Why do they not accept an update of the KJV? 

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.

Footnotes can certainly make you lose faith in the Bible being God's Word. Any footnote that suggests a passage might say something else is immediately throwing confusion into the mix. God didn't say "this or that"; He simply said what He said.

​​@@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 "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.

Ahhhh but which manuscripts? you see that is the point.

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.

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 ❤

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.

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.

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.

Often with a dash of group think and pinch of tradition.

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.

Just for others who read the post above, this is why you read the pages before Genesis. They explain the translations features and methodology.

@@SaneNoMore Yep the publishers preface is there for a reason. Great point.

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.

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....

Literal translations on what manuscripts though? Some modern bibles are great translations from the wrong text.

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.

@@hikerbill9248 David Daniels was featured in this video if you actually watched it. He says a lot of things, most of which aren't true.

@@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.

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.

@@catlorecj424 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.

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.

Ya, they get borderline psychotic.

Question... How old are you? Since, up until 1971, when I was 12, the only Bible permitted in America was the KJV..... (Just check your copyright dates).....it's an easily confirmed fact....if you really want to know. I've watched the moral Free Fall, in America since the introduction of revised Bibles and I personally know why. In short, revised Bibles are altered so much that everyone qualifies as a Christian including womanizers, rapists, child molesters, adulterers adulteresses fornicators, liars thieves man stealers... You name it.... Are you well studied enough to know that?

I agree with you Nick. They care more about their translation than preaching about God’s love, forgiveness and mercy. They in turn become like the Pharisees that Jesus was so critical of.

@@Nick-wn1xw Just one smell problem with modern versions. EEEEEEEVERYONE qualifies as a Christian..... .....EXCEPT We who actually do have divine power over "transgressing the law", (committing sin) just, like that nasty old KJV says.

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

Why? A footnote that suggests the verse might not actually be God's true word, as it might be something else, is obviously going to throw doubt into the mix.

What I found interesting is that in the verses that are marked "not in the oldest manuscripts", in almost every case we have an early Church Father quoting that verse from before the oldest manuscripts we have. So, those verses were a part of the manuscripts of the early church and not later additions. Another example, is the woman caught in adultery found in John 8. Claim that it wasn't in the oldest manuscripts, yet we have Church Fathers quoting it with John as the source. Also, Augustine even wrote about people trying to remove that story from the text because they didn't like that the woman was forgiven without punishment!

The KJV translators refute virtually everything David Daniels teaches about their bible.

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!!!

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.

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.

💛💛

You will find difficult to understand words in modern translations too.

Kjv reformed heritage study bible helps explain those hard words

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.

Have you gone to God The Heavenly Father, DIRECTLY, and asked Him?

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.

It doesn't really say anything different than any other bible. The notes are extensive though.

The pilgrims in 1620 used the Geneva version.

Jehovah Witnesses use the King James Bible. And the New King James Version does not downgrade the divinity of Christ in any way.

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