Everything the KJB Research Council Said about Readability at Their 2023 Conference 

The primary motivation I had for embracing more modern translations came after growing up with the KJV then reading familiar passages in a modern translation and realizing that I had been misunderstanding those passages due only to a change in the English.

Dr. Ward, I so greatly appreciate your charitableness on this topic. I do have a question after watching this video. Would a KJB edition that removed all the false friends “be enough” movement in your mind to overcome the intelligibility concerns you have identified? Or would more be required?

I actually visited this church a few years back while I was still in the IFB and was doing some research work north of Baltimore at the recommendation of some mutual acquaintances. I was theologically and intellectually on my way out of the movement at the time, but I enjoyed the fellowship there. Good people, and a pretty cool church sanctuary design.

The False Friends, not the archaic words or syntaxes, are why I bought my daughter a NKJV to read, even though I grew up with and still love to read the KJV. "Let" meaning "prevent" rather than "allow" is what did it for me. Difficult or unknown words do not bother me. I have taught English for 26 years in High School, and have read voraciously since the first grade, yet there are still words that I find that I have to look up in various books. The problem with "false friends " is that you THINK you understand it when you don't. They are words that you wouldn't even think to look up, and so the incorrect meaning goes right into the mind without notice. You have done a tremendous job in your work and education about the Bible, and I can't thank you enough for giving all of us the tools and knowledge needed to combat the opinions of our fanatic brothers and sisters in Christ!

Praying for you.

Excellent loving distinction @3:00 in. There's a huge difference between accidental occasional promoters of Ruckman-like ideas, and being an all-in Ruckmanite.

Sorry for the dumb question but what is a "bus kid"? Im from the rural south so maybe im missing something because of that.

Since I’ve been Watching The Mark Ward Channel I have almost completely switched to reading the KJV . I understand it more and more with all these Videos !! It has Really helped me .

56:00 - Trouncing inadequate research with solid information! Bro. Mark does his homework, as usual, and I try enjoy that

The real question. Is the sign language translator signing in KJV or NKJV?

I appreciate your challenge regarding counting and categorizing the differences. You call for the council to do that with other versions than the KJV. Can you be challenged to do the same? You have done an excellent job (and I have personally received great benefit from) your list of false friends in the KJV. Has anyone done that same work regarding modern translations?

Thanks, Mark for clarifying these things. You are gracious. The man "misleads" the flock of God is a euphemism for "lying." He may have done it out of ignorance as you suggest, but a Shepherd has a responsibility to be accurate. There are many things I don't know about the Bible, but when I teach those passages I give various viewpoints held by men of God and their justification, then tell where I fall and why. I don't die on that hill.

What a treat to catch much of the premier. Mark has to be one of the finest voices out there advocating for understanding in the KJV world. I know of no one who has invested more time on this issue.

I am 65 years old, soon to be 66. I have been in church for 60 of those years, have read the Bible through, several times, have been the beneficiary of excellent Bible expositors, have studied & taught the Bible for many years. I read from the KJV every day, but it is not my go-to Bible, and one of the main reasons is that it is more difficult to understand. Even after all of these years, I still find myself looking at words & phrases, wondering what they mean. For my personal study, I use the NASB & the ESV.

Thanks!

I have recently discovered your videos and they are great. I am an American Pastor who works in spanish speaking ministry. A few years ago a spanish version was presented to me that was translated from the KJV so that in essence there would be a KJV that the spanish speaking world could use. I looked through it and many passages that were understandable in the RVR 1960 became difficult and choppy. I disguarded that version because our people could not inderstand it. The version is the RVG 2010. Have you heard of this and are you familiar with the attempts to bring the KJV into other foreign languages?

1:38:10. a presentation from sincere empathy

Can you send me that test for the rural pastors to give their congregations? Thank you

I find it ironically amusing that the KJV-only people are Baptists who would have been jailed, if not burned, by the Anglicans who produced the KJV translation, had they been around in 1611. I also find in ironic that KJV-only preachers will read the text from an early 17th-century translation, then expound the text using 20th-century English, much of which exposition consists of explaning in modern terms what the archaic 17th-century words and phrases mean.

I've messaged you before, & you have changed my mind on a lot! I love too study words, & find out the ture meaning.. I go to a King James only Church, when I preach, I give out the true meaning of the Word. Keep up the good work! I love the King James Bible, but I'm using NLV, ESV & am enjoying it!

I think the funniest part of the donkey vs backside history is that they have nothing to do with each other, and everyone would assume that they would

I don’t know why it’s so complicated to simply take the KJ and update the English words that are outdated or have changed their meaning. It can be done without a new translation, just change the outdated words. I do have the KJVer version which does do a pretty good job at that. By the way, what do they do about translations in other languages? Are they making sure those translations are correct?

"Seminary professors have trouble understanding the King James Bible, bus kids don't". I don't think I've encountered a group that has as much disdain for higher education than the King James only crowd. In a discussion a few weeks ago I was told to, "educate yourself". When I told him I had taken seminary classes on textual transmission and translation he called me an, "over educated fool". This would have actually been funny except that I've had similar conversations at least a dozen time over the past 4-5 years. 🤦🏼‍♂

Thank you so much for this, brother. There aren't words to express my gratitude to hear these things. I felt the shackles falling off and the Holy Spirit speaking to me even beyond the things you discussed. Thank you for missing family TV time and doing this even though you were tired and it was late. October 10th is a day I will always remember as a day when the LORD moved in my heart much like the day I was saved. God used you in a major way to answer prayers I've been praying. The LORD make his face shine upon you!

I have taken "only by pride cometh contention" to mean that pride is the root cause of all contention.

I love your spirit, Mark. May the Lord continue to bless your family and ministry.

Mark, you've helped and challenged me. This issue is rumbling in my church and it's very easy to allow the flesh to respond. Your calm, grace filled approach and attitude is the right way. Thanks for showing me how to take a chill pill.

I've watched Steven Anderson for years,(Im not a KJV only guy, although I have learned to love KJV cuz of him) and have always wanted to take the time and record everytime Anderson had to explain to his congregation what the the verse meant in todays language and then write it down so I could have the New Anderson Translation.

1 and only true reason they won’t consider changing or accepting fellowship with others is that they are afraid of what their pastor friends think.

Thank you for this video. It was well done and very helpful. I appreciate all the work you do toward KJVO it is beneficial and solid.

Absolutely wonderful! You are so well poised and articulate. If you only learned how to speak modern 'high' English like Aleister Begg, you would have a world-wide audience!

In view of the versions now available to us, the “readability argument” *FOR* the King James truly is ridiculous. I tend to stammer when I am nervous. Even when I am calm I struggle with she sells seashells by the seashore. When I was a new pastor (some 24 years ago) reading aloud all the “eth” and “est” endings would trip me up. My solution was to revise on the fly, essentially turning the KJV into the NKJV. There is no good reason for forcing people to struggle.

This brother saved me out of the KJV only mindset. I’m a new Christian as of November 2022, I was told to only read the KJV based on people’s opinions, this brothers facts saved me from ignorantly falling in to KJV onlyism. I will say though that the KJV is a beautiful translation and flows very well in much of the New Testament, but there are many verses that became shrouded in mystery for me while reading it, which became clear in other translations. After all like Paul says in 1Corinthians “God is not a God of confusion but of wisdom”. Hopefully I didn’t butcher that.

Appreciate your work Mark!

Thanks Mark for untangling these assertions!

Brilliant! Thank you.

So this is a few months late to the party, but I actually have a story extremely sinilar to the last speaker's story about the girl that didn't know about what an "ass" was. I grew up on the KJB (I'm 30) and my family did some Bible study and such from it my whole young life, but i do distinctly remember one time where, for some reason that was probably good, i was reading through the story of Jesus entering Jerusalem to my brother who's a couple years younger than me. I was maybe 9? At any rate, I came to where it says Jesus was riding an "ass" and I replaced it with the much more couth word "butt" through the whole passage, thinking I was sanitizing the passage for my brother because *of course* "ass" isnt proper for me to say! Did my dad just not teach me well enough before I got to that word? I'm not sure. What I do know is that if he had been reading through it with us he would've laughed his butt off and then corrected me and I would've learned that lesson and not have been so confused by that passage. When I turned 15 I got a NKJV study Bible and really dove into studying the Word for myself, hard, and never looked back. I became interested in this topic over the last 6 months because my fiancé grew up in an actual KJVO family (which my dad wasn't despite using it). I've discussed much of the problems I have with that mindset with her dad in as friendly and kind a way I know how, talking about readability and textual criticism and how I can't seem to, no matter how hard I try, buy into the KJB being THE way that God has "preserved His Word" and that if you don't believe that you don't believe God keeps His Word. I find it completely unreasonable and overly simpifying the issue of preservation. I like the KJB. I will never use it, unless the Lord changes my mind drastically, as my study Bible again, and I'll never put it in the hands of my kids when they're old enough to read on their own, nor the hands of the kids that are part of the youth group I pastor. I don't hate it, but I do think its reasonable to say that it is outdated, and, frankly, I think the KJVO movement makes Christianity look foolish, but not over a good reason like the message of the Cross as in 1 Cor. 1. To call a translation inerrant and set it as the standard seems like a trap to me, even while I do believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. I really do. The Bible is what I try to base my whole life off of, having thoughtfully and prayerfully become the central pillar of my life, the Rock on which I stand and build. At the same time I can't sweep under the rug that the translators of ANY version are simply human and not the apostles reincarnated and can, indeed, make mistakes or errors in judgement. The KJB is not an exception so far as I can see, though I say so with trembling since I desire to know God through His Word, and if, as the KJVO crowd says, the KJB is the ONLY definitive word of God to English speaking people, I don't want to write it off as a trivial thing. I don't believe what they say, but I also want to have the best possible reasoning for why I don't. The whole thing with textual criticism and corrupted texts and such seems, by my admittedly limited direct research though I've heard a lot of teaching about it, backwards. It seems to me foolish that we would disregard earlier and earlier copies of NT texts outright in favor of "better preserved" copies from literally 600 to 1200 years later. To me it seems more likely that, with no malice involved, phrases or words were added, accidentally or otherwise, to the later texts than it is that the earlier ones were intentionally scrubbed of certain phrases or words. At any rate, this is a long post and you may not see it, but thank you for your work. I'm excited to start watching your "false friends" videos and seeing what my take on those are. I'm reasonably well versed in English, being someone that has always read like crazy and has always had a relatively huge vocabulary. Be blessed, Mark!

In the end, I agree, do the update (but not retranslate). Thank you Mark for your concern and all your hard work. Trust that it would be done right is hard to get beyond.

I agree that if you cannot understand the AV then you should not use it; there are others that you can use instead which are done by reasonably sound evangelicals - NIV, NASB, ESV, MEV, and the NKJV. But the AV is still, in my view, sufficiently clear to be a standard Bible if a church wishes to have it as its pew feeder and pulpit filler. But my own view is that the AV and the NKJV are the best standard English Bibles for today's pew and pulpit, but that will not stop me from fellowshipping and gospelling with someone who wields the NIV, ESV or NASB.

Is that a Cambridge Clarion KJV brown calfskin, sir?

Im doing an end time prophecy bible study with my family. My wife complains constantly because i read and lead the bible study with a kjv and nobody can keep up. I also find myself teaching and explaining the kjv almost as much as teaching the prophecy itself. Me and my wife got in an argument last week and she swiftly let me know that the bible study wasn't about me And my kjv. You know what? She's right. As a teacher, its not about me. Its about those receiving from me. So tomorrow, im going to buy a nkjv. On the flip side, like me, it seems to me these preacher's have forgotten that its not about them but those who have to receive. My wife and i have a street ministry, we hand out a lunch bag with a bible to homeless people in our town. I would never put a kjv bible in there hands because i don't know what their comprehension level is. I want them to read it not give up on it a chunk it. I just dont get these guys it seems so selfish to me. And that's coming from someone who has read the kjv for about 20 years. It seems to me they have made the kjv an idol of sorts. I may be wrong for saying that but that's what keeps going thru my mind as i watch this.🤷

Have they ever considered the free World English Bible based on the Majority text or is the TR only tied in to KJ only

I believe the root cause of the problems is, "We don't know what we don't know."

Great to see this progress!

Man, my heart was already broken by 5 minutes in. The gentleman begins by stating he's not a fan of being lumped in with Ruckman and then proceeds to effectively lump everyone who isn't an ardent "KJV only" proponent into a category of uncaring, "carnal" (at best!) Christians. Wow. I've never worked as a Bible translator or for a Bible publisher. I'm not a pastor looking to "expand my flock" with any "modern trappings". In fact, I've never even written anything on the subject for money. But, I would imagine I would still be included in that "lump" as I have shared my thoughts on the subject several times both in person and in print and I don't demand Textus Receptus for all. (Ironically, out of a heart for those I regularly encounter who struggle to read and understand the KJV without a pile of other references and an 1828 Noah Webster's dictionary. Of equal irony is that I am a very "conservative Christian" often criticized for being "fundamental" in my beliefs. Go figure.) A very interesting choice of direction by him right out of the gate (which pretty much set the tone for the rest).

Notice the poor last guy isn't getting any amens. 😶

Thank you Brother Mark for all of this work. I find your videos (and I am also reading your book) to be irenic as well as scholarly. I left the IFB many years ago and I was never KJV only, but I have encountered (and still do) those who hold that error to one degree or another. Again, thank you for your work.

Could you respond to the video from counsel and might by Dr. George Antonios. KJV VS Other Versions & why you're reading a Jehovah's Witness/Catholic Bible It makes many good points and is hard to refute for KJV only.

I appreciate that they don't want to be lumped in with the likes of Gail Riplinger, and some of them rightly do not warrant that treatment, but it's hard to ignore when brother Ramirez's list of NKJV "omissions" matches Gail's standard list, not just in count, but in exact word order, with just a few skipped over, presumably for the sake of brevity.

I'm not IFB. I am KJB only, because of history.

Mark, I thought we already solved the readability issue with the KJV with the NKJV? What am I missing? I know the KJV onlyist would disagree, but any other unbiased reasonable person would agree the NKJV is the solution to this readibility issue with the KJV.

I neither speak Greek nor Hebrew I rely on the information of the Pastors and translators to provide an accurate account of God's word.

I’ve never been a part of a King James Only church. I only became aware this was a thing a few years ago. It makes me really sad to see the ways the enemy divides the body of Christ. Even something as silly as sticking to a 400 year old translation of the Bible. Even making the “conservative” view the wrong one. I consider myself conservative, but KJV-onlyism seems so nonsensical to me. How anyone could hold to it seems to me to only be the work of the enemy.

Kjv only are so divisive brothers .Let the Bible readable and understand the people .Amen

@markwardonwords In this video and a few others you've mented that the NKJV and MEV are based on the same texts as the KJV. I want to point your attention to two others as well. A Conservative Version (which is in the public domain, published in 2012 by Still Voices Publishing) uses it and so does the 2013 edition of the ESV published by the Gideons. I wanted to point those out because these are also alternatives that might be helpful to you and others who view your channel.

“…the very meanest translation of the Bible in English…containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.” (From the preface of the KJV, The Translators to the Reader) These words are from the very 1611 Bible they love. Even the KJV is against KJV-onlyism.

Mark, in a nutshell, what is the main KJVO objection to using the MEV, for instance? I'm not familiar with it, so I wouldn't know if it had the footnotes like the NKJV that the KJVO hate so much. /// I've probably seen someone making a comment about the EOB-NT, would it be possible for you to review it some time? I'm currently reading thru this traslation and enjoying it, the intros and footnotes are very good.

If this update happened I would be standing in line too buy one. ...Especially one with a nice yapp with goatskin cover, and please keep the translators to the reader .

Why don't they smarten up and revise it? Such stupidity!

If I was Manny Rodgriguez, I'd be honored to be referred as Manny Ramirez who was one of the best right handed batters in the history of Major League Baseball, praise God.

The primary reason I don't think they will be able to get together and agree on an update is because each individual has their own ideas on what is acceptable and not acceptable to update. The comment on the Simplified KJV is a perfect example of that. Because of their "things that are different are not the same" mentality even if they all got together to update the KJV they'd either end up with an English text that is the KJV or they'd end up going their separate ways due to differences. "Seed" vs "offspring" is how they'd all see their own pet peeves. I hope I'm wrong. For some of these very same reasons the updates, like the Simplified KJV, often end up leaving in false friends. An example is "Study" in 2 Timothy 2:15 in the SKJV. It's one that would have to be left because many KJV onlyists make a big deal out of keeping the word due to their own misunderstanding. It's my understanding this is how the NKJV was being worked on. KJV onlyists from the Independent Baptist group were asked to assist but they left early on in the process due to differences.

1:38:20-1:39:02 - A BOLD and CORRECT statement!

13:53 - As a bus kid with many years' experiences similar to yours, Mark, I 100% resonate with this

I can usually read a couple of verses in the KJV with minimal difficulty. What gets me is in reading long sections I "lose tbe thread" of what I'm reading simply because I'm continually untangling the archaic language as I read. I like to read about 1-2 chapters in a sitting. I don't just cherry pick one or two verses.

I am sorry in this case, again we need to study the scriptures, and not to rely on pastures, bishops, and scholars when they don't express this as an issue. We must correctly and painstakingly at times rightfully divide the scriptures. So we have the opportunity to love the Truth.

18:40 - "When did "new" become a qualifer for a new translation" - When the 1611 KJV translators decided to make a new English Bible translation compared to the older translations.

These fanatics tell so many lies. I don't believe they believe in their beliefs. I began a Sunday Bible reading with my sons using a kjv-like Portuguese version, and it was like Hebrew to them. We changed to a more contemporary version and the difference in understanding was huge.

Thank you Mark for this video and all you have taught as the truth sir. Most KJVONLY ( I was at 1 time)groups bash modern translations ( i did) because of omitting verses, updating words even if it is found in a footnote explaining the reason.The hard copy I own of the KJV don’t have footnotes explaining the problem with Mathew 27:9, thus making my KJV hard copy corrupted? Thank God for digital copies formats because they came free with the notes, and commentary AWSOME. Our conversation with the KJVonly groups are honest where as they speak against us as an evil doer, we are no such but strangers and pilgrims who try to abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul (1 peter 2:11-12 my interpretation)not against which Translation is the preserved Word of God, why can’t they see this error they commit ? I did and am still learning,Sometimes we have to break a rule or 2 to get our point across especially to the KJVONLYist. I believe the author of 1 Corinthians 9:20-21 must have done the same.

2:00 -ish - The rejection of Ruckman and Riplinger, et al, still does nothing to offer dissuasion of the co-opting of those folks' works, as well as the Adventists, into KJVO Fundamentalism.

Funny, this one chap claims that Morris saw the KJV as perfect. So why did Morris have such a big and in the development of the KJVer? It blows my mind when you say that you had no idea that halt could mean to go about as a cripple. I have known this definition all my life. As a child I had Polio. Sadly, my family had a different idea. As no "unclean thing" can be acceptable to God... Now I work on a farm, usually far away from prying eyes. I use leg braces when in public, not so gimpy that way.

After listening to many of your videos over the last few days, a question has developed in my mind: if the KJV only defenders don’t mind going to the dictionary to explain words, why not go to modern English translations to see what the word means? To me, that would be a more logical step. I am truly trying to understand , not criticize anyone.

I don't know if you read these comments and I don't know if this is even appropriate to say. I'm offering it in a thread that already has several hundred comments so that the Lord has quite a bit of cushion to providentially/circumstantially cause you to pass over it if it's not edifying. I appreciate your content very much but to speak frankly, you are very hard to listen to sometimes. I know your soft-spoken and self questioning manner is intended to communicate a spirit of humility and unity with people who are still your brothers, but it feels like you're putting it on sometimes. Since I don't believe that this is your actual intention and I know it is difficult to try to present ourselves the way we intend to be received, I would just encourage you that from one outsider's perspective, you would be better off saying things more plainly at times. I think your efforts at graciousness are noble and necessary, but it is not in keeping with the Lord's example to soft peddle correction towards those who lie or harm the body. May God bless you brother.

The claim that false friends are rare just goes to show how falsely friendly they are! I'd estimate l notice at least one per sermon or one per chapter. How many more am l missing? If this brother is not noticing that many, what does that say about how well the KJV is edifying him?

Brother Mark is such a treasure. I’m not trying to be the teachers pet brethren, just speaking facts.

9:40 Phil stringer didn't say it was impossible for the critics to understand but was asking why all of the sudden is there struggles in understanding the King James Bible, where there wasn't any before.

KJVonly feels kind of Amish. "Why use a nail gun (modern translations) when you could work harder with a hammer(kjv)? You should work needlessly harder to do the same job to prove your piety."

"correct those in opposition" 👌🏻 (vs. "those that oppose themselves.")

It should be worth mentioning that the vast majority of english speakers learn it as a second language. If KJV is hard for natives, think of how much more a barrier it is to our ESL friends.

The fact that they use "Us/Them" and war language such as "enemies" is deeply disturbing. I am not their enemy nor am I a "Them", I just do not hold their viewpoint. I am their fellow believer and a child of God/follower of Christ. The undertone of such language is hatred which is the antithesis of the love of Christ. It really does bother me.

Curious, that these speakers don't speak themselves using King James English.

They keep using the term "transition" and "transitioners" and you know what they're trying to do. They're trying to make you think of something else in this context.

Is the sign language man really saying all the speaker is saying? I don't see as much information coming from him. Or a sign is worth a thousand words.

I am a true English man, born and raised in Yorkshire, been saved since 2011 I can read the KJV but still have a hard time understanding some of the KJV so I use the NASB.

I’d take these guy’s arguments a little more seriously if even one of them didn’t have a tone of arrogance and condescension. These positions and types of argumentation caused me to not read my Bible for years and threw doubts in to my own salvation because the idea that if you can’t understand the av you weren’t truly saved.

If they think the KJV is perfect, thats awesome!! But when I preach from the NkJV, Please stay out my face.

Sadly, despite Mark's gentle spirit and his love of the KJV even with its errors, the tone of KJVOs in the video and some of the comments below regarding his supposed "attack" of the KJV leads me to conclude that it will be impossible to develop a clear revision/correction of that monumental but outdated translation. The intractableness displayed by that crowd would prevent its acceptance by the one group that needs it the most.

Why isn't there an NIV, ESV, NASB, ... Research Council? Are people who use them not confident enough to say their version is all one needs because their translators got it right?

1:29:13 - "Miniscule" - see this work for a robust compilation of difficult terms in the AV: "4,114 Definitions from the Defined King James Bible"

When it comes down to it, will you stand before Jesus Christ and say he didn't give us a perfect Bible? Answer that. And I'm not talking about using smooth words to try and get out of you correcting the word.

New is bad? Then let's stick to the Geneva Bible!

I hope the creator of this video will respond. I've been a believer for about two years now, and I've extensively researched Bible translations. From what I've gathered, some individuals have reservations about the Alexandrian manuscripts due to the omission of certain doctrines, such as 1 John 5:7. While I don't strictly adhere to the KJV-only viewpoint, I do hold some partiality towards it. However, I'm not inclined to read the KJV or Douay-Rheims. The fact that the KJV aligns more closely with the Vulgate than the Alexandrian manuscripts tends to make me trust the Byzantine/majority readings more. Have you ever delved into the personal letters between Wescott and Hort, where they attempted to subtly diminish the concepts of blood atonement and the Holy Trinity in the Bible? For me, the alterations in modern Bibles seem to mirror precisely what they had outlined in their correspondence. If I’m completely honest, I feel 80% certain the codex Sinaiticus was forged altogether to provide the textual basis for the RV. Then there's your clear elucidation of the 1 Corinthians 14 issue. While the KJV is undoubtedly beautiful, it may not be as edifying for modern readers. I wonder why there hasn't been a modern translation like the NIV or ESV that revisits the Textus Receptus readings. It could be called something like "ESV (Byzantine type)" or "NIVtr."

1:42:08-1:44:09 - Can confirm, via our Church missionaries to the Indigenous People of SD, that this is 100% accurate

One last one: I’m in the camp a couple of these speaker disparaged as being in favor of the KJV but believing modern translations are necessary. I’ll go so far as to say that someone not conversant with the KJV and Shakespeare is not a fluent English writer and probably not a fluent English speaker. If you don’t know what I mean if I say “The day doth protest too much, methinks,” your English education lacks something fundamental. Similarly, you need to be able to get what a writer means if he writes simply “seek ye first.” But that’s KJV-as-literature, not KJV-as-Scripture. As literature, it is a wonderful masterpiece that should be left alone and reveled in for the beautiful language it almost always is. As Scripture, it should convey the Word of God to the reader/hearer, and it just doesn’t adequately do that anymore. Even times where I’ve decided after study that the KJV is closer to the original than a modern version, I’ve experienced needed to consult the modern version to understand *what* the KJV is expressing more clearly. After you already know what it means, it often proves its worth as a very good translation, serving as a clear window into the original language. But that’s only after someone decodes the gist for you. Here, I’m not talking about decoding like Philip did for the eunuch, showing him Jesus of Nazareth all throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. I mean sentence-by-sentence “what does this even say?” kind of decoding. Peter and Paul tailored their preaching to all sorts of different audiences because they wanted people to understand “Christ has died, Christ is risen Christ will come agains; therefore, repent and be baptized, and follow the Way.” We should want people to understand that same message just as clearly, even if they haven’t spent years learning 400-500-year-old English first.

Regarding Ramirez and Sheol (although this point applies to several words he discusses): sure, “Hell” is an easier word than “Sheol” for a native English speaker who doesn’t know the Judeo-Christian tradition. The problem is that, for those people, it is just flat wrong in today’s English. Without previous Bible knowledge (and I’d venture that for many, even with it), “Hell” is a place where bad people go when they die to be punished forever in fire by a red guy with mustache, horns, pointy ears and tail, and a trident. Whatever “Sheol” is in the Old Testament, it isn’t that. Lots of serious scholarship, both Christian and secular, argues that none of the New Testament words the KJV renders as “Hell” meant that to their writers, either, because that conception of Hell didn’t appear until the Middle Ages. They may be right or wrong, but simply rendering “Sheol,” “Hades,” “Tartarus,” “Gehenna,” and possibly others all as “Hell” because “people know what Hell means” would fail to alert today’s Bible reader that there is vast disagreement over whether the Bible texts mean what popular conception thinks they mean.

That last guy won't be kjvo for long. I could hear it in his voice and his posturing. He's trying to toe the line on both sides. Working with that school has made him realize they are standing in the way of those kids clearly seeing Jesus. Jesus is definitely exalted in the Kjv. However, the line of sight is muddied by the archiac language.

1:25:00-1:26:33 - An admission, at the pace of a sleepy snail!

You repeatedly express surprise that KJVO proponents aren't curious about the reasons for disagreements among the translations, but surely you already know the answer, and that is that it doesn't matter. To them, the KJV is the standard. That's their beginning point, and (with very rare exceptions) they cannot and will not defend it (i.e., by rational, evidence-based argument). Anything that differs from that standard, however slightly, is wrong. But more frustrating to me (and surely much more so to you, since you actually respond to it) is the consistent and utter failure to actually address the arguments that are made. Ramirez doesn't even try to address the readability issues with the KJV--he categorically denies them, he strawmans them, but he doesn't actually address them. And if they're claiming to address the issue of readability, while not addressing the arguments made on that question, I see only three possibilities: (1) they've made no (or at least insufficient) attempt to understand those arguments; (2) they lack the mental capacity to understand those arguments; or (3) they're being dishonest. I want to be charitable to them--a grace they do not, by and large, reciprocate, preferring instead to attribute all sorts of evil motives--but I can't see any other alternative, and none of these sounds very charitable.

To you political point, if one doesn't know words like, overweening, waif, they may be good men, but perhaps that indicates they shouldn't be leading seminars on this topic.

A very minor comment: the word “besom” is in fact, pronounced (or was pronounced, when it was in daily use) /ˈbiːzəm/ and not /ˈbiːsəm/ as you’d guessed.

22:01 I take great issue with the repeated assertion that the NKJV is wholly based on the TR. If it is truly and only the same text that the KJV is based on in today's common English, what meaneth then these footnotes, pointing to other texts and casting doubt, and these translations of words to something the TR does not say? As an example of word changes, look at Gen 17:7, where the NKJV renders the Hebrew word for "seed" as "descendents" (which is what almost every critical version uses). Galatians 3:16 points back to this verse, where Paul makes a pretty big deal about the word "seed" and how it is singular, but you'd never know it with this translation. Also, Acts 19:2. Why is Paul's whole question in the past tense? That is not what the King James says, and if you look at all the old TR-based Bibles, the question is always framed as whether they received the Holy Ghost AFTER or SINCE they believed in Jesus. But nearly every critical version asks if they received the baptism of the Holy Ghost (and implies speaking in tongues) at the moment they accepted Jesus as their Savior. So, those who say this is a TR-based work, did you? Are you saved as your Bible indicates, shown by speaking in tongues immediately when you came to Christ, or are you in an imperfect state of faith as those believers were? I am being sarcastic, but these are the little things that you have to look at if you are going to say this is a faithful, reliable, TR-based translation, worthy of basing your Christian walk on. These are just two examples. So, because of the changing of words, and especially the doubt-inducing footnotes, to me, this is not a faithful translation of the TR.