KJV Word Study Bible Review @thomasnelsoninc

Join this channel to get access to perks:

This video is NOT sponsored. Some product links are affiliate links, meaning if you buy something, I'll receive a small commission.

📒 Show Notes + Resources📒

KJV Word Study Bible by Thomas Nelson

Additional ways to support the channel:
Super Thanks and Stickers: See column right below video

QUESTION — Have a question about Bible study, theology, or prayer? Post it in the comments section of this video!

Connect with Wendy:

#biblereview #kjvbible #thomasnelson

Cameras and Gear Used To Create This Video:

[normalopez]

Good evening ❤ Thank you for review . ❤

[BibleBasicsPodcast]

Thank you for this review. I do have a KJV on my shelf but I rarely use it. I also have a number of NKJV’s and NIV’s myself go to translations. I also have and occasionally use CSB, NRSV, and Message.

[AmericanShia]

I definitely have a KJV bible on my bookshelf. In fact, I have several, including a few with the Apocrypha.

I am not, nor have I ever been, KJV-only or Textus Receptus only. When in my late 20s (the late 1980s) in Bible College, I almost became KJV-only. What really kept me from becoming KJV-only was a number of reasons. Firstly, if one reads the Translators Letter to the Reader that not in most modern editions of the KJV anymore, one will find that the KJV translators fully expected new translations to appear in the future.

The KJV was translated from a later edition of Received Text, or Textus Receptus as the original publisher titled it, using the name translated into Latin to sell more copies.

The Roman Catholic scholar Erasmus was a Humanist (not the same thing as a modern secular humanist), who believed the Humanist motto "Back to the Sources". Erasmus formed his Greek New Testament to make a critical edition of the Greek Byzantine Text that had been translated into Latin by Jerome in the early 5th Century, just as the Visigoths under Alaric sacked Rome, beginning the fall of the Roman Empire in the West.

Mistakes had crept into the Latin Vulgate text. Latin was the language spoken in the Western Roman Empire, so a translation from the Greek into the " vulgar" language Latin had to be. Vulgar here just means a different language from the original or "Holy" language.

Erasmus had only a few Greek Manuscripts available to him, all Byzantine Text Type. However, for the ending of the Book of Revelation, he had to translate back into Greek because his copy of the Greek Revelation Manuscript was missing the last page!

The first 2 editions of the Textus Receptus did not have 1st John 5:7 because only a few Latin manuscripts actually have the passage. When he got in trouble with the Catholic Church for not including it, he demanded they produce a Greek Manuscript including 1st John 5:7. A very late Greek Manuscript was produced that, at earliest, would only be two hundred years old. The Byzantine Text does not contain 1st John 5:7. Early Church Fathers who defended the Trinity from the Arians never quoted 1st John 5:7 in a debated that lasted almost a century, producing the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

Various early English translations, Martin Luther's translation, and other early Protestant Translations are translated from the Textus Receptus editions of the TR. The edition used for the KJV had changes to a verse in Revelation made by Theodore Beza, John Calvin's successor in Geneva, based on an honest theory of his that turned out to be false. Neither the Geneva translation that proceeded the KJV, nor the NKJV, have those changes.

I support the Majority Text based on the Greek Byzantine Text Type. The Textus Receptus editions make up a small subset of the Byzantine Text family. There aren't many differences.

The best translation is either the NKJV or the NET bible, as the NKJV is TR with lots of Majority Text notes. The NET is Majority Text.

The KJV is still a good translation. Some words have a different meaning nowadays and a few verses are not translated correctly, but I still like it better than any Critical Text translation.

The Critical Text is based on the viewpoint that earliest is better. The earliest texts are Alexandrian texts from the early Egyptian church. There are maybe one or two more manuscripts from the Alexandrian Family. They took Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus and combined them as the two earliest manuscripts. The problem is that the critical text produced never existed before the 19th century. There is no conspiracy, but I believe the methodology is sincerely flawed.

I still use a few conservative Critical Text Translations. No major doctrine is effected. However, I truly believe the Majority Text is the closest to what Jerome had when he translated the Latin Vulgate. I believe the Greek Text was preserved by the Eastern Church. In fact, many Eastern Churches use the KJV and NKJV in the English Speaking lands.

I won't get into the Old Testament in this discussion.

I subscribed to you channel and liked your video. God bless!

[mimismegalife]

My Dad said he would give me and each of my sisters $100 each to READ the New Testament. I was about 19 years old and I was saved and baptized within a few months. The Bible was a King James Version 📖

[virginiablair]

That Bible is a 10 point front. I have a KJB, NKJV, NIV, CSB.

[knothead]

I have a kjv, but i rarely use it. I guess I'm just too lazy to delve into the antiquated language. It's easily understandable for the most part, minus some words whose meaning has completely changed. I just find it to be distracting

[youngbloodr]

Im not KJV only. But it seems the best compared to the modern ones. I also think what makes a good bible study is to have all your tools and seek them as treasure. Good luck and God speed.

[trudysmith]

I love your videos, so informative. I have a KJV and NIV on my bedside table. Do you have a prayer journal?