Is Rejection of the NKJV "Reasonable"? Part 2/2

I think we can all agree that old is best and we shouldn't just follow the majority of more recent versions...

I would like for KJV onlyists to explain the following discrepancy in the KJV text. KJV 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads “ Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord.” I know that there are some really bad eight year olds, but I don’t think that there are any that you would truly describe as evil. 2 Kings KJV 24:8-9 reads “Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem. And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, according to all that his father had done.” To its credit, the NKJV in its footnote on 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads “Heb. mss., LXX, Syr. eighteen and 2 Kin. 24:8”

CT Bibles use the LXX in 2 Chronicles 36:9 stating that Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king, and note in footnotes that the Masoretic text states that Jehoiachin was eight years old.

Whew... finally made it through both parts. I will echo my initial comment on the previous video that first and foremost I appreciate and greatly value the time, energy, and effort you put into your work. It is astonishing to even ponder the time you have spent on these two videos alone. I tip my metaphorical hat to you.

I find myself understanding both sides of this whole debate. I surely can follow your argument and understand how you come to your conclusions on the NKJV (I do use it myself after all). I do not think your logic is at fault, nor do I think your intentions are anything but fair and good. And as I have repeatedly said, I totally agree with your stance on the issue surrounding dead words and false friends.

I do however understand the concerns of the KJVO camp. Regardless of their stated reasoning in any particular argument, I think the true source of the problem is the framing of the underlying question itself. The question to them isn’t “should we start using the NKJV as a replacement for the KJV?” The actual question is “are we willing to give up having our one source of God’s word and trust that modern translations will hold faithful over time?”

I don’t personally think pushback of the NKJV comes primarily from a fear of the small textual and translational differences between the KJV and NKJV, though some do make that their main issue, and that is always the path the intellectual argument ends up on. I think the underlying concern stems from the idea that once you untie the boat from its steady and unmoving mooring post, you leave your boat to the whims of the sea. In this case the sea being the unending flow of modern translations of the Bible.

You are correct that if a church moved from the KJV to the NKJV, it would likely see little change to its doctrine overnight. But to many that one simple decision means that boat begins its slow but unstoppable drift towards unknown waters. Maybe at first that drift is of little concern, and maybe you could make a valid argument that the drift is in the correct direction (better understanding of original underlying texts), but once the boat is untied from its unmoving rock, it is truly impossible to know what direction it will go given a long enough time frame.

Today it is too easy to find churches whose doctrine is simply… bad. That preach from the pulpit demonstrably false doctrine, openly advocating for things explicitly condemned by any simple reading of the Bible. It is also INSANELY worrying to witness in real time how much censorship and intentional moderation is being done to books to make them ‘socially acceptable.’ Books that aren’t even 50 years old are already being rewritten, having sections sanitized because they are just not up to the current social standards. This is tied to the fact that there is also a fair bit of open hostility to Christianity today.

So there is a fear. There is a REAL fear, a fear that is not foolish or without merit. That fear is, once you agree to let go of the KJV, have it to stop being the steady mooring post of your church, is there a new steady, unchanging mooring post in which the church can tie its boat to for the next 400+ years? If your answer to that question is, “We don’t have one single new version of the Bible that we will all rely on, but look how many new modern translations we have, we are actually spoiled by how many we have.” Then many KJVO will simply say “Sorry, I do not want any of the tea you are drinking. I will gladly take my difficult to read Bible that is not constantly up for debate and change over the 75 easy to understand Bibles that will be deemed outdated next year and be updated again and again by every new generation of seminary PhDs.” So they resist any change at all.


That is at least my personal take on this whole issue. Maybe I am alone, but I doubt it. Sorry for the long comment.

Good video. I recently found your channel trying to figure out what a KJVO friend was on about. I appreciate the information you give out. FWIW I don't think reading the quotes of your doctrinal opponents with a mocking voice helps your case brother. Just an observation. Your information speaks for itself. No need to do all that.

The British usage edition of the NKJV does not use capitalisation for reference to the Divine which is a strength. It also uses the 1982 text.

Isaiah 44:8 in the KJV has "God" twice in the verse yet its two different Hebrew words.

The NKJV and all new translations corrected this verse

.... "Is there a God besides Me?
Indeed there is no other ROCK;
I know not one.

Rock fits the context of the chapter and blessed my reading it during a bible study many years ago.
This verse in the NKJV was the first step I took towards leaving kjv onlyism.

The NKJV was feeding my soul and a simple verse used in ignorance by an elder made me start using the kjv . I was young and followed those I was under....I lost many years of understanding God's word fully . I'm not angry about that cause I learned from it all for the better.

I love the nkjv .

Thanks Mark as always for the video.

I see in all your videos your charitable approach to dealing with differences among Bible translations. Your general response in most cases is that there are various legitimate textual or translation choices in a given passage. Hembd doesn't seem to share this approach, as he rejects differences from the KJV. I've thought about why some people are satisfied by your approach while some others go along with Hembd's view.

Your approach of explaining the various legitimate textual and translation choices helps to dispel the false allegation that modern translators are under some nefarious conspiracy to intentionally corrupt the text. Your approach is effective to that end. Not to be critical of your approach (I'm only hoping to "add to" your point rather than criticizing it), but I don't think your approach by itself can resolve the issue of why people stay or go toward KJV-Onlyism. I think the problem has to do with the rhetoric and doctrine of Bible preservation as articulated and understood in Evangelical circles.

If we accept the premise that there is no absolutely correct textual reading or translation of a word, then we are faced with two outcomes: 1. KJV Onlyists are wrong on the facts but their rhetoric regarding Bible preservation is consistent. 2. Non-Onlyists are correct on the facts but their rhetoric regarding Bible preservation is not consistent.

Scholars have always known about variant readings and translations even during the Reformation (e.g. the KJV's "Translators to the Readers"), but these differences did not seem to take up a large part of the laity's consciousness as they do now. The doctrines of Sola Scriptura took off during the Reformation, and in modern times the Fundamentalist movement and Evangelical calls for Bible inerrancy have cemented the rhetoric among the Evangelical laity that we do in fact have a perfect and inerrant Bible. Churches' Statements of Belief often qualify this notion by referring to the original autographs, but we still colloquially refer to having "the inerrant word of God with us".

Inerrant means inerrant. 100%. No error. The Evangelical world is still using the same rhetoric of a "every jot and tittle" view of scripture preservation that has been upheld since the Reformation and Fundamentalism. But the difference now is that these differences in jots and tittles (not counting the mere synonyms) are more accessible to the laity. A single congregation can have multiple Bible translations present, so the laity is exposed to the differences (sometimes involving an entire large chunk of text, such as the Ending of Mark).

So the laity is dealing with a disorienting experience that could result in several outcomes. One outcome is for people to be persuaded by the consistent rhetoric of KJV-Onlyism and therefore go with them. Another outcome is for people to accept the premise that there is no absolutely correct textual reading or translation of a word and continue to live under the cognitive dissonance of continuing to hear the same rhetoric (shared by both KJV-Onlyists and Evangelicals) that we do indeed have "the inerrant word of God with us" but not seeing that demonstrated by the prima facie evidence. There is a third way, which is to qualify what it means to have the "inerrant word of God with us" in a more academic way (as you do). But my point is that we are dealing with the laity for the most part. And when Evangelical pastors tell their congregation that "We have the inerrant word of God with us" when they don't actually believe it in the absolute way as understood by the laity (there is no "meeting of the minds"), this breeds confusion and openings for inerrancy extremism on one end and inerrancy denialism on the other.

Biblical Evangelicals are good at formulating and articulating internal doctrines of the Bible. But when it comes to meta-doctrines such as canonicity and inerrancy, we are failing many within the laity by presenting shallow catch-phrase theology. Biblical Evangelicals decry those careless preachers who peddle shallow unqualified absolutist misconstrueable phrases like "God will prosper you", but we might be doing the same by carelessly putting out shallow unqualified absolutist misconstrueable statements about inerrancy. We give them baby theology, and when they grow up and learn possible alternatives (KJV-Onlyism or inerrancy denialism), they go their way based on their predispositions and experiences.

Spot-on, brother. Thank you.

Hey Mark, in the Greek, and inthe Hebrew here you go.....

“And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”

King James Version (KJV)

“And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”

King James Version (KJV)

You are “Uber-eloquent” in all your videos and you go out of your way to “speak the truth in love” and with respect for the other brothers in Christ. Thank you for your insight as well as your example!

Protestant beliefs are typically or traditionally sourced from the KJV in centuries past. The new translations can cause all sorts of questions. Trying to explain KJV theology in modern translations results in time wasted explaining the new vocabulary of the new translations.

Also, under no circumstances did Jesus change the dietary rules of the Jews. He would have been stoned for even suggesting pork was food, yet translators do all they can to find excuses to let Christians eat bacon. Jesus died to free us from sin, not for pork eating.

Changing the vocabulary can cause all sorts of problems trying to understand Revelation, Daniel, and Ezekiel and other prophesy passages.

Lastly, the Bible is still very popular, and every publisher wants their own copy to make a profit. Profits don't bode well for Bible integrity.

I am not against new translations. I read them. I have a very nice NASB1995. I just find the kjv more convenient.

i think there are less kjv only people than one imagines. most people have no problem with reading both versions. most people like the nkjv. the bigger issue is textual base. why did the alexandrian texts not get copied in any meaningful numbers? why were they sidelined? why were they not widespread? i have not yet heard a convincing reply to these questions. kjvonlyists frustrate me-i think the best thing to do is nothing. the nkjv will become more accepted in time just as the kjv itself and subsequent updates were.... i would get rid of the translation notes though.

We need the Texas Standard Version. That way, y’all will know when the second person pronoun is singular or plural.

the condescending attitude of many KJVO does not lower any barriers

Some 55 years years ago, I attempted to read the Bible in the KJV. It was like reading a foreign language I didn’t understand. After giving up and setting it, and religion aside for quite a while, I tried again, with the NKJV. What a difference for me. I got it! Were it not for the NKJV, I might not be a Bible believing, saved child of God today. And now I can, for the most part understand the KJV when I pick it up, or listen to someone preach from it. I also own and read from the NASB, ESV, CSB, and occasionally the NET, NIV, and NLT. I’m not a Bible scholar, but I do not find anything in the NKJV so theologically wrong that it makes me want to discard it in favor of any of the others- including the KJV. Wouldn’t be where I am in my faith without the NKJV. What could possibly be wrong with that?

I found places in the video where the audio was really low and hard to hear even though I have my volume all the way up. Your passionate moments were good. But the quiet moments were quite quiet.

My husband and we're wondering if the NLT Bible is safe to read. We were told that it wasn't, and that we needed to read the NKJV. We are very confused and have no help at all in what we should do. We are having a hard time understanding the NKJV. Could you please help us. Love your videos. God Bless you and your family.

I like the new king James version, I believe it corrects a lot of the mistakes in the king James version. I usually have on my phone the Young’s literal translation and anything I need to write in the margin that I believe would help I put in there because they’re more accurate on present tense passages

King James onlyism is ridiculous!

Capitalising Deity is a plus as is the many textual footnotes
The footnotes in the NKJV have enabled me to come to the realization that the modern manuscript's are better than the TR

A solution for the problem of second-person pronouns is to use "you" alone only when it's singular and variations such as "you all", "all of you" (e.g. LSB), and "you brothers" when it's plural.

As you said translation and interpretation they go side by side especially in a huge work such as the bible. I do agree that the NKJV editors/translators should've had updated only the archaic words in the KJV while keeping everything else as it was, with no footnotes comparing the underlying text with the critical text. However, I have on question and I don't know if you would ever answer it, TR or the mss on which TR is based have been passed down by the church so basically we know that the people who passed it down to us believed in Jesus Christ, the trinity, and all the doctrines that we believe them today. so we know the source of the TR. What makes you to trust the alexandrian text on which the CT is based when you do not know the source of that text especially the text was originated in a geographic area where the heresies were circulating? isn't it that the CT is not but merely a work of academia?
BTW, English is my third language. I love the TR and trust it more than the CT however I'm not a native English and I find KJV to be very difficult to ready for me therefore I try to read in the NKJV or the ESV.

are you aware that in Michael Hollner's book the King James Only Debate.... he names you as a "False Friend.".. in his introduction ......in your regards to your quoting of 2 Timothy 2:14 and 2 Timothy 2:16 .. but your disregard for 2 Timothy 2:15.. that is "wedged
.. in the middle of those 2 verses... in order to get you point across...?..

It was a good defense of the NKJV. Though I think it's fine, as a translation. Sometimes I wonder if the Title was a little ambitious. As it seems more after the tradition of KJV, than merely revision. But, it's close, so it's not a major problem.

Having read Art Farstead’s (sp?) The head of the NKJV project in his own words was to do a translation of the same manuscripts of the KJV in the tradition of the KJV, no where do I remember him saying anything about updating the English it was a new translation

I like to make a positive comment. I've been with you since you first started doing your videos. I enjoy them and learn much from them. You are a true Wordsmith. I keep learning so much from you. I'm so grateful.
During the time of confusion about the King James translation and other translations of the Bible, I found you and a few others. But you have been the most helpful. I would like to suggest that perhaps one of the reasons that the new King James did not use a minimum approach or a minimalist approach to translating the Bible from the King James Version. It could be the copyright laws. In order for Thomas Nelson to copyright their translation, they called the new King James. They needed to have sufficient changes made to validate a copyright. I believe if they had used a minimalist approach, they would not have qualified for a copyright of the new King James translation. Now, of course, this is just a guess on my part. I was at the counter when the new King James first came out, and I was given the opportunity to sell this new translation of the Bible. I was working at a time for the international Bible society, which will be the sponsors with the NIV. But that didn't stop me from also promoting the new King James translation of the Bible. Because I found the new King James translation to be very helpful to those who insisted on using only the King James translation and not wanting NIV.

I appreciate your grace in refuting misleading charges against modern translations. These cases of insufficient sampling and those in "The King James Only Controversy" by James White are frustratingly specious, failing to see the forest for the trees. When the greater context (paragraph, book, author, whole Bible) is taken into consideration, these concerns melt away.

I agree that reading multiple translations is helpful, especially for the reader who is not skilled in the ancient languages. Sometimes reading a familiar passage worded differently than one is accustomed to can make one sit up and say, "Hey, is that what it means?" and encourage one to study it in greater detail.

Idolators cling very strongly to what they worship and sometimes don't grasp that they have put something up on a pedestal. Considering all the sects over the past 400 years whose Bible was the King James should be reason enough to have alternate translations if for no other reason than to bring clarity to Scripture used to support doctrinal differences. I look on KJOnly as a modern version of the Pharisees. Keep educating the body of Christ with your honest and humble elucidations .

To answer the question in the title of the video, Yes, rejecting the NKJV is reasonable,

I find it to be an interesting coincidence that a greater number of manuscripts is seen as resulting in a greater confidence of the contents of the autographs, and utilizing multiple translations can give the reader a greater confidence of correct understanding.

all nkjv junk

The Southern 2nd person pronoun "y'all" would fix the "you" problem. I think the NET uses "you all" with footnotes.

Is there not a modern Bible based on the same texts (use the TBS Greek edition and the Christian Corrected Hebrew) as the KJV and purposely makes the same translation choices and interpretations? We have so many translations surely there is one? I feel if the NKJV had actually did this we wouldn't be where we are because It just looks dishonest to say you are just revising the old language and then you make different interpretive choices even if they are fair. The people who hold to the KJV don't want new interpretations they want the same ones that were made in ~1611 (or that Tyndale made in 80% of the cases) and that the whole English speaking church used for hundreds of years. Everyone I know would rather try to muddle through the old English to try to find that meaning, than read modern English with a different message. They don't trust the modern Bibles because they are making different choices, fair though they be. The Orthodox would also agree with this point, the traditional Christian readings need to stay. See the first edition of the RSV in Isaiah 7:14, that ruined many peoples trust and the NKJV did something like that to many peoples eyes in the TR/KJV world.

KJV only people reject everything. People reject the NKJV because it's too TR for critical text readers(1) and most KJV readers because they don't understand their KJV

For the algorithm

I've been basically binge watching your channel for about a week now.

Excellent work, points, and attitude towards a tough subject. Not only am I trying to learn as much about the defense of non-kjv translations, but I'm also trying to pick up on your kind approach and confidence to not be pulled into needless arguments.

God bless

Oh... I really like the capitalization of pronouns of deity. Do you explain your view on this anywhere? I'd be interested to hear why you think it has outlived its usefulness? Or confuses more readers than it helps? Also why it was ill conceived?

Good job! Personally, I would use at least FOUR translations for in-depth STUDY: KJV, NKJV, NIV, and NASB. For reading, I prefer the NIV for its readability. I did sort of like (past tense) the NLT until I came to a few passages where I detected a slanted paraphrase, even though it's titled as a "Translation". Then there's the Amplified Bible, provided you have time to read twice the number of words, then taking time to try to decide for yourself which of the various shades of meaning for a particular word to accept.

Just out of curiosity, did you read Mr. Hamd's list and silently think "Here are a few he MISSED that would have made his point even more strongly"?

Too many preachers cling to the KJV because they have made PET DOCTRINES out of its wording that simply has different meaning today. I come from a long tradition of attending churches that practice expository preaching. But I’ve heard too many sermons on TV and radio where a preacher preaches a sermon on a SINGLE VERSE, often from the KJV. Translate it correctly, and their pet doctrine evaporates!

Iam an living bible onlyest. Lol

The NKJV is corrupt because it is not translated from Textus Receptus. Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrian are all corrupt versions from the Catholic Church.

The volume seems really low.

Perhaps to KJ Bible believers the "thee's & Ye's" have meaning.

When Jesus said to Nicodemus
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. John.3.7 KJV
Jesus meant thee to the singular man, Nicodemus, to whom Jesus was speaking, but Jesus meant the whole Jewish nation when He used the plural "Ye."
Therefore it was a prophetic statement concerning the future when all Israel will be saved.

Maybe just another Wardism?

Do you reccomend the two Word Study Bibles you are holding up at the end of the video? Are they both helpful to have, or is one enough? (i.e. are they repetitive?).

The NKJV remove the Name of God " LORD in Hebrew it means YAHWEH in the old testament 6000 times .Wake church. The Name of the Holy Spirit, the Comforter removed.

I am a NKJV supporter, owner & fan. It is the Word of God. I also own and have used the KJV, I prefer the NKJV. 🙏🏼🇺🇸

The non KJV-ONLYS Seem to have the tunnel vision of KJV- ONLYS... in other words, they can't leave the subject alone.