differs drastically with how that has played out vis a vis the manuscript tradition, I nevertheless enjoyed this video.
Thank you, Daniel. I am glad you enjoyed the video!
3 great translations. It is sad the MEV seems to be an abandoned project. I am not quite a KJV only, but I do use it almost exclusively with some use of the NKJV as well. I have been hesitant to use MEV that much since almost no one uses it. Glad to see you use it as well.
I felt the same way about the MEV; however, they finally published an update in October. Thanks!
@@AnabaptistTheology where is it listed? They all appear to be the older version online or out of print in many styles.
What is the MEV???
@@sharonbryant5783 modern English version
I'm Majority Text preferred so the NKJV is my main Bible.
I really wish they would publish a "user-friendly" MT formal equivalence. I have the EMTV and WEB. Have you heard of those? A few years ago, I would have been in the same boat. Thanks for watching!
Thanks, this is very helpful. I'm 79 and have used the KJV most of the time. However I have also tried many other versions including all that you mentioned. The three you use regularly are also my three to use regularly, except the MEV - my wife likes it, so I'll be getting another copy of it.
Thanks, John!
I like the MEV. A few years ago it was one of my main go-to translations when contributing to discussions on Yahoo groups.
New Subscriber here! 👣 I have so many Translations, that there are few I don't have. I grew up using the KJV, and the Scriptures are stuck in my head. However, there are many other Translations that I have that I use for comparison purposes. My favorites are the HCSB, NASB, Amplified Study Bible, The complete Jewish Study Bible, TNIV Study Bible, NLT Illustrated Study Bible, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible (NRSV). Of course I do have the ESV, NIV, NKJV, and a few other Study Bibles. I believe all versions are useful. But the one that you can't put down that feeds your spirit is the one to study from. Looking forward to more of your videos!
Thank you for your input, Rene, I'm glad you're here!
Thank you for this video. You explained your stance in a very clear and succinct manner, which I appreciate.
I wholly agree. I came to the same conclusion about my preferred text base a couple of years ago. I have read six different translations in the past eight years. (I am a Jewish convert to Christ eight years ago.) Can any of those translations work for a believer? Absolutely. I was saved through reading a critical text-based Bible. However, I now am in the TR/Majority/Byzantine camp and don't plan on going back any time soon.
(I used to hold the opposite opinion, in the beginning. I even gave my KJV-only friend a very hard time. That is, until I realized I was an onlyist! As a Jewish person, I only read the Masoretic text and NEVER the Septuagint. I admitted my hypocrisy to him, in the end, which we now laugh about.)
Well said. I consider myself a Byzantine prioritist similar in vain to Maurice Robinson, and so the New Testament text base I would use would be the Byzantine Textform... Other editions like the HF majority and Pickerings F35 are essentially the same. The TR is MUCH closer to the Byzantine text than the current critical methodologies so I prefer to use the NKJV and KJV. I'm not opposed to using other modern translation in sermon/teaching prep, neither would I force my translation of choice on someone else.
Thanks Dwayne!
My position is similar to yours. I believe the KJV should be the standard. But I do read the NLT alongside the KJV and I’ve also been reading the NRSV recently.
Are you okay when the KJV or TR is based on a MINORTY textual reading?
I like the KJV , NKJV and MEV. The NKJV is my preferred go-to Bible for Bible studies I have attended over the years, but I also appreciate the need to be sensitive to the preferences of whoever is taking the studies.
My first Bible was a GNB/TEV. One issue I had when using it in the 1980s was following along when someone was reading from a more formal or literal translation - the wording was different, shock horror!
Here are three questions!
1).....When Moses talked to Pharaoh undoubtedly they communicated in Egyptian, yet the written text was in Hebrew; if there is a discrepancy between these two originals, which one is more authoritative?
2)....What reading can you list that we possess today that the Authorized King James Bible translators did not have access to?
3).....Can it be proved conclusively that the English text of the Authorized King James Bible is not the perfect and infallible words of Almighty God in English, and that it is not exactly the way God wanted it in English?
Stay with what you are comfortable with and consult others if you want further clarity.
Thank God almighty for the voice of sanity in a sea marked with much insanity and ignorance and arrogance and pride and idolatry and sensuality when it comes to the topic of bible translators. God bless you✌
@@normanrausch1223 Thanks Norman. May God bless you also.
I agree with the gist of your comment whole heartedly sir.
Isaiah 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand forever.
Amen! That is why I hold to the common text the church has used for centuries; thanks!
@AnabaptistTheology I agree, my favorites are the KJV, the NKJV, and I will be ordering the updated MEV.
Praise GOD
Firstly, I really appreciate this video. But respectfully, I do feel the need to point out that the NKJV does not use the Masoretic Text for the basis of the Old Testament. The translators themselves say so in the preface. In it, they say they used the 1967/1977 Stuttgart edition of the Biblical Hebraica, the Bomberg edition of 1524-25, ancient versions and the Dead Sea scrolls.
Yes, correct!
That is correct; thanks for pointing that out! I knew that but it slipped my mind in the video. Thanks for watching!
I would love to use the KJV but I’m worried I won’t understand it because of the archaic language. Do you eventually absorb all the old terms where you can read more efficiently overtime and not have to look things up? How long do you think that would take?
I’m just very interested because there is a lot to like about the KJV . Great poetry great church history, no one owns the rights to it.
I completely understand. Becoming acquainted with the language differences would probably take at least a year of regular use. For me, I used the Thomas Nelson reference KJV, which placed modern equivalents in the center column for most of the archaic wording. I chose to use the MEV for our family because of comprehension. Thanks for watching!
The important thing to know is - thee, thou, thy, thine all refer to one person and - you, your, ye and yours refer to groups of people. Also use the strong’s concordance to look up any word and be pleasantly impressed.
Check out the LSB, the Legacy Standard Bible. I'd like to hear your opinion on it. I think it's an excellent literal translation.
Just received the LSB and its now my Favorite Version next to the NKJV and Amplified.
LSB is an excellent translation
That is one translation that I have yet to use much. I will try to do that soon! Thanks!
What other tools do you use to study the bible such as dictionaries, apps, or software?
Personally, I use "critical scholarly" commentaries, exhaustive concordances, Bible dictionaries, and surveys of biblical literature. In college, I was trained to use Logos Bible software, which I still use for language and exegetical studies. Thanks for watching!
The ESV is the most beautiful translation I have ever read, and it's also from the dead sea scrolls
Thanks for commenting!
I personally prefer MT+CT Formal equivalence but very much love the NKJV as well. TR is absolutely amazing as far as proof that the Spirit absolutely was active in preserving the essence of His word.
CSB is worth a look! 😊
I prefer the ESV and the NASB.
I appreciate those translations, too!
Jehovah's Witnesses say that they have the right translation of the Bible: "New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures".
This version uses the 21st Century English, easy to understand.
King James Version uses an archaic English that no one speaks today .
New King James Version is easy to understand.
Thee, Thy, Thou, Ye, Hath...are no longer used.
Too many Bible versions that are difficult to choose. 😮
I understand! Comprehension is only one aspect of this significant subject. Thanks!
What do anabaptist teach about the Ecuhrist
Anabaptists are not a monolithic group, and there are variations among them. Some view the Eucharist as sacramental, while others view it as an ordinance. Thanks for watching!
@@AnabaptistTheology thank you for the response, I have been wrestling with the divisions in the church groups, 45,000 registered with the U.S. government and they all claim to be the true church!!! How can this be, to account for these divisions new doctrine s have been invented like the idea of an invisible church that all true believers are a part of, totally rejecting a church established by Jesus and the Apostles, I eventually came to the conclusion that Sola scriptura is at the heart of all the divisions
@@AnabaptistTheology also on the Eucurist John chapter 6 is vary compelling, it's more that just a sign, it's the vary presence of God
Why don't you use the words of the scripture instead of using an unscriptural reference. Eucharist is not an inspired word.
@@sharonbryant5783 so me in scripture where it says use every word?? Do you really want to go thier
Imperfect world
We have the Scriptures today and we have critical confidence in what God has given us the way He chose to do so, in the 25000 manuscripts, versions, lectionaries, church Father quotes. That's how God preserves his word in thus fallen cursed imperfect word. Consult Mark Ward for facts and info regarding this. My Legacy Standard Bible is the word of God containing all of God's truth stories miracles parables teachings laws etc. Jesus and the early ecclesia used the Septuigant Bible as God's word and it differs from the Massoretic OT.
Hello Keith, thank you for commenting! I held a similar position 15 years ago. I was won over by many of the points you made. However, after I learned the critical apparatus used to "restore a lost text," I had to abandon the position. This channel isn't directly about this issue. Still, the modern critical approach falls short because though it claims to represent at least 25,000 historical resources (like those you stated above), it only utilizes a small percentage (sometimes fractions of a percent) of those resources.
The other problem is that early church writings usually did not quote passages verbatim and represented the Byzantine family just as much as the others.
Moreover, there's a significant issue with assuming that the extant manuscripts we know today are a comprehensive representation of the vast manuscript transmission throughout church history.
I could say more, but I believe God chose to preserve His Word through His people, not in a critical apparatus that treats inspired literature no differently from human literature.
Blessings,
Jonathan
Man put together the New Testament not God.
@@rodneyhowell7398God, Holy Spirit was with men in the translation.
I read all the Bible's
Well. Ok Scripture has been preserved. Now we have different chriches having different manuscripts. What now?
The eastern Orthodox have the texts Erasmus built to write the textus receptus while the Vulgate differs whith this not only by vocabulary but by content.
So God chose to preserve the Bible of one Church and not the other?
This doesn't make sense.
Even if the texts changed a bit, the core was still preserved. And more especially, in their variety Scripture was preserved through many different manuscripts.
I appreciate your thoughts. There are many questions I didn't address in this video. It definitely could be the subject of a channel all in itself!
& from ICXC who is the faithful witnes & the firste begotten of the dede & the Lorde of the kinges of the erth unto hym that loued us & washed vs from oure synnes in His owne bloude & hath made vs kynges & priestes vnto God & Hys Father to Hym be glorye & dominyon for ever & ever Amen. Beholde He commeth wyth cloudes & every eye shal se Hym & all kyndredes of the erth shal wayle because of Hym euen so Amen.
What language are you using, I can't understand you??
Kjv only here. Occasionally I will peek at the Tyndale on a difficult passage or for historical purposes maybe the bishops or the geneva. Other than that it's kjv only. I wouldn't pick the other modern bibles out of the trash.
Galatians 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God for if righteousness came by the law then Christ IS DEAD (current tense) in vain. A contradiction of the resurrection.
But then yet again should one expect anything less from one who is marked with arrogance and ignorance and pride and sensuality and idolatry?
Wow. 20 min. just to say KJV Onlyism.
Textual criticism is a reality and there are MANY editions of the so-called "TR".
Actually, it's much more than 20 minutes. I have a series discussing the theology of bibliology. In the video, I accept textual discrepancies and explain how I handle them. Thanks!
1611 KJV
RSV with Apocrypha 👌
I also like the RSV! Although I didn't address the Apocrypha in this series, it is included in my Bible reading. Thanks for watching!
The kjv is not absolutely perfect. It is not the only Bible. The NKJB is better and clearer.
The King James is the perfect Word of God. All other Translations remove Words, Scripture, which takes away from the Deity of Christ and Salvation. These other Translations have contributed to the Falling Away of the Church as described in the Bible. When Lucifer tempted Eve and Christ, he did so by changing God's Word to confuse. This is exactly what other Translations accomplish, nothing but division and confusion.
They basically the same, except for the footnotes.
KJV is the perfect word of God. TH-cam Truth is Christ 70x7 is all in the mathematics. All other translations are flawed and off.
The critical text position is that God’s words were corrupted early on(different readings etc) and Bart erhman etc are our authorities as to what is and is not the words originally written.
The KJV is God's word and the other two are not God's word.
Bang on the money. Galatians 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God for if righteousness came by the law then Christ IS DEAD (current tense) in vain. A contradiction of the resurrection.
The Living bible I am not one of those who treats Christs death as meaningless for if we could be saved by obeying Jewish laws then there was no need for Christ to die.
As Job said all wisdom will die with you
The KJV has zero errors and is based on genuine manuscripts not fakes like modern vers are
The KJV does have translation errors. There is no such thing as a perfect translation.
Show me one?
Daniel 3:25 should have the word Gods and not God. You can look at the Aramaic language and see that would should be plural. Ncmpa in Aramaic Aramaic Noun: Common Masculine Plural Absolute. There is also a place in Ruth where the translators used the Latin vulgate and not the TR. The KJV translators never said the translation was perfect. Psalm 13:5. The word ḥeseḏ does not have an English equivalent. Some translate it mercy or steadfast love. Not to say these are errors but man had to choose the word to use. Only the manuscripts are inspired by God. I’m not against the KJV but it’s similar to translation issues even found in the critical text translated bibles.
@@tjmaverick1765
There are MANY errors in the KJV of the Bible. But people who want to follow their own way will do so to their own destruction.
KJV for me is the best, but it has errors. You're being delusional for deeming KJV has no error.
Best to just stay with one English translation. Too much time is wasted bouncing back and forth
Not in the opinion of the KJV translators or those endowed with wisdom
Brother, all your doing is running in circles, confusing yourself, and others. The King King James is the only correctly translation from the Received Text which is from the old scrolls the apostles and early Christians used. All other Translations remove Words, Scripture, which all take away from the Deity of Christ and Salvation. If you can't understand the King James all you have to do is keep reading it and pray for understanding, it will come to you. It was written when the English Language was at it's most perfect state by people whom were more well educated on the Translation from Hebrew and Greek. In addition there's lots of Biblical Code involving the King James.
Correct!
False. The Catholic Church and politics corrupted the KJV. The only “correct” version of the Bible are in the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, languages. If you are not reading the Bible in its original languages, you’re not reading the preserved version……….
How cultish does that sound. You Kjv onlyers are very cult minded. Also it is proven with original manuscripts that the Kjv was very corrupted. So.
There’s that.
The Apostles did not use the Textus Receptus- It did not exist Erasmus compiled it in 1516. In all Christian love, please do some objective research for yourself. We all need to be very careful of attributing things from God and/or the Holy Spirit to satan- Some believe doing so to be the unpardonable sin. The well- received newer translations absolutely DO NOT take away or lessen the Deity of Christ! If you’ll take the time to actually study than, you will know this. Nothing wrong with using the KJV if that’s what you prefer but this bashing of accurate & faithful modern translations such as the NASB & NIV needs to stop!
@@mfleming3911 as soon as they restore all of God's words back into the scriptures I will stop, but not until then!
Many words, phrases, and verses have been purged out of the scriptures!
@@mfleming3911 the first century apostles recorded the words of God to be translated in the traditional text