Look into the new versions. They are now published online and are clearly corrupted. If you would like to find the evidence I'll be glad to steer to were you can find the evidence.
@user-kc7xk6wy2ztranslation footnotes can shake your faith absolutely. That's why more people should be educated on how translations actually work and be told why they shouldn't be discouraged.
@@fishersofmen4727 My Bible doesn't have footnotes, commentaries, or any of that "satanic garbage". It's a BIBLE, not a spiritual kingpins spin on the Bible. I don't open my Bible to read some mans interpretation of scripture. 2 Peter 1:20 KJV is deeply settled in my spirit decades ago. "Know this FIRST, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation"
That is a wrong understanding of what footnotes do and what they are which is wrong and misleading. When one understands the Alexandrian source text is leavened and used as acceptable source text for Bible then you know trtuh of matter and which Bible is the genuine one.
The King James translators did not tie us to one version. In 'The Translators To The Reader' under the heading 'Reasons Moving Us To Set Diversity of Senses in the Margin, where there is Great Probability for Each' they wrote: "Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that 'variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures': so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded." I take the Translators at they're word.
@@andypink5167 Paul, I know, Peter I know, James & John I know ....but who the heck is S. Augustine to make such statements...to get us away from the Bible they murdered millions for having in their own language. Naa ..I'll stick with the KJVl Bible... It brings out the devil in people.
@@roysammons2445 NKJV used the same ones. KJVO spread that isn't the case, but that is misinformation. They reference other manuscripts in the footnotes and what those might say.
@@andypink5167 So, do YOU have the "divine power" over "committing sin", as the KJV, insists all Christians have.....as being THE evidence of salvation. 1 John 3::9-10 KJV ...or are you touting unlimited grace TO commit wicked deeds, (in Christ) Including deeds that once mandated stoning him/her to death... ...first time, no. Ifs ands or buts?
I have tried to read the KJV, NASB, and NKJV Bibles. I like the NKJV the best. For me it's the easiest for me to comprehend, and understand. Now I only use the NKJV Bible. I love it
As a former KJVO who even taught the supremacy of the KJV I now realize that ignorance and tradition play a large part in holding that position. They want to hold to the old ways which in many areas is a good thing but they demonize other translations not because they are bad but because they are different. Then they find an actually bad translation (like the message) and act as if that proves their point. I like the NKJV primarily because of the clear and un-bias footnotes.
Look into the new versions. They are now published online and are clearly corrupted. If you would like to find the evidence I'll be glad to steer to were you can find the evidence
@@HeavyHeartsShow I believe the responder is referring to the congregations sitting under the teaching of their pastors and possibly the pastors themselves. Most of these individuals are sincere in their purpose but do not fully understand how the meaning of English words change over time. Also there is a lack of understanding of the original Bible manuscripts were written in other languages and sometimes there isn't an English word with the same exact meaning to use in our Bibles.
I went to a KJVO church once. Several people invited me in and told me I could have a seat. Not one of them said the me, "Comest thou in and findeth thy cathedra." My point? God's word has always been written in the language of the people (such as Koine, the common man's Greek). Jacobean English is not the present language of the English-speaking world. i want a Bible in my language, not one from a 400-year-old dialect.
Please watch David Daniels from Chick Tracts, he has good videos that will teach you that the newer Bibles do not say the same thing. You believe a lie like I used to, the newer versions are not just changing the words to "modern-day English". They are actually changing the word of God.
@@SilenceDogwood. Thank you for your questions. You asked 4 questions I will answer 1-4. 1. Yes millions and millions were saved before 1611 (KJV came out in 1611). 2 and 3. Yes, my Italian brothers and sisters are saved. Catholics on the other hand teach a different gospel. I do believe Catholics can get saved if they read a Bible that has enough of God's word in it, but believing what the Roman Catholic church teaches will not save you. I do not know if the Italians have a Bible so corrupted that it does not have any of God's word in it (sorry). 4. I never said that God only saves based on the KJV. Actually, David Daniels from Chick Tracts, sells Bibles in Spanish. I do not know you, but if you read English well and it is not difficult for you I would tell you to only read the KJV. If you do not read English well because it is a second language find an Italian Bible that comes from the Textus Receptus. If you want to understand why the newer Bibles do not all say the same thing watch David Daniels on YT. Also, in Italy the Roman Catholic Bibles do NOT come from the Textus Receptus. Please do everything you can to get away from the fake Catholic Bibles (it does not matter what language they are in). If you do not understand why we call them Catholic Bibles, do a search on YT or Watch David Daniels.
@@hikerbill9248 With respect, did you even watch the video? He played a clip from David Daniels and frankly, he comes across as disingenuous and arrogant, much like many KJVO people I've encountered. Again with respect, who are you to tell someone else that they believe a lie just because their preference is not the KJV? There is no problem with having a preference, but trying to undermine someone else's faith because they don't hold to yours only divides the church.
@@stephenwilson0386 how about you go and watch 50-100 videos from David Daniels and learn the truth about who he is and what he teaches. I spent well over 80 hours learning what they take out of the newer versions before I ever found David Daniels (and that was about 2 1/2 years ago). He speaks the truth. What you are not understanding is we know we have the word of God (the KJV) and we are trying to help you understand that your Bible is not the word of God. You have some of God's word but not all of it. Stephen, you know the ESV and NASB do not say the same things. Even the NASB and the NASB 1995 do not say the same things! I am not trying to "undermine" your faith or anyone else's...I am trying to help you in your walk. I used to use the fake versions and then our Lord saved me and showed me the truth. Swallow your pride and learn the truth about what your Bible adds and takes away. If you are saved our Lord will show you the truth. There are well over 250 "Bible" versions...do you think God is behind that? Of course NOT, that is the work of Satan! The truth will set your free, but you do not believe you have the truth because you think a better version can come out tomorrow. Spend 100 hours learning from people who understand that the KJV is the word of God and learn what Satan has removed and added to your version then come and talk with me. You might learn that a gay person helped write your Bible or a Catholic helped with your Bible, maybe a woman helped write your Bible. All of these things are true depending on what Bible you use!!! One of the main things dividing the church today is the "pastor" saying it does not matter what Bible you use and that we do not have the word of God because there can be a better version written tomorrow. Satan is building his church and he is using the newer versions to help him! I did not spend all of this time writing this post to bug you or to be rude...I spent my time trying to help you learn the truth. Please humble yourself and study this topic from people who know the KJV is the word of God.
@@MichaelTheophilus906 that's what the Roman Catholics taught you. The Roman Catholics killed the real Christians, do some research. Who do you think mystery Babylon is? Yup, the Roman Catholic church. Few there be that find it, that's what God's word teaches us. Today, there are 1.2 billion to 1.3 billion Roman Catholics in the world...does that sound like a few to you? I hope you are not Roman Catholic. Call no man father!!! Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
I am a King James guy, I wouldn't call myself an onlyist but close to it. I like the NKJV as an alternate; but the softening of words in so many modern translations is what bothers me most. Especially when it comes to sins that are publicly protected now that were not in 1611 or 1769....And yes tradition is important to me. I don't like the idea of throw out the old in favor of the new. I mean do we really need HCSB, ESV, LSB, MEV etc. It seems like we have gotten a gluttony of new translations in recent years mostly for profiting reasons. Another point in favor of the KJV is the Thee/Thou/Thine & Ye/You/Your pronouns make it more specific in all areas where they are written but specifically the Thee/Thou/Thine. I haven't seen any modern translation have distinction.
Mark Ward did a study on how many people don't get these correct, even when they think they do. If this is the main reason for the defense of a translation, I'd suggest more in depth study of textual criticism is desperately needed.
Most young Americans today are quite borderline 'literate' compared to generations past. They don't read literature, don't read much at all. If KJV was difficult for some readers in decades past, it's nearly incomprehensible for younger generations today who have been taught more about LGBTQxxx, Racism, Social Justice, and all that garbage rather than the three R's. Watching them try to make sense of KJV Bible is pitiful and for many, a deal-breaker. So you can remain purists and watch your faith wither in younger generations if you insist they use KJV because they'd rather just put on Netflix or TH-cam.. or XBox.
Nice! I'm looking at picking up their single column reference Bible soon! So excited. That'll give me the NIV, esv, KJV, and now nkjv, too. Should be good for cross referencing for over all understanding.
I love footnotes. The more footnotes a translation has the better. It actually shows honesty of the translators. It also enhances the accuracy of the overall translation in my opinion.
While I love footnotes as well, it has nothing to do with being better. In fact, footnotes are opinions. No matter what, all translations have some bias since we don't have the original (some are better than others obviously). We read and study the bible based on faith. We don't KNOW that the bible is the word of God but we have FAITH that the bible is the word of God.
@@thomasc9036 Even if we only had a single source text we'd still have opinions in our translations; it's an unfortunate truth that when anything is translated into another language sometimes connotations are lost or added. One reason I value footnotes in biblical translations is because it is the translators acknowledging this fact by saying, "We really think the best translation is the one we've used in the text, but we're only human and so out of an abundance of caution we feel compelled to tell you [example] may be a better translation of this word." They condense that idea down into the much more concise "or".
@@MM-jf1me Even that is being generous. Take the ESV translation as an example. ESV was pushed by Wayne Grudem and other conservative pastors/theologians due to what was perceived as theological liberalism within RSV. The ESV team gathered conservative scholars to translate the Bible. The end result is that ESV is now preferred by most moderate to conservative churches ( I use ESV, btw). We are all biased but being biased is not necessarily bad. The reality is that there were no dictionaries in the first century and words can mean many things and be understood differently based on the context. Even footnotes contain bias.
@@thomasc9036 It would depend on what kind of footnote we're talking about in whether it's an opinion. Some footnotes are textual footnotes;meaning there are multiple possibilities on how a certain word or phrase can be worded. There are also variant footnotes which show what alternate manuscripts said. Those kind wouldn't be an opinion but rather fact based. I find it more of an honest approach to translational work.
@@joesteele3159 And those alternative words are opinions too. Take the word "virgin" for Mary which in Hebrew is "almah". Greek Septuagint translated this word to "parthenos" which is a a maiden who had not known a man. However, Hebrew word can be "young woman/maiden" or "virgin". The Bible translators chose "virgin" to fit the context, but there are Bible translations that use "young woman/maiden" as well.
I'm not a "KJV only" man, but I was skeptical of the New King James Version when it first came out. I felt it was kind of like an "updated" version of Shakespeare. How do you update a classic? In fairness, the KJV has been through revisions before. About thirteen years ago, I was preparing some responsive readings for our Christmas Eve service. I wanted to preserve the beauty or the KJV, but avoid some of the more obscure words. I gave the NKJV a try. Since then, it was become one of my favorite translations. It preserves the poetic style of the KJV, but it's more readable.
When I was young in my faith, I didn’t know what the Italicized words were for. I thought they were to make emphasis on the word, but it’s been many years and now I know.
The NKJV is my favorite modern Bible translation, followed by the NASB, and then by the ESV. I wish the KJV / NKJV parallel bible would come back into print. For me personally, reading them side by side is the best personal bible study experience. The footnotes in the NKJV are very useful. I first bought a copy in the 1980s and fell in love. I want to know the Majority Text, LXX, Vulgate, Critical Text, Targums, and other readings while I study. I really wish a 4 translation Parallel Bible with the KJV, NKJV, NASB and ESV would be published. The best I can find is KJV, NKJV, NIV, and NLT. I never liked the NIV, and I personally won't use the NLT for anything. But, That's the one I may have to purchase if I want to go to a rural area with no internet access, which means no Bible Gateway. Despite my preferences, I would never criticize anyone for using a translation I don't prefer.
*sigh The new King James not only has a satanic symbol on its binder but it changes the word hell into hades, making it a Jehovah Witness Bible get away from the new King James quickly
@@ryanmozert Both of those claims are false. "Hades" is an accurate translation of the original texts, and the symbol is a triquetra representing the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. You're either grossly mistaken or lying.
@@ryanmozertThe NKJV does not change the word of God. It translates the word Hades correctly. The KJV is wrong. Also not a Satanic symbol on the NKJV. But represents the Trinity as taught in scripture. More wilful ignorance from a KJV only cultist.
Scholarship doesn't lead one to doubt, but points to the gift of intellect and learning that God gives us. It's a pity there are some fragile folks who are fearful of the knowledge that a deeper understanding and education of our Bible's translation history brings. It is a blessing! We have a literal treasure trove of manuscript evidence for God's word, so why one anyone think this leads to doubting God's word? If such folks feel this knowledge is somehow leading one to doubt, then that is a faith issue... and an intellectual problem.
I switched from KJV to HCSB years ago. One thing I like is that it updates hell as the grave or as a landfill or as actual hell. I also like that they capitalize when God is speaking. That alone has helped me in bible study greatly. After studying Hebrew and Greek for years, I came to the realization that it I'd incredibly hard to make an English translation. The KJV isn't perfect and neither are all the others because we are translating into English. English and Greek are worlds apart.
KJV is the perfect word of God refined 7 times in a furnace of earth.. Hope you will look into it and find your version robs Jesus of his Deity..Look at missing and changed verses and find the theme
@@blainvance409The NIV is far stronger on the deity of Christ than the KJV. Probably the reason that Satan who is behind the KJV only cult hates it so much. Also look at all those added uninspired verses in the KJV. Because it was translated from later manuscripts dedicated to the Pope with all those added uninspired verses added by uninspired scribes. Nothing perfect or inspired about the KJV. No matter what circular reasoning and outrageous lies the KJV only cult say.
I literally laughed out loud at the excuse he used for the King James Bible footnotes. I would’ve loved to hear his excuse for the KJV translator’s preface to the reader and their admission that there were several words that didn’t know the meaning of. Let, alone everything else they said in their honest, transparent preface. The KJV translators would’ve been appalled at the KJV onlyists.
I am not a KJV onlyist either, but have come to appreciate it more. The Humble Lamb has the meaning of the archaic word in the foot notes (very handy) and I have the KJV Study Bible that has a dictionary in the back of the archaic words, so it's right there, but less handy. If the NKJV speaks to the believer, as other versions sometimes do, I do not resent anyone using another version. However, I have learned to do deeper Bible study with more than one version, two or three together sometimes. I as a believer appreciate anything that helps someone come to Christ as their Saviour. It will get sorted out somehow, and God will see to that.
The problem with the KJV isn't so much the obsolete words, it's the words that are still used today but mean something completely different than they did in 1611. And there are a lot of them
@@flintymcduff5417 True. I love the English language, and could possibly learn the meanings back then. Then again, I just use the NKJV and it helps along with it. Or another modern version, perhaps. The NET with notes helps even more.
@@MusicalMedley2 Please watch David Daniels from Chick Tracts, he has good videos that will teach you that the newer Bibles do not say the same thing. You believe a lie like I used to, the newer versions are not just changing the words to "modern-day English". They are actually changing the word of God.
@@hikerbill9248 I have heard that about new versions and when I came across a video of a KJV onlyist, he proved the new versions (esp, NIV) was saying the opposite of what the KJV said. 😪
That’s awesome thanks for the tips … I’ve ordered a Humble Lamb KJV and a KJV study bible as well. I always want to have KJV on hand to preserve the historical versions. But for my “bread and butter” I use NKJV and NASB95 as they are clearer. I do like the KJV language as it’s more poetic.
Grew up KJVO but over the last 2 to three years softened and looked a little into it and cannot stand by the KJVO position. I now use the NASB as my main with the KJV and the CSB
Look into the new versions. They are now published online and are clearly corrupted. If you would like to find the evidence I'll be glad to steer to were you can find that evidence. IM not KJVO but it is a reliable Bible.
Were you aware many of the footnotes in the KJV refer to the Apocrypha, something the KJO crowd does NOT believe is inspired. If the KJV is the "perfect" translation, why does it cross reference a non-canonical writing? It might as well cross reference the Book of Mormon.
@@whoavadis1984 In most cases they came from The Book of Enoch or The Book of Jubilees. Which were maintained in Orthodox monasteries before we found them in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Book of Jubilees was one of the most numerous manuscripts showing its importance. These books were also maintained in the Ethiopian Orthodox tradition as well as part of their Bible.
Thanks Tim. I understand those that prefer the KJV. Nothing wrong with that, but when people say "All other translations are from the Devil", well, that's what bothers me. You make an excellent point especially on word meanings. I personally prefer the NKJV because I prefer how it reads. For some reason, this old brain of mine has trouble with Elizabethan English. I do have a KJV Bible and read it from time to time, but I also read from my NKJV, NASB and ESV.
Please watch David Daniels from Chick Tracts, he has good videos that will teach you that the newer Bibles do not say the same thing. They are actually changing the word of God.
@Nick-wn1xw Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it's not true. You should really study the topic and get away from your Catholic Bibles. Have you watched at least 30 hours of David Daniels' videos, or did you just make an ignorant comment? The truth is out there, we can not make you believe it.
Your examples using the italics is a very weak one. There’s a big difference between using italics and trying to tell somebody what the translation means in footnotes
@@hikerbill9248 a “Catholic Bible” would be a Bible with the deuterocanon in it. Whether you like the modern versions is one thing, but it’s incorrect to call them Catholic if they have a Protestant canon in them.
@@samueljennings4809exactly! They aren't Catholic at all. They don't state to worship Mary or the saints, they don't state the rosary, they don't state any of the unbiblical blasphemies that the Catholic Church STILL preaches. 🤷 Dont look like Catholic Bibles to me.
Most of the arguments I see for KJV only are nonsensical. A word changes and they act like the whole meaning is different and people can't understand the entire Bible. I literally saw people citing examples between KJV and nkjv and while wording and sentence structure changed a little, the meaning was exactly the same. Further, there are manuscripts new translations use that KJV doesn't and some verses weren't there. So some of the verses in KJV not in newer translations could literally have been notes by the transcribers. Further, the English translations before KJV had verses KJV left out because those translators thought they weren't authentic. At the end of the day are you going to quibble over a synonym or share the faith that Jesus Christ is the Son of God the Father, who lived the law and was the perfect sacrifice on the cross for all of mankind. Through the blood of Jesus and His resurrection, conquering death, we are redeemed. He is the only way to the Father and eternal life.
The 1611 original also contained the Apocrypha albeit at the back to set it apart from the inspired, canonical books. However, the KJV Onlyists conveniently don't tell us this. They do have a knack of tripping themselves up with their arguments against other versions and even those like the NKJV based on the exact same set of manuscripts .
The reality is that we have zero original documents. All translations are made from copies. Today there are more manuscripts available then there were when the KJ was published. Footnotes can point out differences in the manuscripts and explain alternate word choices. The Scriptures were copied by human beings. That was God’s choice. Comparing the Book of Isaiah in your Bible with the great Isaiah scroll found at Qumran demonstrates that differences are few and minor. No Bible printed in English is original.
It true that the original autographs not existing that's true. As far more manuscript being available today then when the KJV was published. That's something we don't actually know and have no good way of knowing. That's all modern speculation and conjecture nobody found a time machine and took a survey of all the manuscripts they had in the 15 and 1600s. The was published shortly after the advent of the printing press which was the last time hand written manuscripts were read in Churches. Yet it is assumed we have more manuscripts. Also there was a massive fire in London that destroyed many manuscripts and most of the translation records of the KJV.
@@stephenlee7183 The KJV was over 400 years ago. Manuscripts were lost then too. Also people in the modern believe they have a lot manuscripts and then presume that everyone before them a had very few, but manuscripts are lost and rediscovered to this day. Just because we find a manuscript doesn't mean we are the only ones to ever lay our eyes on them. In the book Myths and Mistakes of textual criticism they state there are at least 50 to 100 hundred manuscripts that know exist that they have no idea where they are now. Also the average of the extant Greek manuscripts today is about 12th century. In the book 1 John v7 vindicated which was published around 1801 or 1821 they reference the average age of the extant manuscripts of their day as being 12th Century as well. So if we really found mountains of more manuscripts then people centuries before had then you would except the average age of the manuscripts to move in one direction or the other, but in at least 200 to 220 years the average age of the manuscripts hasn't moved at all.
@@Derby_City_Dasher there were thousands of manuscripts found in Cairo in the 1800s. There were about 200 OT manuscripts found at at Qumran in 1947. These would have all been individually copied. I don't know what you mean that manuscripts are lost and then found.
@@stephenlee7183 That's a myth. There is only about 137 New Testament Papyri and their mostly fragments. There is not thousands of New Testament Papyri maybe if you include the secular Papyri finds you can get in the thousands then. Also there really is nothing special about Papyri it's just a writing material that they've been using in Egypt. So we shouldn't assume were the first ones outside of Egypt to ever lay our eyes on a scrap Papyri.
Among some KJV Onlyists there is a belief that God *reinspired* the KJV text in 1611, by telling the translators what to write, and that therefore the KJV supersedes all previous texts. (For example, Peter Ruckman pushed this idea.)
And this re-inspiration doctrine runs directly counter to the views of the translators themselves who in their preface referred to their 1611 translation as the word of God even with its imperfections and blemishes (their words).
@@sigeberhtmercia767 - And what's more, they weren't KJV Onlyists! In the Preface to the Reader, which should be printed in every KJV, they boldly proclaim that even the "meanest" (worst) translation "containeth the Word of God, nay, IS the Word of God." They illustrate this with the example of a speech by the King (James, of course) being translated into other languages; even though it may not be as elegant, or contain an EXACT translation of what the King said, it is still the King's speech. In essence, they were dynamic equivalence-leaners: one notable example is where the KJV translators had it that the two thieves crucified with Christ "cast the same into his teeth," whereas the Greek simply says that they "abused" Him.
The modern KJV is the 1769 Blayney Revision, where Dr. Benjamin Blayney was commissioned to correct the 1611 KJV, and he explicitely stated he consulted the original hebrew and greek to make large corrections.
I am giving you a standing ovation on this. Excellent job explaining the issue with KJ only belief. The KJV will always be in my heart and is so special to me. And I use it for comparison in my Bible studies. I use several versions when I am truley studying and learning Bible doctrine. Bu I never really sit down and just read it anymore. It is so much harder to grasp the meanings, due to what you said. Not only the words are different from our language, the sentence structure makes it more difficult too, sometimes. I go to a church that many in it is KJV only. Our beloved late pastor was KJV only. But I take my NKJV with me to church. Because it is a great compromise. It is so very much like the KJV that ai can still keep up. My favorite study version is ESV. Which is kind of difficult to keep up when the KJV is being taught and preached out of. None of this bothers me. I love our church and my church family. I don’t care if they are KJV only or not.
The KJV translators refute the “ignore the or” in their letter to the readers. On the subject of their use of marginal notes, they actually said a wise reader would want to see the alternate renderings. For the record I am a KJ guy but I refer to other translations to clarify difficult passages.
@Nick-wn1xwThe KJV translators refute KJV onlyism completely. Why do the KJV only cultists think they know better? Pride, arrogance, and total ignorance.
Great job in explanation and your perspective. That's why, as you expressed in the past, that I have several different translations to compare thought and reasoning when studying. I do use the most literal translations to base study.
Thank you for giving insights into differences between the KJV and NKJV that lead to a clearer understanding of each. I can speak to the KJV as I purchased a Cambridge Pitt Minion bible with a Morocco leather cover in June 1963. I still have that bible and it remains in excellent condition. The New King James has become a favorite of mine.
Ty Tim for all videos covering different Bible versions. Kjv only came up in Bible study recently. I have seen some versions are using neutral genders though. God we need You John 3;16
I love my KJV Bible. It’s my first Bible when God got a hold of me as a young believer in a KJV only church. I learned so much there and always thankful for that. I’d like to know if there is a modern translation made with as much care as the KJV and from the same manuscript? I’ve not found one as beautifully written. I also believe you need to use something like the Webster’s 1828 dictionary to get a better understanding of what the old words used to mean.
I keep thinking of Richard Knox’s notes to his translation of the Latin Vulgate and he addresses textual issues and problematic readings in certain passages. He doesn’t ignore them or pretend they don’t exist. That’s what an honest biblical scholar and man of God does; looks for the truth and in the truth, one’s faith is strengthened! You don’t have to be a Catholic to find a questioning mind answers your most important questions. Only fools act like no doubt in life is the essence of true faith because let’s leave the Bible to one side. There will come an event in one’s life that will shake your certainties and throw your faith into question. Its happened to all of us and religious believers know the world is an unfair place and there are aspects of human existence that are dark. God may know all time and hold the keys to the truth but human beings are mortal and we build the truth one brick at a time in every generation. The quest for ultimate truth will probably be unfinished, as long as human beings exist. KJO are right we have doubts but as I hope I’ve made clear, they’re part and parcel of a much larger story that began long we were born and which will continue long after we’re no longer here.
Hi Tim, I use the KJV and am able to read it well, but some of the words are difficult to understand even as an English speaker from England originally from North Yorkshire. I am trying to decide which translation to get and use for better understanding/ I do enjoy reading the KJV though.
I see no problem at all with a NKJV Bible. It's my favorite version, and easy for me to understand. Besides, I got saved and read the NLT version, and I promise you I wasn't less obedient to God, or less moral just because I read an NLT bible for 4 years before I switched to a NLJV Bible. But it's funny how I no longer like the NLT version because it's too simplified for me. Hahaha! 😂 NKJV and NIV are all I read now. I'm just SO thankful I have a Bible to know more about how to live for the glory of God! 🙌🙌 God bless everyone! ❤️❤️🙏🙏✝️✝️
I don't think you understood his argumentation of why you can ignore the KJV footnotes and not the NKJV footnotes. So I don't believe there is a double standard. Furthermore, I don't think two manuscripts found in the 1800s (NU) should carry as much weight as the Majority Text (M). If God preserved his word, and you want to accept these newly discovered manuscripts, then there was a gap of about 1800 years before he did so.
I believe that our Lord meant what He said and said what He meant. He chose certain words and phrases for His message that we all know and love, such as "Go and sin no more", ""Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's". Of particular importance though were the words and phrases that our Lord chose to emphasize through repetition, or re-iteration. He was basically saying "This is very important!" So in those passages in the gospels, particularly in John's gospel, there are many places where Jesus said "Amen, amen, I say unto you", Jesus knew how to say what He wanted to say and He chose His words carefully, fully inspired by the Holy Ghost. Some translations, such as the Douay Rheims, chose to leave it in the original language, since we all understand what "Amen" means. Other translations correctly translated it as "Verily, verily" or "Truly truly", which are also accurate and easily understandable. So why in their hubris did the NKJV translators think that they knew how to say it better than the Lord? They chose to paraphrase "Amen amen" as "Most assuredly". Most assuredly I can tell you that is not what our Lord said. It always gauls me to read their paraphrase of inspired Scripture. Choosing to paraphrase some of the most crucial, important sayings of the Lord instead of a straight, over the counter and accurate translation of His words was totally unnecessary.
And now dating myself, I remember when Billy Graham started using the NKJV and did it without excuse. Being raised on KJV, using it and a man I greatly admired didn't seem to find fault with the NKJV. Multiple versions help me in understanding but I'm a bit picky about which I use.
Well stated position! Thank you for your response. As a newier student to faith...our Christian brothers and sister need to stop with this "onlyisim" as it goes against 2 Timothy 3:16-17. We should be begin with prayer and ask the Holy Spirit to help teach us what we read which falls in line with Matthew 11:15.
Bring back the Geneva Bible! I regularly switch between translations such as NKJV, ESV, KJV, and NASB 95&20..I love these the most. In my layman non-scholarly opinion: NKJV is the best. NASB and ESV is a close second. I really do want to read through a physical Geneva though (with the Reformers footnotes)
I remember watching a video with the speaker in the video clip you included in this video entitled New King James Version the Marijuana of Bibles if I'm not mistaken.Thanks for making this video one of those I have been waiting for you to make knowing you are balanced and not biased and critical of those whom you disagree with regarding the King James Version issue.So i m now"addicted" to the NKJV the Marijuana of Bibles and also to NASB,NIV,NLT and ESV.Do you think I need to be rehab?Just kidding.By the way you mentioned something about footnotes,I read in some site that if I understand correctly is the footnote of Exodus 1 in the Geneva Bible that push King James of England to order a new Bible translation to replace the Geneva Bible and this translation is without footnotes.
Great job Tim. Even before Erasmus the Receptus Textus had to be translated. Really great point on "false friends," I was in this very conversation a couple of weeks ago and couldn't remember the term. I doubt the conversation will come up again, but if it does I don't think I will forget it.
My current Bible is KJV and ESV (and hoping to start on LSB), and I miss NKJV, as it has special place in my heart and has just the right balance on all account, compared to all other modern translations (ESV, NIV84, NASB, HCSB, CSB, ...).
I'm a majority text guy and love the New King James, and my opinion is based off of what i think the manuscripts attest to not because its somehow perfect, it doesnt need to be perfect and was never said it had to be perfect.
I love and use both. The KJV was THE BIBLE when I was growing up. The language required you to “dig deeper “ for understanding. Since I do not read Hebrew or Greek, I as well as many others have to rely on translation of men to try to understand God’s Word. Thank God that Jesus returned to the Father and sent the Holy Spirit to teach us His Word. The Holy Spirit is the author and the author can help us understand if we seek His help 😇🙏
KJVO needs to go. Not the translation. Modern Translation Onlyism also needs to go. I mostly read the KJV, but appreciate the directness of modern translations. But the KJV stays on my mind and grips my attention the most.
I think if you choose kjv as your preferred Bible, great. However, the kjv only crowd seems to veer into fundamentalist legalism. The kjv does not equal the autographs. Imo, the closest we can get to the autographs is the majority text. If you have an nkjv you can make it very close to majority text with the footnotes. I use three translations- kjv, nkjv, and nasb. This seems to give me a well rounded approach
I use a KJV, I like the verse by verse format which is also in the NKJV. The only item I do not like in modern translations is the paragraph format which I believe makes them harder to read and compare.
The New King James Version footnotes have caused me to want a copy of the New King James Version, in fact, I just ordered one! I think that was a wonderful idea and just another tool I can use.
Unfortunately Cambridge did NOT include ALL notes AND references in TOPAZ bible. Schuyler DOES I understand.. but they are sold OUT. I DO have a Nelson PREMIER in NKJV. Which are very nice and HAVE lots of notes and references.
My first bible was a KJV and I had a very difficult time understanding the out dated language, so I bought a NKJV. I loved that I didn't have to keep a 1828 Webster Dictionary beside me to while reading it. Although I now primarily use the ESV, I still love the NKJV and refer to it and other translations often. As always the KJVO man you featured made illogical and contradictory arguments about the footnotes.
As someone who reads the KJV, and bases my life and doctrine on its words, and teaches others--I can tell you some of my concerns with the NKJV, which others may also feel to be barriers, but this is just my personal, short list. 1. I fully believe the Textus Receptus is what God has used to keep His word available to mankind. I do not hold any real faith in the other sources (such as Alexandrian and the others used in what's become known as the Critical Text method), for the usual reasons that most adherents to the TR hold. The problem with the NKJV is that, even though commonly excluded passages in the CT are actually included, the brackets and footnotes cast more doubt on their validity than they actually present them as the word of God. It casts doubt on God's authority and reliability. And in that same vein, as a "new" King James Version, is this truly a retranslation of the texts used for the KJV, or isn't it? If they don't trust the sources used for the KJV, they shouldn't have put "KJV" in the title. 2. The NKJV doesn't simply update the language, and in fact, in some places, it completely changes the meaning. I'll give two examples; one is unnecessarily confusing and the other is potentially doctrine changing. The first is Genesis 17:7, where it changes "seed" to "descendants". Paul calls back to this scripture to prove that Jesus is God and God's promise came through Jesus in Galatians 3:16 (where it is rendered as "seed"). Paul makes a point of how "seed" is singular, not plural. Well, if you're studying your Bible and you come across that, you'll ignorantly wonder when God said had these things. Not only is it wrong (the Hebrew word IS actually "seed"), but why was the choice made to marginally simplify the word at the detriment of full understanding of the related scripture? What benefit was there in changing it to "descendents"? The second scripture is more serious. Acts 19:2 in the KJV says, "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?" The NKJV says, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit WHEN you believed?" That is a big difference, doctrinally. If you base your life doctrine on the NKJV, every believer should expect to be baptized in the Holy Ghost, evidenced by speaking in tongues (as shown in several passages), the moment they accept Christ as Savior, and if you haven't you are not saved. But the KJV renders it more accurately as "SINCE you believed". You are still to desire the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and speak in tongues, but it doesn't put the time limit on it. This openness of time is also shown in Acts 8:14-17 with the believers who had been baptized in water, but had not received the Holy Ghost yet. I had to ask someone who knows and studies Greek about this, because I saw the great difference, and that once the CT became popular, nearly every Bible version made renders it as "when". He showed in the Greek grammar how it could actually go one way or the other, but concluded with this: "If there were no theological issues at stake, 'after you believed' would probably be the more common translation of this passage." 3. The capitalization of the second "he" in 2 Thessalonians 2:7. As far as I can tell, there is no indication to have that capitalized. By doing so, it deifies whomever the "he" is. If you have concluded that this verse is talking about the presence of the church hindering Antichrist, this makes no sense. So that's my short list, but really, the first two are enough for me. The implied lack of faith in the TR and the unnecessary and less-than-accurate renderings are enough for me not to base my life on the NKJV, and especially not teach others from it. Given these examples, I feel that the publishers were more interested in easy of readability than they were about accuracy or doctrine. When they made it, did they expect churches to base their doctrine on it? Is it reliable enough for a church to teach the deep-down, nitty-gritty of scripture to its people? Or are they expected to stay surface level with this text? I think teachers will have to turn to more reliable resources for deeper questions and studies. It may be fine for someone who only occasionally reads, but any deeply dedicated minister, teacher, or leader will find problems in its renderings. Ok, all done. :)
What do you mean the NKJV changes meaning? Also no doctrine is changed in the NKJV. Many of the words in the KJV have changed meaning. Which is why God has blessed us with more accurate modern translations. Also where is the evidence that the KJV got it always right.
The best benefit of the KJV is what most people complain about...the use of thee, thou, thine and ye. The translators used these for a reason and it wasn't because they were the words in common use because they weren't. That being said, I do like reading the NKJV.
I am not a KJV Onlyists, but one thing I prefer about the KJV(and most translations up the original ASV) is the use of the singular second person pronouns thou/thee/thy/thine to distinguish from the plural second person pronouns you/ye/your/yours. KJV Onlyists and Ruckmanites in particular have a very cult-like mentality, they defend things like Easter instead of passover in Acts 12:4 and atonement instead of reconciliation in Romans 5:11.
Doubt leads me to seek the original language (the work of someone who knows the origin languages) doubt leads to seeking, ignorance leads to sickness. My hope is a modern English version as close to literal as understandably possible. Possible? Probably not without theological bias, maybe the LSB or EHV(viewed today) or CSB or MEV, I don't know. My translation of choice is NKJV because of the footnotes, truth is, there's too many. I sometimes refer to NLT footnotes because they seem to be very transparent, go figure. I have the common basics (hardcopies) numerous versions, strongs exhaustive concordance, vine's expository dictionary, matt Henry's commentary and recently acquired an Analytical Concordance by R Young 8th edition (1939) rp1956 in an OpShop (I don't know what it is but its bigger than my strongs concordance). So I have the basic survival kit for offline survival. Just gotta unplug from all this madness now. Thanks Tim.
I have used the NKJV for some 30 years, but happily refer to many other versions. Lots of reference books use the KJV, I notice, which is not surprising for mostly older tomes. A favourite tool is my NKJV Greek interlinear. I also have never understood why KJV-only people dislike the NKJV, since you’d expect they’d like it for being closest, and just slightly modernised. I live in England. One objection I’ve heard has nothing to do with the textual issues or style. It is that Thomas Nelson suggests the NKJV is an ‘official’ fifth edition of the KJV, so they have effectively commercialised an ancient text to turn it into a multi-million dollar business. I can’t comment on the company’s motives. Another small issue for us Brits is the US spellings, although there are British-English spelling editions available. When the NKJV was first published, it was published here with the title “Revised Authorised Version (RAV)”. The only other criticism I’ve heard is that, by losing the ye, thee, thou, etc. the NKJV makes it harder to distinguish between singular and plural. Personally, I don’t mind since ‘you’ is current usage; it just requires a small effort to check which is singular or plural if it affects the meaning of a verse or passage. I’ve just bought my first ESV and look forward to reading it. I’m surprised it doesn’t use italics for ‘extra’ words, but I can see the logic of doing that to not distract. Personally, I’m so familiar with the italic words in the NKJV and KJV that it doesn’t distract me, and I find it useful sometimes.
10:36 - My thoughts exactly. If your faith is shattered based on footnotes, or the possibility that the KJV translators didn’t perfectly bring us a work from the hand of God himself, then your faith is built on sand and praise God for many folks who end up coming out of this movement realizing how much greater their faith can be, because there are many who leave this movement with no faith at all because of the misinformation and almost cult like behaviors. It pains me to know that many of these brothers and sisters will go to their grave fighting a false battle.
Because they are essentially a cult. Meaning, they must not change or they're out of the cult! In their view, footnotes introduce error. In other's view, footnotes introduce information.
That clip you played was just totally disheartening. The original 1611 King James did indeed have footnotes in it. And so did the 1769 memory serves correct
I was never a strict KJVO, had other translations, didn't mind if others read different translations, but the KJV was always "my Bible". I use to believe the stuff from KJVO people like David Daniel's, Sam Gipp, & others. But then I started looking into some of their claims against the NKJV and found them to be false or taken completely out of context. I will always love reading the KJV (been reading it since I was 7) but the NKJV is now my daily reading, studying, & evangelizing translation. But if I had to pick just 1 translation I would choose Noah Webster's The Common Version from 1833 now known today as The Webster Bible. Great video Sir! 👍🏻
@@jwatson181 thank you for the recommendations James. I have an esv study Bible, but my favorite translation based off the NU texts is the An American Translation (AAT) also know as the Beck Bible. It was the first Bible I ever read cover to cover. Very easy to read. Thanks again.
*Is it true that a catholic monk named Jerome, (in early century 300A.D--400 A.D.?)....crossed out/deleted those missing texts that were translated into Latin by him in some monistary in Sinai foothills? (aka the critical text line) This subject is found in the back portion of my KJVER sword bible.* And then Tischindorf?...found them in a bible in waste basket that had been hidden for many centuries. Tish subsequently inserted those texts back into the bible as he was trying to translate the latin bible back into English or german so the people could read it themselves after 1,000 years in latin!
I am Majority/Byzantine Text Only and I like the NKJV using it as a companion for my Ryrie Study Bible which is in the KJV format. I also refer to Darby's Translation and the YLT and thinking about getting myself hard copies of the MEV and the old Geneva version (more accurate than the KJV).
@truebible Thanks for the recommendations Brother and will certainly keep these translations in mind. So glad, there's a lot more MT versions out there than what I first thought. Much blessing.
they also hate the MEV which is a DIRECT update of the KJV. in other words. the same text manuscripts behind the KJV was used for the MEV. all the MEV translators did was use the KJV as their base and updated the language as well as making it read easier then the NKJV.
I absolutely love the KJV Bible. But I am NOT KJV only. I enjoy other translations as well. The Lord has given me understanding in other translations. Sometimes if I'm stuck on a passage another translation will make it click for me.
I use a KJV/NKJV parallel for the rare occassions when I'm not sure of some word or sentence structure, by reading the NKJV equivalent I instantly get the gist of it. Then I push through with KJV to the best of my ability... until I run into some strange word again... I don't have endless hours to devote to my own research. I wasn't raised speaking 'Early Modern English' full of archaic and obsolete words and strange grammatical structures so rather unreasonable to think I can somehow (through divine intervention?)be sure I"m correctly understanding KJV. Admittedly, the more I read, the better it got and more confident I became. For that matter, when Bible is translated into foreign languages for missionary work, is it, for example, written and published in Archaic Chinese or 'Old Mandarin'? Mondern Mandarin speakers would have just as difficult a time as many of us have with KJV and would give up. Stop the nit-picking, it's the message that needs to be relayed, some of you who obsess over every letter, spelling and punctuation mark in KJV are as bad as the Rabbi's who devote their lives to mystical interpretation of hebrew characters in scripture. Yikes.
KJV margin of Luke 17:36: "This 36th verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies" that is equivalent to the NKJV note on 1 John 5:7: "NU, M omit the words from in heaven (v. 7) through on earth (v. 8). Only 4 or 5 very late mss. contain these words in Greek."
I was KJV only at one point, I still enjoy it, but I found myself comparing to other translation like the ESV, NIV, NASB etc because I was having trouble understanding as me looking up definitions of word constantly, it got to the point I was checking other translations so much that it finally dawned on my, why not just read the translation I actually understand fully?
Hi Tim, your spoke graciously and intelligently on this subject, and wish I could share it on my channel but know that I may not. But you nailed it beautifully and as a KJV bible reader all my life, I've really enjoyed the NKJV bible having had it only 2 years. The NKJV is wonderful and as I have said on my channel in bible reviews that "it is so King James!" I have even gone to the trouble of reading the Prefacer in the NKJV to better explain it for folks, and have read the entire Translators to the Reader very recently over 9 vids. And I only do this to assist others to understand what it is they are reading. I love the KJV and read it teh most, howeverI have told you before that KJVO's have called me "a heretic" for reading and promoting the NKJV even though they know I read the KJV too, but I think that thay may be easily confused and also have a strong need to be self-righteous and superior since this is the stance they consistently appear to take.
Please watch David Daniels from Chick Tracts, he has good videos that will teach you that the newer Bibles do not say the same thing. They are actually changing the word of God. Your friends that are telling you to get rid of the NKJV are trying to help you because you are in error. David Daniels has excellent videos teaching why you should not use the NKJV, he calls it "the bridge Bible".
If criticisms don't come from love, I'd simply ignore them. Jesus had only this one commandment, and yet a large portion of the community ignore it and attack each other. They are focused on the exact wording of the text (which all came through man's lenses anyway, not to mention it's a translation of a translation) instead of focusing on what's being preached - love. I'm not a Christian, so from an outsider point of view, I can see those guys as being in a cult. I don't think there's anything wrong with a cult, cuz I firmly believe anything that exists has value. I just hope these people are less critical of themselves and others because the way they attack you calling you a heretic shows to me that they are not loving and being loved. And this was not what Jesus intended. These guys seem similar to those who killed Jesus. Just my 2c.
@@Brian-uq6jm Yes, the Pharisees and Scribes who killed Jesus by getting Him convicted by Romans despite Jesus being sinless, they killed Him out of jealousy. Anyone who hates, is not of God. You are right, about God's love, and I pray that the Lord our God draws you close to Him for the gift of His grace of salvation.
@@artistocracy Thanks. I've been personally going through a spiritual awakening. I literally had a vision while I was awake where a holy figure (Buddha or Jesus, not sure) floated in front of me. This vision appeared twice and both times I was 100% conscious and awake. Both times it was viewed through my 3rd eye. The vision was so clear and crisp it was like 4K resolution if reality is just HD. I wonder what it meant. The gemstones on his clothes were so beautiful I've never seen something like that in this world. The weird part is I couldn't see his face despite how crystal clear that vision was. If you have had visions, you probably know what I mean. I've been exploring my spirituality. It has not been easy, and sometimes everything seems to fall apart in my life, but I've been able to release a lot of emotional baggage I accumulated in my life, and have finally accepted myself for who I really am for the first time in my life. The reason why I commented on your message was that I feel so deeply what the problem of those people who attack you. are. They are exactly like who I was. Deep down they don't accept their true self, and that's reflected in the outside world in this way. The scary part is, they don't realise it themselves. It takes a lot of self-reflection and meditation to be able to see that, at least for me. Anyway, I love watching your videos. Hope you are always in love and peace.
@@artistocracy I personally don't agree "Anyone who hates, is not of God". I think everyone is of God. However, I don't think such disagreement really matters, on the contrary, such contrast or difference in opinion is a thing of beauty. Anyway, I'll stop rambling. Much love, Brian
There's no double standard, stop twisting the his words. He's referring to the meaning and origins of the footnotes. There's one thing looking at a person who thinks there's a slight difference in meaning to people omitting or completely changing the text because they think it shouldn't be there. that's the whole point of confusing peoples thinking. The other thing is there are words in the NKJV that people don't know what they mean, I know because I have tested this out with NKJV readers. Words that in the KJV do make sense. The argument from a KJV reader is really the origins of manuscripts, there are two threads, Antioch or Alexandria. That is the real issue. If it really were the NKJV then it wouldn't add Alexandrian footnotes. I appreciate that you are trying to give a balanced view but you are not actually doing that. Almost forgot the italics: This is usually necessary when translating from one language to another because a word in one language may not have a corollary word in English and idiomatic expressions often do not easily move from one language to another. Hence, the words in italics are words which do not have any equivalence in the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek text. By adding these words, the translators’ goal was to make the meaning of the sentence clearer and produce a more readable translation that read smoothly, yet was true to the original. However, to make sure that the reader understood that these words were not in the manuscripts, they set them in italics. (For transparency the section on italics was taken from the King James Bible Research Council)
Interestingly, in 1 JN 2:23 the GENEVA BIBLE leaves off that last clause in that verse. And why? Because Tyndale didn't have it in there either. The GENEVA BIBLE followed the Tyndale tradition more closely than the KJV did.
@@gregb6469 And Bibles today are also translated from printed text. Your Bibles are translated from the Nestle Aland or the UBS which are also printed text. There is nobody sitting in a room with a giant roll of vellum translating Bibles. Not then not now not ever. No the NKJV did not use the very same text as the KJV. Yes they did use it, but they were not entirely faithful too it they departed from the Hebrew for readings in the LXX for example so it's not accurate to say they used the very same text.
@@gregb6469 All did was state the facts the NKJV was not entirely faithful to the text of KJV they departed the Hebrew for the LXX readings in many places and that all Bibles are translated from printed text. Sounds like something James White would say 'The KJV translators didn't have manuscripts, but printed text and therefore printed text don't count, but it's a fact that all Bibles are actually translated from printed text even to this day.
There not known to be added. They just signify they were supplemented from other sources than the available Greek manuscripts they used. There is no way to know they were added, because we likely have less than 1% of all the manuscripts Christianity ever had. That's the problem with trying to treat the Bible like science project it's gotta come down to the analogia fidei or rule of faith.
I don't like the nkjv because, like the other modern versions, it also changes words in the English to match the updated Greek and Hebrew from the Traditional text.
I use both KJV and NKJV, but prefer KJV. I think the only issue I ever had with NKJV is Eph 5:18 and dissipation where the KJV uses "excess" @AFrischPerspective could you give an example of some words that changed where we aren't aware of the change? "Gay" is not a good example as it is clear from the context what it is referring to.
Mark Ward is a joke! One good thing I will say about him, he will reply to you if you comment. He is leading people to hell...he is all about getting people away from God's word (the KJV). God has used the KJV for over 400 years! Now everyone wants to use a Catholic Bible! Yep, Satan is building his church, and he has hundreds of Bibles he will let you choose from.
The most common misused and ironic example: "*study* to show thyself approved", in response to the charge that the kjv is too hard to understand. This argument misunderstands the verse - "study" here means to be diligent, not to hit the books.
Fear, don’t be afraid. I understand that the changes in language is startling in just a few generations. The change of the Torah being translated into Greek so long ago was catastrophic I would imagine. Mostly… All I want in footnotes is a reference to other chapters and verses that are speaking on the same topic or showing where a prophecy was revealed in the OT/Torah and later on the NT shows where it was fulfilled. The biggest concern of mine is where these Canonical theologian’s have deleted verses or changed it so much from the original as Luther did , picking and choosing what he wanted to believe. Actually, I think Wycliff was very intent on translating to English with prayer and inspiration from God. We have had the Dead Sea Scroll being found that might shed light on some of the confusion of verses in question from the Bible. Personally I have many Bibles and I check some passages against several different ones when I’m studying. Remembering that the Bible did not have vowels and who knows when diacritical markings were added to aid in figuring out the correct word choices. And the chapter and verse demarcations were not there till the Bible was mass produced. So, don’t be so critical of variety or afraid of new vernacular changes that help with understanding. Buy a new Bible and keep your old one, even buy one of the new Jewish Messianic and a Catholic New American and do some research for yourself. You might be surprised God speaks to us all, to our souls and in our hearts in every language of the Earth, you think he excludes anyone from His TRUTH? It might be time for you to include anyone who crosses your path into your faith as you know it. Any Muslim needs to know of our LOVING GOD. Their god/Al’lah is NOT the same as Elohim/YHWH/Adonai/LORD. I will stop there on my thoughts on Islam. Be curious and open up your Christian revelation of God the Father.
If footnotes make you lose "faith" then you never had faith.
Look into the new versions. They are now published online and are clearly corrupted. If you would like to find the evidence I'll be glad to steer to were you can find the evidence.
@user-kc7xk6wy2ztranslation footnotes can shake your faith absolutely. That's why more people should be educated on how translations actually work and be told why they shouldn't be discouraged.
@@fishersofmen4727 My Bible doesn't have footnotes, commentaries, or any of that "satanic garbage".
It's a BIBLE, not a spiritual kingpins spin on the Bible. I don't open my Bible to read some mans interpretation of scripture.
2 Peter 1:20 KJV is deeply settled in my spirit decades ago. "Know this FIRST, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation"
@@DouglasNicholson-ff6epMy Buybull is better than your Buybull.
That is a wrong understanding of what footnotes do and what they are which is wrong and misleading. When one understands the Alexandrian source text is leavened and used as acceptable source text for Bible then you know trtuh of matter and which Bible is the genuine one.
The King James translators did not tie us to one version. In 'The Translators To The Reader' under the heading 'Reasons Moving Us To Set Diversity of Senses in the Margin, where there is Great Probability for Each' they wrote:
"Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that 'variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures': so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded."
I take the Translators at they're word.
Ahhhh but which manuscripts?
you see that is the point.
@@andypink5167 Paul, I know, Peter I know, James & John I know ....but who the heck is S. Augustine to make such statements...to get us away from the Bible they murdered millions for having in their own language.
Naa ..I'll stick with the KJVl Bible...
It brings out the devil in people.
@@roysammons2445 NKJV used the same ones. KJVO spread that isn't the case, but that is misinformation. They reference other manuscripts in the footnotes and what those might say.
They called the KJV “one principal good one [translation], not justly to be excepted against.” - see, Translators to the Readers, KJV Preface
@@andypink5167
So, do YOU have the "divine power" over "committing sin", as the KJV, insists all Christians have.....as being THE evidence of salvation. 1 John 3::9-10 KJV
...or are you touting unlimited grace TO commit wicked deeds, (in Christ) Including deeds that once mandated stoning him/her to death...
...first time, no. Ifs ands or buts?
I have tried to read the KJV, NASB, and NKJV Bibles. I like the NKJV the best. For me it's the easiest for me to comprehend, and understand. Now I only use the NKJV Bible. I love it
I also prefer the NKJV. But I also like the MEV and the KJVER (both Textus Receptus based).
I still like the RSV I grew up with although I also like the CSB and ESV.
It's a good one for sure. The new LSB is outstanding as well.
NKJV is probably the best translation out there.
Yep love the NKJV ❤
As a former KJVO who even taught the supremacy of the KJV I now realize that ignorance and tradition play a large part in holding that position. They want to hold to the old ways which in many areas is a good thing but they demonize other translations not because they are bad but because they are different. Then they find an actually bad translation (like the message) and act as if that proves their point.
I like the NKJV primarily because of the clear and un-bias footnotes.
Look into the new versions. They are now published online and are clearly corrupted. If you would like to find the evidence I'll be glad to steer to were you can find the evidence
Different is bad isn't it?
Especially when you are talking about The Bible.
@@roysammons2445 but taking words out is tho
@@scottsnyder7909You're spamming this exact comment everywhere. How pathetic.
@@SaneNoMore FOOTNOTES?
Clear and Unbiased?
That's how they got you away from the real Bible initially, by slipping in footnotes.
Boils down to low levels of education combined with high levels of indoctrination
Often with a dash of group think and pinch of tradition.
YES!!!
@@HeavyHeartsShow
I believe the responder is referring to the congregations sitting under the teaching of their pastors and possibly the pastors themselves. Most of these individuals are sincere in their purpose but do not fully understand how the meaning of English words change over time. Also there is a lack of understanding of the original Bible manuscripts were written in other languages and sometimes there isn't an English word with the same exact meaning to use in our Bibles.
I went to a KJVO church once. Several people invited me in and told me I could have a seat. Not one of them said the me, "Comest thou in and findeth thy cathedra." My point? God's word has always been written in the language of the people (such as Koine, the common man's Greek). Jacobean English is not the present language of the English-speaking world. i want a Bible in my language, not one from a 400-year-old dialect.
Please watch David Daniels from Chick Tracts, he has good videos that will teach you that the newer Bibles do not say the same thing. You believe a lie like I used to, the newer versions are not just changing the words to "modern-day English". They are actually changing the word of God.
@@SilenceDogwood. Thank you for your questions. You asked 4 questions I will answer 1-4.
1. Yes millions and millions were saved before 1611 (KJV came out in 1611).
2 and 3. Yes, my Italian brothers and sisters are saved. Catholics on the other hand teach a different gospel. I do believe Catholics can get saved if they read a Bible that has enough of God's word in it, but believing what the Roman Catholic church teaches will not save you. I do not know if the Italians have a Bible so corrupted that it does not have any of God's word in it (sorry).
4. I never said that God only saves based on the KJV. Actually, David Daniels from Chick Tracts, sells Bibles in Spanish.
I do not know you, but if you read English well and it is not difficult for you I would tell you to only read the KJV. If you do not read English well because it is a second language find an Italian Bible that comes from the Textus Receptus.
If you want to understand why the newer Bibles do not all say the same thing watch David Daniels on YT. Also, in Italy the Roman Catholic Bibles do NOT come from the Textus Receptus. Please do everything you can to get away from the fake Catholic Bibles (it does not matter what language they are in). If you do not understand why we call them Catholic Bibles, do a search on YT or Watch David Daniels.
@@hikerbill9248 With respect, did you even watch the video? He played a clip from David Daniels and frankly, he comes across as disingenuous and arrogant, much like many KJVO people I've encountered. Again with respect, who are you to tell someone else that they believe a lie just because their preference is not the KJV? There is no problem with having a preference, but trying to undermine someone else's faith because they don't hold to yours only divides the church.
@@stephenwilson0386 how about you go and watch 50-100 videos from David Daniels and learn the truth about who he is and what he teaches. I spent well over 80 hours learning what they take out of the newer versions before I ever found David Daniels (and that was about 2 1/2 years ago). He speaks the truth.
What you are not understanding is we know we have the word of God (the KJV) and we are trying to help you understand that your Bible is not the word of God. You have some of God's word but not all of it. Stephen, you know the ESV and NASB do not say the same things. Even the NASB and the NASB 1995 do not say the same things!
I am not trying to "undermine" your faith or anyone else's...I am trying to help you in your walk. I used to use the fake versions and then our Lord saved me and showed me the truth. Swallow your pride and learn the truth about what your Bible adds and takes away. If you are saved our Lord will show you the truth.
There are well over 250 "Bible" versions...do you think God is behind that? Of course NOT, that is the work of Satan! The truth will set your free, but you do not believe you have the truth because you think a better version can come out tomorrow. Spend 100 hours learning from people who understand that the KJV is the word of God and learn what Satan has removed and added to your version then come and talk with me. You might learn that a gay person helped write your Bible or a Catholic helped with your Bible, maybe a woman helped write your Bible. All of these things are true depending on what Bible you use!!!
One of the main things dividing the church today is the "pastor" saying it does not matter what Bible you use and that we do not have the word of God because there can be a better version written tomorrow. Satan is building his church and he is using the newer versions to help him!
I did not spend all of this time writing this post to bug you or to be rude...I spent my time trying to help you learn the truth. Please humble yourself and study this topic from people who know the KJV is the word of God.
@@MichaelTheophilus906 that's what the Roman Catholics taught you. The Roman Catholics killed the real Christians, do some research.
Who do you think mystery Babylon is? Yup, the Roman Catholic church.
Few there be that find it, that's what God's word teaches us. Today, there are 1.2 billion to 1.3 billion Roman Catholics in the world...does that sound like a few to you?
I hope you are not Roman Catholic. Call no man father!!!
Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
"footnotes never lead you to faith, footnotes lead you to doubt" might be one of the dumbest things i have ever heard.
I am a King James guy, I wouldn't call myself an onlyist but close to it. I like the NKJV as an alternate; but the softening of words in so many modern translations is what bothers me most. Especially when it comes to sins that are publicly protected now that were not in 1611 or 1769....And yes tradition is important to me. I don't like the idea of throw out the old in favor of the new. I mean do we really need HCSB, ESV, LSB, MEV etc. It seems like we have gotten a gluttony of new translations in recent years mostly for profiting reasons. Another point in favor of the KJV is the Thee/Thou/Thine & Ye/You/Your pronouns make it more specific in all areas where they are written but specifically the Thee/Thou/Thine. I haven't seen any modern translation have distinction.
Mark Ward did a study on how many people don't get these correct, even when they think they do. If this is the main reason for the defense of a translation, I'd suggest more in depth study of textual criticism is desperately needed.
Most young Americans today are quite borderline 'literate' compared to generations past. They don't read literature, don't read much at all. If KJV was difficult for some readers in decades past, it's nearly incomprehensible for younger generations today who have been taught more about LGBTQxxx, Racism, Social Justice, and all that garbage rather than the three R's. Watching them try to make sense of KJV Bible is pitiful and for many, a deal-breaker. So you can remain purists and watch your faith wither in younger generations if you insist they use KJV because they'd rather just put on Netflix or TH-cam.. or XBox.
@@wherezthebeef speak for yourself. I can read it just fine and I’m 36, been almost exclusively reading it for 8 years.
The footnotes provided by Thomas Nelson publishers in the NKJV are very helpful. It’s my favorite translation.
Mine too! I ❤ the NKJV
I have the new Geneva study bible Nkjv, from 1995, the theological notes help a lot.
Nice! I'm looking at picking up their single column reference Bible soon! So excited. That'll give me the NIV, esv, KJV, and now nkjv, too. Should be good for cross referencing for over all understanding.
I love footnotes. The more footnotes a translation has the better. It actually shows honesty of the translators. It also enhances the accuracy of the overall translation in my opinion.
While I love footnotes as well, it has nothing to do with being better. In fact, footnotes are opinions. No matter what, all translations have some bias since we don't have the original (some are better than others obviously). We read and study the bible based on faith. We don't KNOW that the bible is the word of God but we have FAITH that the bible is the word of God.
@@thomasc9036 Even if we only had a single source text we'd still have opinions in our translations; it's an unfortunate truth that when anything is translated into another language sometimes connotations are lost or added. One reason I value footnotes in biblical translations is because it is the translators acknowledging this fact by saying, "We really think the best translation is the one we've used in the text, but we're only human and so out of an abundance of caution we feel compelled to tell you [example] may be a better translation of this word." They condense that idea down into the much more concise "or".
@@MM-jf1me Even that is being generous. Take the ESV translation as an example. ESV was pushed by Wayne Grudem and other conservative pastors/theologians due to what was perceived as theological liberalism within RSV. The ESV team gathered conservative scholars to translate the Bible. The end result is that ESV is now preferred by most moderate to conservative churches ( I use ESV, btw).
We are all biased but being biased is not necessarily bad. The reality is that there were no dictionaries in the first century and words can mean many things and be understood differently based on the context. Even footnotes contain bias.
@@thomasc9036 It would depend on what kind of footnote we're talking about in whether it's an opinion. Some footnotes are textual footnotes;meaning there are multiple possibilities on how a certain word or phrase can be worded. There are also variant footnotes which show what alternate manuscripts said. Those kind wouldn't be an opinion but rather fact based. I find it more of an honest approach to translational work.
@@joesteele3159 And those alternative words are opinions too. Take the word "virgin" for Mary which in Hebrew is "almah". Greek Septuagint translated this word to "parthenos" which is a a maiden who had not known a man. However, Hebrew word can be "young woman/maiden" or "virgin". The Bible translators chose "virgin" to fit the context, but there are Bible translations that use "young woman/maiden" as well.
I Pray for you and your family everyday, God bless.
I'm not a "KJV only" man, but I was skeptical of the New King James Version when it first came out. I felt it was kind of like an "updated" version of Shakespeare. How do you update a classic? In fairness, the KJV has been through revisions before. About thirteen years ago, I was preparing some responsive readings for our Christmas Eve service. I wanted to preserve the beauty or the KJV, but avoid some of the more obscure words. I gave the NKJV a try. Since then, it was become one of my favorite translations. It preserves the poetic style of the KJV, but it's more readable.
When I was young in my faith, I didn’t know what the Italicized words were for. I thought they were to make emphasis on the word, but it’s been many years and now I know.
Just for others who read the post above, this is why you read the pages before Genesis. They explain the translations features and methodology.
The NKJV is my favorite modern Bible translation, followed by the NASB, and then by the ESV. I wish the KJV / NKJV parallel bible would come back into print. For me personally, reading them side by side is the best personal bible study experience.
The footnotes in the NKJV are very useful. I first bought a copy in the 1980s and fell in love. I want to know the Majority Text, LXX, Vulgate, Critical Text, Targums, and other readings while I study.
I really wish a 4 translation Parallel Bible with the KJV, NKJV, NASB and ESV would be published. The best I can find is KJV, NKJV, NIV, and NLT. I never liked the NIV, and I personally won't use the NLT for anything. But, That's the one I may have to purchase if I want to go to a rural area with no internet access, which means no Bible Gateway.
Despite my preferences, I would never criticize anyone for using a translation I don't prefer.
NKJV is my bread and butter!
*sigh
The new King James not only has a satanic symbol on its binder but it changes the word hell into hades, making it a Jehovah Witness Bible get away from the new King James quickly
@@ryanmozert Both of those claims are false. "Hades" is an accurate translation of the original texts, and the symbol is a triquetra representing the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. You're either grossly mistaken or lying.
@@reidmason2551 wrong and wrong again you are either grossly mistaken or lying thank you moving on next
@@ryanmozertThe NKJV does not change the word of God. It translates the word Hades correctly. The KJV is wrong. Also not a Satanic symbol on the NKJV. But represents the Trinity as taught in scripture. More wilful ignorance from a KJV only cultist.
Scholarship doesn't lead one to doubt, but points to the gift of intellect and learning that God gives us. It's a pity there are some fragile folks who are fearful of the knowledge that a deeper understanding and education of our Bible's translation history brings. It is a blessing! We have a literal treasure trove of manuscript evidence for God's word, so why one anyone think this leads to doubting God's word? If such folks feel this knowledge is somehow leading one to doubt, then that is a faith issue... and an intellectual problem.
I switched from KJV to HCSB years ago. One thing I like is that it updates hell as the grave or as a landfill or as actual hell. I also like that they capitalize when God is speaking. That alone has helped me in bible study greatly. After studying Hebrew and Greek for years, I came to the realization that it I'd incredibly hard to make an English translation. The KJV isn't perfect and neither are all the others because we are translating into English. English and Greek are worlds apart.
I love the HCSB and the CSB. Someone told me that HCSB actually stood for hardcore Southern Baptist lol I thought that was hilarious!
KJV is the perfect word of God refined 7 times in a furnace of earth.. Hope you will look into it and find your version robs Jesus of his Deity..Look at missing and changed verses and find the theme
@@blainvance409 Which King James version?
@@blainvance409The NIV is far stronger on the deity of Christ than the KJV. Probably the reason that Satan who is behind the KJV only cult hates it so much. Also look at all those added uninspired verses in the KJV. Because it was translated from later manuscripts dedicated to the Pope with all those added uninspired verses added by uninspired scribes. Nothing perfect or inspired about the KJV. No matter what circular reasoning and outrageous lies the KJV only cult say.
@@blainvance409Read the old preface of the KJV. The translators didn't think they were creating a "double-inspired' document. That's KJVO nonsense.
I read the NKJV and I dont even pay attention to the footnotes. I like both KJV and NKJV.
NKJV is my favorite translation. NKJVO!! 😊
💛💛
I literally laughed out loud at the excuse he used for the King James Bible footnotes. I would’ve loved to hear his excuse for the KJV translator’s preface to the reader and their admission that there were several words that didn’t know the meaning of. Let, alone everything else they said in their honest, transparent preface. The KJV translators would’ve been appalled at the KJV onlyists.
I am not a KJV onlyist either, but have come to appreciate it more. The Humble Lamb has the meaning of the archaic word in the foot notes (very handy) and I have the KJV Study Bible that has a dictionary in the back of the archaic words, so it's right there, but less handy. If the NKJV speaks to the believer, as other versions sometimes do, I do not resent anyone using another version. However, I have learned to do deeper Bible study with more than one version, two or three together sometimes. I as a believer appreciate anything that helps someone come to Christ as their Saviour. It will get sorted out somehow, and God will see to that.
The problem with the KJV isn't so much the obsolete words, it's the words that are still used today but mean something completely different than they did in 1611. And there are a lot of them
@@flintymcduff5417 True. I love the English language, and could possibly learn the meanings back then. Then again, I just use the NKJV and it helps along with it. Or another modern version, perhaps. The NET with notes helps even more.
@@MusicalMedley2 Please watch David Daniels from Chick Tracts, he has good videos that will teach you that the newer Bibles do not say the same thing. You believe a lie like I used to, the newer versions are not just changing the words to "modern-day English". They are actually changing the word of God.
@@hikerbill9248 I have heard that about new versions and when I came across a video of a KJV onlyist, he proved the new versions (esp, NIV) was saying the opposite of what the KJV said. 😪
That’s awesome thanks for the tips … I’ve ordered a Humble Lamb KJV and a KJV study bible as well. I always want to have KJV on hand to preserve the historical versions. But for my “bread and butter” I use NKJV and NASB95 as they are clearer. I do like the KJV language as it’s more poetic.
Grew up KJVO but over the last 2 to three years softened and looked a little into it and cannot stand by the KJVO position.
I now use the NASB as my main with the KJV and the CSB
Look into the new versions. They are now published online and are clearly corrupted. If you would like to find the evidence I'll be glad to steer to were you can find that evidence. IM not KJVO but it is a reliable Bible.
@@scottsnyder7909Clearly corrupted? How?
Were you aware many of the footnotes in the KJV refer to the Apocrypha, something the KJO crowd does NOT believe is inspired. If the KJV is the "perfect" translation, why does it cross reference a non-canonical writing? It might as well cross reference the Book of Mormon.
Because the KJV only cultist are liars and deceivers.
Jesus himself quoted scriptures that nobody has found.
@@whoavadis1984 In most cases they came from The Book of Enoch or The Book of Jubilees. Which were maintained in Orthodox monasteries before we found them in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Book of Jubilees was one of the most numerous manuscripts showing its importance. These books were also maintained in the Ethiopian Orthodox tradition as well as part of their Bible.
@@whoavadis1984 What scriptures are you referring to?
@@hirakisk1973 One religion's apocrypha are another's canon.
Thanks Tim. I understand those that prefer the KJV. Nothing wrong with that, but when people say "All other translations are from the Devil", well, that's what bothers me. You make an excellent point especially on word meanings. I personally prefer the NKJV because I prefer how it reads. For some reason, this old brain of mine has trouble with Elizabethan English. I do have a KJV Bible and read it from time to time, but I also read from my NKJV, NASB and ESV.
Please watch David Daniels from Chick Tracts, he has good videos that will teach you that the newer Bibles do not say the same thing. They are actually changing the word of God.
@Nick-wn1xw Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it's not true. You should really study the topic and get away from your Catholic Bibles.
Have you watched at least 30 hours of David Daniels' videos, or did you just make an ignorant comment? The truth is out there, we can not make you believe it.
Your examples using the italics is a very weak one. There’s a big difference between using italics and trying to tell somebody what the translation means in footnotes
@@hikerbill9248 a “Catholic Bible” would be a Bible with the deuterocanon in it. Whether you like the modern versions is one thing, but it’s incorrect to call them Catholic if they have a Protestant canon in them.
@@samueljennings4809exactly! They aren't Catholic at all. They don't state to worship Mary or the saints, they don't state the rosary, they don't state any of the unbiblical blasphemies that the Catholic Church STILL preaches. 🤷 Dont look like Catholic Bibles to me.
Some people are simply opposed to change, & they develop snobby attitudes.
The NKJV is a great translation!
For John 8:6, the italic words in modern KJVs are normal text (blackletter) in the 1611. Not sure why that is, but I figured I would mention it.
Most of the arguments I see for KJV only are nonsensical. A word changes and they act like the whole meaning is different and people can't understand the entire Bible. I literally saw people citing examples between KJV and nkjv and while wording and sentence structure changed a little, the meaning was exactly the same.
Further, there are manuscripts new translations use that KJV doesn't and some verses weren't there. So some of the verses in KJV not in newer translations could literally have been notes by the transcribers.
Further, the English translations before KJV had verses KJV left out because those translators thought they weren't authentic.
At the end of the day are you going to quibble over a synonym or share the faith that Jesus Christ is the Son of God the Father, who lived the law and was the perfect sacrifice on the cross for all of mankind. Through the blood of Jesus and His resurrection, conquering death, we are redeemed. He is the only way to the Father and eternal life.
Back when I was KJVO, I used to call the NKJV the "Not King James Version" lol. The original 1611 KJV had footnotes
The 1611 original also contained the Apocrypha albeit at the back to set it apart from the inspired, canonical books. However, the KJV Onlyists conveniently don't tell us this. They do have a knack of tripping themselves up with their arguments against other versions and even those like the NKJV based on the exact same set of manuscripts .
I used kjv but not as my main translation.... Its better to read modern english translations than old english words....
The reality is that we have zero original documents. All translations are made from copies. Today there are more manuscripts available then there were when the KJ was published. Footnotes can point out differences in the manuscripts and explain alternate word choices. The Scriptures were copied by human beings. That was God’s choice. Comparing the Book of Isaiah in your Bible with the great Isaiah scroll found at Qumran demonstrates that differences are few and minor.
No Bible printed in English is original.
It true that the original autographs not existing that's true. As far more manuscript being available today then when the KJV was published. That's something we don't actually know and have no good way of knowing.
That's all modern speculation and conjecture nobody found a time machine and took a survey of all the manuscripts they had in the 15 and 1600s.
The was published shortly after the advent of the printing press which was the last time hand written manuscripts were read in Churches. Yet it is assumed we have more manuscripts. Also there was a massive fire in London that destroyed many manuscripts and most of the translation records of the KJV.
@@Derby_City_Dasher I don't understand your logic. Any manuscript found after the KJ was published increases the number of manuscripts found.
@@stephenlee7183 The KJV was over 400 years ago. Manuscripts were lost then too. Also people in the modern believe they have a lot manuscripts and then presume that everyone before them a had very few, but manuscripts are lost and rediscovered to this day. Just because we find a manuscript doesn't mean we are the only ones to ever lay our eyes on them. In the book Myths and Mistakes of textual criticism they state there are at least 50 to 100 hundred manuscripts that know exist that they have no idea where they are now.
Also the average of the extant Greek manuscripts today is about 12th century.
In the book 1 John v7 vindicated which was published around 1801 or 1821 they reference the average age of the extant manuscripts of their day as being 12th Century as well. So if we really found mountains of more manuscripts then people centuries before had then you would except the average age of the manuscripts to move in one direction or the other, but in at least 200 to 220 years the average age of the manuscripts hasn't moved at all.
@@Derby_City_Dasher there were thousands of manuscripts found in Cairo in the 1800s. There were about 200 OT manuscripts found at at Qumran in 1947. These would have all been individually copied.
I don't know what you mean that manuscripts are lost and then found.
@@stephenlee7183 That's a myth. There is only about 137 New Testament Papyri and their mostly fragments. There is not thousands of New Testament Papyri maybe if you include the secular Papyri finds you can get in the thousands then.
Also there really is nothing special about Papyri it's just a writing material that they've been using in Egypt. So we shouldn't assume were the first ones outside of Egypt to ever lay our eyes on a scrap Papyri.
Among some KJV Onlyists there is a belief that God *reinspired* the KJV text in 1611, by telling the translators what to write, and that therefore the KJV supersedes all previous texts. (For example, Peter Ruckman pushed this idea.)
Double inspiration.
@@jkdbuck7670 Yeah.
And this re-inspiration doctrine runs directly counter to the views of the translators themselves who in their preface referred to their 1611 translation as the word of God even with its imperfections and blemishes (their words).
@@sigeberhtmercia767 - And what's more, they weren't KJV Onlyists! In the Preface to the Reader, which should be printed in every KJV, they boldly proclaim that even the "meanest" (worst) translation "containeth the Word of God, nay, IS the Word of God." They illustrate this with the example of a speech by the King (James, of course) being translated into other languages; even though it may not be as elegant, or contain an EXACT translation of what the King said, it is still the King's speech. In essence, they were dynamic equivalence-leaners: one notable example is where the KJV translators had it that the two thieves crucified with Christ "cast the same into his teeth," whereas the Greek simply says that they "abused" Him.
Not re-inspired but inspired….get it right dud!!!
The modern KJV is the 1769 Blayney Revision, where Dr. Benjamin Blayney was commissioned to correct the 1611 KJV, and he explicitely stated he consulted the original hebrew and greek to make large corrections.
Agreed 100% nkjv is my favorite
Two years later, and this is enlightening me in a language (Spanish) it was not intended for. Thanks!
I am giving you a standing ovation on this. Excellent job explaining the issue with KJ only belief. The KJV will always be in my heart and is so special to me. And I use it for comparison in my Bible studies. I use several versions when I am truley studying and learning Bible doctrine. Bu I never really sit down and just read it anymore. It is so much harder to grasp the meanings, due to what you said. Not only the words are different from our language, the sentence structure makes it more difficult too, sometimes. I go to a church that many in it is KJV only. Our beloved late pastor was KJV only. But I take my NKJV with me to church. Because it is a great compromise. It is so very much like the KJV that ai can still keep up. My favorite study version is ESV. Which is kind of difficult to keep up when the KJV is being taught and preached out of. None of this bothers me. I love our church and my church family. I don’t care if they are KJV only or not.
Tim I wonder if you have seen much of David's videos? might be worthwhile to watch.
The KJV translators refute the “ignore the or” in their letter to the readers. On the subject of their use of marginal notes, they actually said a wise reader would want to see the alternate renderings. For the record I am a KJ guy but I refer to other translations to clarify difficult passages.
@Nick-wn1xwThe KJV translators refute KJV onlyism completely. Why do the KJV only cultists think they know better? Pride, arrogance, and total ignorance.
Great job in explanation and your perspective. That's why, as you expressed in the past, that I have several different translations to compare thought and reasoning when studying. I do use the most literal translations to base study.
Literal translations on what manuscripts though? Some modern bibles are great translations from the wrong text.
@@roysammons2445How are they the wrong texts? Please explain. Or are you just parroting the lies of the KJV only cult?
Thank you for giving insights into differences between the KJV and NKJV that lead to a clearer understanding of each. I can speak to the KJV as I purchased a Cambridge Pitt Minion bible with a Morocco leather cover in June 1963. I still have that bible and it remains in excellent condition.
The New King James has become a favorite of mine.
Ty Tim for all videos covering different Bible versions. Kjv only came up in Bible study recently. I have seen some versions are using neutral genders though.
God we need You John 3;16
I love my KJV Bible. It’s my first Bible when God got a hold of me as a young believer in a KJV only church. I learned so much there and always thankful for that.
I’d like to know if there is a modern translation made with as much care as the KJV and from the same manuscript? I’ve not found one as beautifully written.
I also believe you need to use something like the Webster’s 1828 dictionary to get a better understanding of what the old words used to mean.
I keep thinking of Richard Knox’s notes to his translation of the Latin Vulgate and he addresses textual issues and problematic readings in certain passages. He doesn’t ignore them or pretend they don’t exist. That’s what an honest biblical scholar and man of God does; looks for the truth and in the truth, one’s faith is strengthened! You don’t have to be a Catholic to find a questioning mind answers your most important questions. Only fools act like no doubt in life is the essence of true faith because let’s leave the Bible to one side. There will come an event in one’s life that will shake your certainties and throw your faith into question. Its happened to all of us and religious believers know the world is an unfair place and there are aspects of human existence that are dark. God may know all time and hold the keys to the truth but human beings are mortal and we build the truth one brick at a time in every generation. The quest for ultimate truth will probably be unfinished, as long as human beings exist. KJO are right we have doubts but as I hope I’ve made clear, they’re part and parcel of a much larger story that began long we were born and which will continue long after we’re no longer here.
Hi Tim, I use the KJV and am able to read it well, but some of the words are difficult to understand even as an English speaker from England originally from North Yorkshire. I am trying to decide which translation to get and use for better understanding/ I do enjoy reading the KJV though.
You will find difficult to understand words in modern translations too.
Kjv reformed heritage study bible helps explain those hard words
I see no problem at all with a NKJV Bible. It's my favorite version, and easy for me to understand. Besides, I got saved and read the NLT version, and I promise you I wasn't less obedient to God, or less moral just because I read an NLT bible for 4 years before I switched to a NLJV Bible.
But it's funny how I no longer like the NLT version because it's too simplified for me. Hahaha! 😂 NKJV and NIV are all I read now.
I'm just SO thankful I have a Bible to know more about how to live for the glory of God! 🙌🙌
God bless everyone! ❤️❤️🙏🙏✝️✝️
I don't think you understood his argumentation of why you can ignore the KJV footnotes and not the NKJV footnotes. So I don't believe there is a double standard. Furthermore, I don't think two manuscripts found in the 1800s (NU) should carry as much weight as the Majority Text (M). If God preserved his word, and you want to accept these newly discovered manuscripts, then there was a gap of about 1800 years before he did so.
I believe that our Lord meant what He said and said what He meant. He chose certain words and phrases for His message that we all know and love, such as "Go and sin no more", ""Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's".
Of particular importance though were the words and phrases that our Lord chose to emphasize through repetition, or re-iteration. He was basically saying "This is very important!" So in those passages in the gospels, particularly in John's gospel, there are many places where Jesus said "Amen, amen, I say unto you", Jesus knew how to say what He wanted to say and He chose His words carefully, fully inspired by the Holy Ghost. Some translations, such as the Douay Rheims, chose to leave it in the original language, since we all understand what "Amen" means. Other translations correctly translated it as "Verily, verily" or "Truly truly", which are also accurate and easily understandable.
So why in their hubris did the NKJV translators think that they knew how to say it better than the Lord? They chose to paraphrase "Amen amen" as "Most assuredly". Most assuredly I can tell you that is not what our Lord said. It always gauls me to read their paraphrase of inspired Scripture. Choosing to paraphrase some of the most crucial, important sayings of the Lord instead of a straight, over the counter and accurate translation of His words was totally unnecessary.
And now dating myself, I remember when Billy Graham started using the NKJV and did it without excuse. Being raised on KJV, using it and a man I greatly admired didn't seem to find fault with the NKJV. Multiple versions help me in understanding but I'm a bit picky about which I use.
Well stated position! Thank you for your response. As a newier student to faith...our Christian brothers and sister need to stop with this "onlyisim" as it goes against 2 Timothy 3:16-17. We should be begin with prayer and ask the Holy Spirit to help teach us what we read which falls in line with Matthew 11:15.
Bring back the Geneva Bible! I regularly switch between translations such as NKJV, ESV, KJV, and NASB 95&20..I love these the most. In my layman non-scholarly opinion: NKJV is the best. NASB and ESV is a close second. I really do want to read through a physical Geneva though (with the Reformers footnotes)
I remember watching a video with the speaker in the video clip you included in this video entitled New King James Version the Marijuana of Bibles if I'm not mistaken.Thanks for making this video one of those I have been waiting for you to make knowing you are balanced and not biased and critical of those whom you disagree with regarding the King James Version issue.So i m now"addicted" to the NKJV the Marijuana of Bibles and also to NASB,NIV,NLT and ESV.Do you think I need to be rehab?Just kidding.By the way you mentioned something about footnotes,I read in some site that if I understand correctly is the footnote of Exodus 1 in the Geneva Bible that push King James of England to order a new Bible translation to replace the Geneva Bible and this translation is without footnotes.
Great job Tim. Even before Erasmus the Receptus Textus had to be translated. Really great point on "false friends," I was in this very conversation a couple of weeks ago and couldn't remember the term. I doubt the conversation will come up again, but if it does I don't think I will forget it.
Thank you. I am not a fan of the KJV for it's translation but I like the Textus Receptus so the NKJV is a good translation for me.
Have you gone to God The Heavenly Father, DIRECTLY, and asked Him?
@@DouglasNicholson-ff6epHave you? Obviously not or you would not be KJV only. By the way how are you?
My current Bible is KJV and ESV (and hoping to start on LSB), and I miss NKJV, as it has special place in my heart and has just the right balance on all account, compared to all other modern translations (ESV, NIV84, NASB, HCSB, CSB, ...).
Great discussion, thanks!
I'm a majority text guy and love the New King James, and my opinion is based off of what i think the manuscripts attest to not because its somehow perfect, it doesnt need to be perfect and was never said it had to be perfect.
I love and use both. The KJV was THE BIBLE when I was growing up. The language required you to “dig deeper “ for understanding. Since I do not read Hebrew or Greek, I as well as many others have to rely on translation of men to try to understand God’s Word. Thank God that Jesus returned to the Father and sent the Holy Spirit to teach us His Word. The Holy Spirit is the author and the author can help us understand if we seek His help 😇🙏
KJVO needs to go. Not the translation. Modern Translation Onlyism also needs to go. I mostly read the KJV, but appreciate the directness of modern translations. But the KJV stays on my mind and grips my attention the most.
I think if you choose kjv as your preferred Bible, great. However, the kjv only crowd seems to veer into fundamentalist legalism. The kjv does not equal the autographs. Imo, the closest we can get to the autographs is the majority text. If you have an nkjv you can make it very close to majority text with the footnotes. I use three translations- kjv, nkjv, and nasb. This seems to give me a well rounded approach
I use a KJV, I like the verse by verse format which is also in the NKJV. The only item I do not like in modern translations is the paragraph format which I believe makes them harder to read and compare.
I have a dbl column nkjv with center column reference notes. Has a burgundy imitation leather..Cost was $10..Blessings..Toni's husband
Verse by Verse editions are available in other translations.
The New King James Version footnotes have caused me to want a copy of the New King James Version, in fact, I just ordered one! I think that was a wonderful idea and just another tool I can use.
Unfortunately Cambridge did NOT include ALL notes AND references in TOPAZ bible. Schuyler DOES I understand.. but they are sold OUT. I DO have a Nelson PREMIER in NKJV. Which are very nice and HAVE lots of notes and references.
My first bible was a KJV and I had a very difficult time understanding the out dated language, so I bought a NKJV. I loved that I didn't have to keep a 1828 Webster Dictionary beside me to while reading it. Although I now primarily use the ESV, I still love the NKJV and refer to it and other translations often. As always the KJVO man you featured made illogical and contradictory arguments about the footnotes.
As someone who reads the KJV, and bases my life and doctrine on its words, and teaches others--I can tell you some of my concerns with the NKJV, which others may also feel to be barriers, but this is just my personal, short list.
1. I fully believe the Textus Receptus is what God has used to keep His word available to mankind. I do not hold any real faith in the other sources (such as Alexandrian and the others used in what's become known as the Critical Text method), for the usual reasons that most adherents to the TR hold. The problem with the NKJV is that, even though commonly excluded passages in the CT are actually included, the brackets and footnotes cast more doubt on their validity than they actually present them as the word of God. It casts doubt on God's authority and reliability. And in that same vein, as a "new" King James Version, is this truly a retranslation of the texts used for the KJV, or isn't it? If they don't trust the sources used for the KJV, they shouldn't have put "KJV" in the title.
2. The NKJV doesn't simply update the language, and in fact, in some places, it completely changes the meaning. I'll give two examples; one is unnecessarily confusing and the other is potentially doctrine changing.
The first is Genesis 17:7, where it changes "seed" to "descendants". Paul calls back to this scripture to prove that Jesus is God and God's promise came through Jesus in Galatians 3:16 (where it is rendered as "seed"). Paul makes a point of how "seed" is singular, not plural. Well, if you're studying your Bible and you come across that, you'll ignorantly wonder when God said had these things. Not only is it wrong (the Hebrew word IS actually "seed"), but why was the choice made to marginally simplify the word at the detriment of full understanding of the related scripture? What benefit was there in changing it to "descendents"?
The second scripture is more serious. Acts 19:2 in the KJV says, "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?" The NKJV says, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit WHEN you believed?" That is a big difference, doctrinally. If you base your life doctrine on the NKJV, every believer should expect to be baptized in the Holy Ghost, evidenced by speaking in tongues (as shown in several passages), the moment they accept Christ as Savior, and if you haven't you are not saved. But the KJV renders it more accurately as "SINCE you believed". You are still to desire the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and speak in tongues, but it doesn't put the time limit on it. This openness of time is also shown in Acts 8:14-17 with the believers who had been baptized in water, but had not received the Holy Ghost yet. I had to ask someone who knows and studies Greek about this, because I saw the great difference, and that once the CT became popular, nearly every Bible version made renders it as "when". He showed in the Greek grammar how it could actually go one way or the other, but concluded with this: "If there were no theological issues at stake, 'after you believed' would probably be the more common translation of this passage."
3. The capitalization of the second "he" in 2 Thessalonians 2:7. As far as I can tell, there is no indication to have that capitalized. By doing so, it deifies whomever the "he" is. If you have concluded that this verse is talking about the presence of the church hindering Antichrist, this makes no sense.
So that's my short list, but really, the first two are enough for me. The implied lack of faith in the TR and the unnecessary and less-than-accurate renderings are enough for me not to base my life on the NKJV, and especially not teach others from it. Given these examples, I feel that the publishers were more interested in easy of readability than they were about accuracy or doctrine. When they made it, did they expect churches to base their doctrine on it? Is it reliable enough for a church to teach the deep-down, nitty-gritty of scripture to its people? Or are they expected to stay surface level with this text? I think teachers will have to turn to more reliable resources for deeper questions and studies. It may be fine for someone who only occasionally reads, but any deeply dedicated minister, teacher, or leader will find problems in its renderings. Ok, all done. :)
What do you mean the NKJV changes meaning? Also no doctrine is changed in the NKJV. Many of the words in the KJV have changed meaning. Which is why God has blessed us with more accurate modern translations. Also where is the evidence that the KJV got it always right.
The best benefit of the KJV is what most people complain about...the use of thee, thou, thine and ye. The translators used these for a reason and it wasn't because they were the words in common use because they weren't. That being said, I do like reading the NKJV.
Thanks a lot for this. Really solid information.
I read the NKJV and the NIV. Both are great translations.
You forgot to mention that English words change meaning! Look up the word refill as it is used in genesis. Refill used to mean to fill
I am not a KJV Onlyists, but one thing I prefer about the KJV(and most translations up the original ASV) is the use of the singular second person pronouns thou/thee/thy/thine to distinguish from the plural second person pronouns you/ye/your/yours.
KJV Onlyists and Ruckmanites in particular have a very cult-like mentality, they defend things like Easter instead of passover in Acts 12:4 and atonement instead of reconciliation in Romans 5:11.
Doubt leads me to seek the original language (the work of someone who knows the origin languages) doubt leads to seeking, ignorance leads to sickness. My hope is a modern English version as close to literal as understandably possible. Possible? Probably not without theological bias, maybe the LSB or EHV(viewed today) or CSB or MEV, I don't know. My translation of choice is NKJV because of the footnotes, truth is, there's too many. I sometimes refer to NLT footnotes because they seem to be very transparent, go figure. I have the common basics (hardcopies) numerous versions, strongs exhaustive concordance, vine's expository dictionary, matt Henry's commentary and recently acquired an Analytical Concordance by R Young 8th edition (1939) rp1956 in an OpShop (I don't know what it is but its bigger than my strongs concordance). So I have the basic survival kit for offline survival. Just gotta unplug from all this madness now. Thanks Tim.
I have used the NKJV for some 30 years, but happily refer to many other versions. Lots of reference books use the KJV, I notice, which is not surprising for mostly older tomes. A favourite tool is my NKJV Greek interlinear. I also have never understood why KJV-only people dislike the NKJV, since you’d expect they’d like it for being closest, and just slightly modernised.
I live in England. One objection I’ve heard has nothing to do with the textual issues or style. It is that Thomas Nelson suggests the NKJV is an ‘official’ fifth edition of the KJV, so they have effectively commercialised an ancient text to turn it into a multi-million dollar business. I can’t comment on the company’s motives. Another small issue for us Brits is the US spellings, although there are British-English spelling editions available. When the NKJV was first published, it was published here with the title “Revised Authorised Version (RAV)”.
The only other criticism I’ve heard is that, by losing the ye, thee, thou, etc. the NKJV makes it harder to distinguish between singular and plural. Personally, I don’t mind since ‘you’ is current usage; it just requires a small effort to check which is singular or plural if it affects the meaning of a verse or passage.
I’ve just bought my first ESV and look forward to reading it. I’m surprised it doesn’t use italics for ‘extra’ words, but I can see the logic of doing that to not distract. Personally, I’m so familiar with the italic words in the NKJV and KJV that it doesn’t distract me, and I find it useful sometimes.
10:36 - My thoughts exactly. If your faith is shattered based on footnotes, or the possibility that the KJV translators didn’t perfectly bring us a work from the hand of God himself, then your faith is built on sand and praise God for many folks who end up coming out of this movement realizing how much greater their faith can be, because there are many who leave this movement with no faith at all because of the misinformation and almost cult like behaviors. It pains me to know that many of these brothers and sisters will go to their grave fighting a false battle.
Because they are essentially a cult. Meaning, they must not change or they're out of the cult! In their view, footnotes introduce error. In other's view, footnotes introduce information.
That clip you played was just totally disheartening. The original 1611 King James did indeed have footnotes in it. And so did the 1769 memory serves correct
I was never a strict KJVO, had other translations, didn't mind if others read different translations, but the KJV was always "my Bible".
I use to believe the stuff from KJVO people like David Daniel's, Sam Gipp, & others. But then I started looking into some of their claims against the NKJV and found them to be false or taken completely out of context.
I will always love reading the KJV (been reading it since I was 7) but the NKJV is now my daily reading, studying, & evangelizing translation.
But if I had to pick just 1 translation I would choose Noah Webster's The Common Version from 1833 now known today as The Webster Bible.
Great video Sir! 👍🏻
you cant get reliable info from those characters. I am glad you overcame their false teachings.
@@jwatson181 Thank you James.
@@danbratten3103 also, check out the esv and the csb. They are both phenomenal
@@jwatson181 thank you for the recommendations James. I have an esv study Bible, but my favorite translation based off the NU texts is the An American Translation (AAT) also know as the Beck Bible. It was the first Bible I ever read cover to cover. Very easy to read.
Thanks again.
*Is it true that a catholic monk named Jerome, (in early century 300A.D--400 A.D.?)....crossed out/deleted those missing texts that were translated into Latin by him in some monistary in Sinai foothills? (aka the critical text line) This subject is found in the back portion of my KJVER sword bible.* And then Tischindorf?...found them in a bible in waste basket that had been hidden for many centuries. Tish subsequently inserted those texts back into the bible as he was trying to translate the latin bible back into English or german so the people could read it themselves after 1,000 years in latin!
You make some very interesting points here; I enjoyed listening to your reasoning/logic in this and thanks for sharing!!
I am Majority/Byzantine Text Only and I like the NKJV using it as a companion for my Ryrie Study Bible which is in the KJV format. I also refer to Darby's Translation and the YLT and thinking about getting myself hard copies of the MEV and the old Geneva version (more accurate than the KJV).
You should check out the World English Bible. It uses the Majority Text. There's a also a Majority Text ASV that was made a few years ago.
check out MT based bible - Wilbur Pickering's F35, EMTV, TCENT, WEB, MSB, MLV
@truebible
Thanks for the recommendations Brother and will certainly keep these translations in mind. So glad, there's a lot more MT versions out there than what I first thought. Much blessing.
they also hate the MEV which is a DIRECT update of the KJV. in other words. the same text manuscripts behind the KJV was used for the MEV. all the MEV translators did was use the KJV as their base and updated the language as well as making it read easier then the NKJV.
I absolutely love the KJV Bible. But I am NOT KJV only. I enjoy other translations as well. The Lord has given me understanding in other translations. Sometimes if I'm stuck on a passage another translation will make it click for me.
I use a KJV/NKJV parallel for the rare occassions when I'm not sure of some word or sentence structure, by reading the NKJV equivalent I instantly get the gist of it. Then I push through with KJV to the best of my ability... until I run into some strange word again... I don't have endless hours to devote to my own research. I wasn't raised speaking 'Early Modern English' full of archaic and obsolete words and strange grammatical structures so rather unreasonable to think I can somehow (through divine intervention?)be sure I"m correctly understanding KJV. Admittedly, the more I read, the better it got and more confident I became. For that matter, when Bible is translated into foreign languages for missionary work, is it, for example, written and published in Archaic Chinese or 'Old Mandarin'? Mondern Mandarin speakers would have just as difficult a time as many of us have with KJV and would give up. Stop the nit-picking, it's the message that needs to be relayed, some of you who obsess over every letter, spelling and punctuation mark in KJV are as bad as the Rabbi's who devote their lives to mystical interpretation of hebrew characters in scripture. Yikes.
My three fave versions are KJV, NKJV and TLB paraphrase
KJV margin of Luke 17:36: "This 36th verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies"
that is equivalent to the NKJV note on 1 John 5:7: "NU, M omit the words from in heaven (v. 7) through on earth (v. 8). Only 4 or 5 very late mss. contain these words in Greek."
I was KJV only at one point, I still enjoy it, but I found myself comparing to other translation like the ESV, NIV, NASB etc because I was having trouble understanding as me looking up definitions of word constantly, it got to the point I was checking other translations so much that it finally dawned on my, why not just read the translation I actually understand fully?
Hi Tim, your spoke graciously and intelligently on this subject, and wish I could share it on my channel but know that I may not. But you nailed it beautifully and as a KJV bible reader all my life, I've really enjoyed the NKJV bible having had it only 2 years. The NKJV is wonderful and as I have said on my channel in bible reviews that "it is so King James!" I have even gone to the trouble of reading the Prefacer in the NKJV to better explain it for folks, and have read the entire Translators to the Reader very recently over 9 vids. And I only do this to assist others to understand what it is they are reading. I love the KJV and read it teh most, howeverI have told you before that KJVO's have called me "a heretic" for reading and promoting the NKJV even though they know I read the KJV too, but I think that thay may be easily confused and also have a strong need to be self-righteous and superior since this is the stance they consistently appear to take.
Please watch David Daniels from Chick Tracts, he has good videos that will teach you that the newer Bibles do not say the same thing. They are actually changing the word of God. Your friends that are telling you to get rid of the NKJV are trying to help you because you are in error. David Daniels has excellent videos teaching why you should not use the NKJV, he calls it "the bridge Bible".
If criticisms don't come from love, I'd simply ignore them. Jesus had only this one commandment, and yet a large portion of the community ignore it and attack each other. They are focused on the exact wording of the text (which all came through man's lenses anyway, not to mention it's a translation of a translation) instead of focusing on what's being preached - love.
I'm not a Christian, so from an outsider point of view, I can see those guys as being in a cult. I don't think there's anything wrong with a cult, cuz I firmly believe anything that exists has value. I just hope these people are less critical of themselves and others because the way they attack you calling you a heretic shows to me that they are not loving and being loved. And this was not what Jesus intended. These guys seem similar to those who killed Jesus.
Just my 2c.
@@Brian-uq6jm Yes, the Pharisees and Scribes who killed Jesus by getting Him convicted by Romans despite Jesus being sinless, they killed Him out of jealousy. Anyone who hates, is not of God. You are right, about God's love, and I pray that the Lord our God draws you close to Him for the gift of His grace of salvation.
@@artistocracy Thanks. I've been personally going through a spiritual awakening. I literally had a vision while I was awake where a holy figure (Buddha or Jesus, not sure) floated in front of me. This vision appeared twice and both times I was 100% conscious and awake. Both times it was viewed through my 3rd eye. The vision was so clear and crisp it was like 4K resolution if reality is just HD. I wonder what it meant. The gemstones on his clothes were so beautiful I've never seen something like that in this world. The weird part is I couldn't see his face despite how crystal clear that vision was. If you have had visions, you probably know what I mean.
I've been exploring my spirituality. It has not been easy, and sometimes everything seems to fall apart in my life, but I've been able to release a lot of emotional baggage I accumulated in my life, and have finally accepted myself for who I really am for the first time in my life.
The reason why I commented on your message was that I feel so deeply what the problem of those people who attack you. are. They are exactly like who I was. Deep down they don't accept their true self, and that's reflected in the outside world in this way. The scary part is, they don't realise it themselves. It takes a lot of self-reflection and meditation to be able to see that, at least for me.
Anyway, I love watching your videos. Hope you are always in love and peace.
@@artistocracy I personally don't agree "Anyone who hates, is not of God". I think everyone is of God. However, I don't think such disagreement really matters, on the contrary, such contrast or difference in opinion is a thing of beauty. Anyway, I'll stop rambling. Much love, Brian
There's no double standard, stop twisting the his words. He's referring to the meaning and origins of the footnotes. There's one thing looking at a person who thinks there's a slight difference in meaning to people omitting or completely changing the text because they think it shouldn't be there. that's the whole point of confusing peoples thinking.
The other thing is there are words in the NKJV that people don't know what they mean, I know because I have tested this out with NKJV readers. Words that in the KJV do make sense.
The argument from a KJV reader is really the origins of manuscripts, there are two threads, Antioch or Alexandria. That is the real issue. If it really were the NKJV then it wouldn't add Alexandrian footnotes. I appreciate that you are trying to give a balanced view but you are not actually doing that.
Almost forgot the italics: This is usually necessary when translating from one language to another because a word in one language may not have a corollary word in English and idiomatic expressions often do not easily move from one language to another. Hence, the words in italics are words which do not have any equivalence in the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek text. By adding these words, the translators’ goal was to make the meaning of the sentence clearer and produce a more readable translation that read smoothly, yet was true to the original. However, to make sure that the reader understood that these words were not in the manuscripts, they set them in italics.
(For transparency the section on italics was taken from the King James Bible Research Council)
I also think about the fact that if King James hadn’t been politically offended by the Geneva Bible, KJV may never have existed.
Lord , open the eyes of the King of England. Thank God for his servant William Tyndale.
Interestingly, in 1 JN 2:23 the GENEVA BIBLE leaves off that last clause in that verse. And why? Because Tyndale didn't have it in there either. The GENEVA BIBLE followed the Tyndale tradition more closely than the KJV did.
Great video man love your channel keep up the good work
It's an issue of the manuscripts, and the textual stream. And it's not an update of the KJV. It uses different manuscripts from the original KJV.
The KJV translators didn't use manuscripts, they used printed texts of the Hebrew OT and Greek NT. The NKJV translators used the very same texts.
@@gregb6469 And Bibles today are also translated from printed text. Your Bibles are translated from the Nestle Aland or the UBS which are also printed text. There is nobody sitting in a room with a giant roll of vellum translating Bibles. Not then not now not ever. No the NKJV did not use the very same text as the KJV. Yes they did use it, but they were not entirely faithful too it they departed from the Hebrew for readings in the LXX for example so it's not accurate to say they used the very same text.
@@Derby_City_Dasher The KJV does the same thing e.g., Psalm 8.5.
@@Derby_City_Dasher -- What's this 'your Bibles' nonsense? I read the NKJV.
@@gregb6469 All did was state the facts the NKJV was not entirely faithful to the text of KJV they departed the Hebrew for the LXX readings in many places and that all Bibles are translated from printed text. Sounds like something James White would say 'The KJV translators didn't have manuscripts, but printed text and therefore printed text don't count, but it's a fact that all Bibles are actually translated from printed text even to this day.
Why are the italicized words in the Bible considered if it’s known they were added
There not known to be added. They just signify they were supplemented from other sources than the available Greek manuscripts they used.
There is no way to know they were added, because we likely have less than 1% of all the manuscripts Christianity ever had. That's the problem with trying to treat the Bible like science project it's gotta come down to the analogia fidei or rule of faith.
I don't like the nkjv because, like the other modern versions, it also changes words in the English to match the updated Greek and Hebrew from the Traditional text.
Thank you so much for sharing this great information. This will be invaluable in my understanding of the bible !! God Bless you
Thanks Tim!
I use both KJV and NKJV, but prefer KJV.
I think the only issue I ever had with NKJV is Eph 5:18 and dissipation where the KJV uses "excess"
@AFrischPerspective could you give an example of some words that changed where we aren't aware of the change?
"Gay" is not a good example as it is clear from the context what it is referring to.
"Conversation" is an example that comes to mind, but Mark Ward provides many others on his channel.
Mark Ward is a joke! One good thing I will say about him, he will reply to you if you comment. He is leading people to hell...he is all about getting people away from God's word (the KJV). God has used the KJV for over 400 years! Now everyone wants to use a Catholic Bible! Yep, Satan is building his church, and he has hundreds of Bibles he will let you choose from.
The most common misused and ironic example: "*study* to show thyself approved", in response to the charge that the kjv is too hard to understand. This argument misunderstands the verse - "study" here means to be diligent, not to hit the books.
What’s the difference between being in the Earth, and being on the Earth?
Thank God for his servant William Tyndale.
Great thoughts. Thank You 😊
Fear, don’t be afraid. I understand that the changes in language is startling in just a few generations.
The change of the Torah being translated into Greek so long ago was catastrophic I would imagine.
Mostly…
All I want in footnotes is a reference to other chapters and verses that are speaking on the same topic or showing where a prophecy was revealed in the OT/Torah and later on the NT shows where it was fulfilled.
The biggest concern of mine is where these Canonical theologian’s have deleted verses or changed it so much from the original as Luther did , picking and choosing what he wanted to believe.
Actually, I think Wycliff was very intent on translating to English with prayer and inspiration from God.
We have had the Dead Sea Scroll being found that might shed light on some of the confusion of verses in question from the Bible.
Personally I have many Bibles and I check some passages against several different ones when I’m studying.
Remembering that the Bible did not have
vowels and who knows when diacritical markings were added to aid in figuring out the correct word choices. And the chapter and verse demarcations were not there till the Bible was mass produced.
So, don’t be so critical of variety or afraid of new vernacular changes that help with understanding.
Buy a new Bible and keep your old one, even buy one of the new Jewish Messianic and a Catholic New American and do some research for yourself.
You might be surprised God speaks to us all, to our souls and in our hearts in every language of the Earth, you think he excludes anyone from His TRUTH?
It might be time for you to include anyone who crosses your path into your faith as you know it.
Any Muslim needs to know of our LOVING GOD. Their god/Al’lah is NOT the same as Elohim/YHWH/Adonai/LORD.
I will stop there on my thoughts on Islam.
Be curious and open up your Christian revelation of God the Father.
Thank you for exposing the double standards and hypocrisy of the KJV only cult. No doubting that Satan is behind the KJV only deception.
That was a wonderful explanation thank you!
NKJV for memorizing as my SWORD. If I don't understand, I read CEV for comprehension only. NKJV some parts still hard to understand.