# Which Bible Would Jesus Use?

## Metadata
- Author: [[Jack McElroy and D. William Grady]]
- Full Title: Which Bible Would Jesus Use?
- Category: #books
## Highlights
- While the battle was certainly intense back in 1993, Paul’s end-day warning in 2 Timothy 3:13 that “evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse” guarantees conditions will only deteriorate till the Rapture. ([Location 106](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=106))
- In this new millennium, the four centuries-old King James Version must now “share the market” with the Queen James Version (2012) promoted as “A Gay Bible … based on The King James Bible, edited to prevent homophobic misinterpretation.” ([Location 110](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=110))
- As the human soul is composed of a mind, emotion, and will, believers are directed to emulate the Lord in all three areas: “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus…” (Philippians 2:5); “…the LORD hath sought him a man after his own heart…” (1 Samuel 13:14); and “…Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps…” (1 Peter 2:21). ([Location 119](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=119))
- To paraphrase his comments, in the A.V. 1611 account of the adoration and prophecy of Simeon (occurring only eight days after Jesus’ birth), Luke 2:33 is rendered, “And Joseph and his mother marveled at those things which were spoken of him.” Conversely, nearly every modern “Bible” deletes Joseph, substituting the blasphemous reading, “And his father and mother…” (e.g., the ASV, RSV, NRSV, NASB, NIV, ESV, ERV, and HCSB). The problem here should be obvious; if Joseph was the father of Jesus, then Jesus could not be God, much less the Saviour of the world, etc. Thus, the question begs, as Matthew 1:18 and 19 shows that Joseph knew the child was not his and Luke 1:34 confirms that Mary knew the same, why do all the editors of the contemporary versions lie by making Joseph the father of Jesus? The greater question then becomes, Why would the Lord Jesus Christ endorse a “Bible” that invalidates both his divinity and ministry? (1 Corinthians 15:17–19; 2 Timothy 2:13) ([Location 128](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=128))
- Which one would he use? The evidence shows that it’s the same brand he’s been using for the past 400 years. And once you know for sure which Bible version the Lord has already chosen and why, you’ll never again have any doubts about which Bible is truly God’s Bible. ([Location 171](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=171))
- “But the Bible was written by men!” We’ve all heard that one before, but what’s really ironic is that professors in most evangelical and fundamental colleges and universities, as well as pastors of evangelical and fundamental churches, teach a version of the same doctrine. The shocking truth is that they believe and teach that “the Bible” as we have it today is actually a hybrid—a production of men and God. ([Location 185](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=185))
- And yet just about all fundamental and evangelical leaders claim this unavailable collection of writings is their authority for all they believe, do, and teach. ([Location 225](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=225))
- Multiple-choice standards don’t work in business and neither do they work when it comes to determining what God says or which Bible is God’s Bible. ([Location 253](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=253))
- In this book, you’ll learn that the errors in some of the most highly recommended modern versions are so bad that if the Lord Jesus Christ came to your church, he wouldn’t give a second thought to using them. ([Location 258](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=258))
- I have in my possession, defend, and promote one that not only exists but has had tangible results for the past 400 years. ([Location 272](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=272))
- The book is our only and exclusive source of truth. It’s our only and final authority. ([Location 280](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=280))
- If we don’t have a physical book that is without error containing only God’s words, we have a defective foundation. ([Location 284](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=284))
- I expect more out of the Lord than some fundamentalists and evangelicals do when it comes to the Bible. I expect him to provide his own children with a book that contains all of his life-giving words and only his life-giving words. I expect that the Lord of Hosts would not leave us without a book. ([Location 324](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=324))
- My presuppositions are that 1. There has to be a book—a physical book. 2. This book must contain all of God’s words and only God’s words. It can’t be a mixture of men’s words and God’s words. 3. Most importantly, the work of providing this authentic, physical Bible is the responsibility of the Lord Jesus Christ. ([Location 346](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=346))
- The issue is focused by asking one simple “big picture” question: “If he came to your church, which Bible would Jesus use?” ([Location 351](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=351))
- In John 6:63, the Lord said… … the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. He spoke those New Testament words in Hebrew (even though some say Aramaic), and yet all the manuscript evidence we have for that statement is in Greek. This means that any Greek manuscript or printed text is a translation of the inspired original words of our Lord. And if you believe that the “original” Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic written words are inspired, then the “original” Greek is in fact an inspired translation of the Hebrew words spoken by our Lord in John 6:63. ([Location 393](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=393))
- Building the Bible (meaning a physical book) is just as important as writing it in the first place. ([Location 401](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=401))
- The Lord Jesus Christ is the living word. He is the Book. It’s a living book able to impart life to its readers. ([Location 409](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=409))
- I have settled in my own heart exactly which book the Lord would carry under his arm if he came to my church. It’s easy to spot. It’s the book he’s been using for the past 400 years. It’s the same book that’s been printed billions of times and translated into over 760 languages. It’s the same book that has been woven into the fabric of my soul for the past 35 years. I had to write a book about the book. I am a man of the book. ([Location 451](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=451))
- I believe that “the Bible” is the 1611 Authorized Version—any edition—commonly known as the King James Bible. I believe that not only the first edition but also any and all of the subsequent editions are “the Bible.” ([Location 462](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=462))
- Dr. John MacArthur repeats one of the frequently stated “safe positions” on the Bible version controversy in a booklet called The Biblical Position on the KJV Controversy: A believer should continue to use an accurate English translation which is personally most readable and understandable such as KJV, NASB, or NIV. ([Location 738](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=738))
- Dr. MacArthur recommends both the NASB and the NIV. He says they’re both “accurate.” And yet one teaches believer’s baptism and the other doesn’t even mention it. How can they both be accurate? ([Location 742](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=742))
- Here’s the thing: if he doesn’t put his words in a book, no one could ever know for sure which of the variant readings are his and which are not. ([Location 766](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=766))
- The propaganda is that Textual Criticism is a science. It’s not; and there are agendas, personalities, paradigms, parsing of words, politics, and world views in the mix. ([Location 774](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=774))
- The textual critics who examine manuscripts for a living and have “the necessary knowledge and skill to do so” disagree as to not only which words appeared in the so-called “Original Bible” but also which verses. Moreover, the men who do textual work for a living are surprisingly candid about the prospect of ever determining what the so-called “Original Bible” said. ([Location 778](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=778))
- For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father’s, and of the holy angels. (Luke 9:26) ([Location 820](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=820))
- f there’s one thing all text critics believe in, it’s the value of a couple of 4th-century manuscripts (handwritten documents, abbreviated MSS). They love these two relics because they are relatively complete and because they are old. They’re known as Vaticanus (referred to as Codex B) and Sinaiticus (referred to as Codex Aleph, or the Hebrew letter ). A codex is a manuscript in the form of a book, rather than a scroll. ([Location 822](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=822))
- Vaticanus (so-called because it was found at the Vatican Library) is one of the oldest manuscripts of the Greek Bible. ([Location 827](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=827))
- Sinaiticus (so-called because it was found at a monastery on Mt. Sinai) was discovered in the mid 19th century as well. ([Location 833](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=833))
- Current scholarship considers the Codex Vaticanus to be one of the best Greek texts of the New Testament with Codex Sinaiticus its only competitor. ([Location 834](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=834))
- Scholars love these two manuscripts so much that when they find variant readings in them, they automatically default to the variant and say that these readings are “original.” No matter that these readings differ from what has commonly appeared since the church was founded. ([Location 837](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=837))
- They can’t even come close to proving the variant readings are original, they just choose to believe it. ([Location 839](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=839))
- In short, the textual critics honestly believe that these two manuscripts are the closest representatives we have to the fabled “Original Bible.” ([Location 841](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=841))
- These two manuscripts have had a tremendous influence on English versions of the Bible for the past 130 years. The whole Bible version controversy rises and falls on the trustworthiness of these two manuscripts. ([Location 842](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=842))
- Of course it raises the question, if these manuscripts are so important, how come God waited until the mid 19th century to deliver them to us? ([Location 857](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=857))
- The first two centuries witnessed the creations of the large number of variations known to scholars today … in the manuscripts of the New Testament most variations, I believe, were made deliberately… The majority of the variant readings in the New Testament were created for theological or dogmatic reasons.… Most of the manuals and handbooks now in print (including mine!) will tell you that these variations were the fruit of careless treatment … of the New Testament.… The reverse is the case. It was because they were the religious treasure of the church that they were changed.2 The overwhelming majority of variant readings were created before the year 200.3 ([Location 873](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=873))
- The worst corruptions to which the NT has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed.4 ([Location 886](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=886))
- And it turns out that a lot of the mischief was being done in… Alexandria, Egypt, home of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. ([Location 895](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=895))
- Here’s what we know: 1. Paul made 3 missionary journeys, visited scores of cities, and never went to Alexandria, Egypt. 2. No original New Testament letters were ever written to anyone in Egypt. 3. The two main “oldest and best” Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus (Aleph) manuscripts originated in or near Alexandria, Egypt. 4. The best you could ever say about them is that they represent textual variations unique to that country. 5. There was a lot of creative editing for style (referred to as “Alexandrian trimming”) and content instead of faithful copying going on in Alexandria.7 ([Location 900](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=900))
- Burkitt wrote that Tertullian (160–220) and Augustine of Hippo (354–430) both testified that the scribes in Africa were constantly editing and revising the manuscripts.8 Aren’t you supposed to copy biblical manuscripts, not edit them? ([Location 910](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=910))
- Textual expert Wilbur Pickering tells us that the “oldest and best” manuscripts don’t agree with each other in over 3,000 places in the Gospels alone. ([Location 922](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=922))
- Hoskier [textual researcher and analyst Herman Hoskier (1832–1904)], after filling 450 pages with a detailed and careful discussion of the errors in Codex B [Vaticanus] and another 400 on the idiosyncrasies of Codex Aleph [Sinaiticus], affirms that in the Gospels alone these two MSS differ well over 3,000 times, which number does not include minor errors such as spelling, nor variants between certain synonyms which might be due to “provincial exchange.”10 ([Location 923](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=923))
- John Burgon who believed that: …words and clauses and sentences were omitted upon definitely understood principles in a small class of documents [the Alexandrian text] by careless or ignorant or prejudiced scribes.12 ([Location 933](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=933))
- Here’s what Burgon said about Vaticanus and Sinaiticus in his 1881 book, The Revision Revised. One chapter is aptly titled: ([Location 951](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=951))
- “ B C D showed to be four of the most corrupt codices in existence.” …B and [Vaticanus and Aleph], have within the last 20 years established a tyrannical ascendance over the imagination of the Critics, which can only be fitly spoken of as a blind superstition.16 ([Location 952](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=952))
- Dirty little secret #1 The critics know their two “go-to” manuscripts are error-filled but believe in them anyway. ([Location 993](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=993))
- Dirty little secret #2 The critics assert that God made those mistakes in the original autographs. ([Location 999](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=999))
- The textual critics won’t dump these manuscripts even when they know they contain error. They choose error rather than truth and say that’s what God originally wrote. ([Location 1000](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=1000))
- They don’t come right out and tell you, but most of them really believe that the Bible is a mere human book. No different than any of the classics. They know that the public believes that somehow God has something to do with the “Bible” so they are careful about their wording. ([Location 1002](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=1002))
- They assert: God made geography mistakes, God made history mistakes, God got his facts wrong, God made grammatical mistakes. He made doctrinal mistakes, and he left out important details of events that should have been there. ([Location 1008](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=1008))
- This outrageous behavior was noted over 100 years ago by George Salmon, provost of Trinity College, Dublin, in his book Some Thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament: …but even more repulsive to conservative instincts was the number of cases in which these editors attribute to the evangelists themselves erroneous statements which their predecessors had regarded as copyists blunders. There was indeed but a little rhetorical exaggeration in the statement that the Canon of these editors was that Codex B was infallible and that the evangelists were not. Nay, it seemed as if Hort [NT scholar] regarded it as a note of genuineness if a reading implies error on the part of the sacred writer.19 ([Location 1011](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=1011))
- Seems like an insult to God, but here’s their logic: They convinced themselves that these manuscripts (and especially Vaticanus) represent the text of “The Original Bible.” ([Location 1020](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=1020))
- Hort was a man with an agenda. He was hired to “revise” the King James Bible but instead, along with a man named Brooke Westcott, substituted a newly created Greek New Testament based primarily upon the readings found in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Hort and Westcott published this critical edition of The New Testament in the Original Greek in 1881. ([Location 1027](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=1027))
- Their text is known as the Westcott and Hort Greek text and was the basis of the New Testament for the English Revised Version also published in 1881. It’s the granddaddy of just about all the English versions/translations produced in the 20th and 21st centuries. ([Location 1030](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=1030))
- Hort made it his life’s work to dethrone the Greek text (known as the Received Text or Textus Receptus) that had been used by the church for 1,800 years. When he was 23 years old, he referred to the Received Text as “vile and villainous.”20 That’s an interesting comment coming from a 23-year-old kid. ([Location 1033](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=1033))
- The Received Text has a history of being used by the church throughout the centuries. The text based on the two Alexandrian manuscripts does not. ([Location 1043](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=1043))
- Burgon regarded the good state of preservation of B (Codex Vaticanus) and Aleph (Codex Sinaiticus) in spite of their exceptional age as proof not of their goodness but of their badness. If they had been good manuscripts, they would have been read to pieces long ago.22 As another researcher has put it nicely: In 1977 Pickering wrote that since there is only one existing copy of both B and Aleph [the] evident fact that they were not copied … suggests that the early church rejected them.23 ([Location 1045](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=1045))
- Why do textual critics and almost all Christian academics still reject the Received Text? They dump the readings of the vast majority of manuscripts based on Hort’s cunningly devised fable about the history of the text even though it’s been proven to be false. ([Location 1089](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=1089))
- who are “the orthodox”? Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines orthodox as: 1. Sound in the Christian faith; believing the genuine doctrines taught in the Scriptures; opposed to heretical; as an orthodox Christian. 2. According with the doctrines of Scripture; as an orthodox creed or faith. ([Location 1123](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=1123))
- For starters, look at the book titles published by two key players in the field. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture was written by premiere textual critic Dr. Bart Ehrman. The title tells it all. The orthodox corrupted the Scripture. Here’s another. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (4th edition) by Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman. Notice that the text was transmitted then corrupted (by Bible believers) and then restored (by textual critics). ([Location 1137](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=1137))
- The dead hand of Fenton John Anthony Hort lies heavy upon us. In the early years of this century Kirsopp Lake [NT scholar] described Hort’s work as a failure, though a glorious one. But Hort did not fail to reach his major goal. He dethroned the Textus Receptus. After Hort, the late medieval Greek Vulgate was not used by serious students, and the text supported by earlier witnesses became the standard text. This was a sensational achievement, an impressive success. Hort’s success in this task and the cogency of his tightly reasoned theory shaped—and still shapes—the thinking of those who approach the textual criticism of the NT through the English language.27 ([Location 1151](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=1151))
- So why don’t your teachers tell you the textual scholars who created the Greek New Testament text that underlies most modern versions of the Bible (i.e., ESV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, NASB, NIV, NLT, HCSB, etc.) believe there were errors in the Original Autographs? ([Location 1163](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=1163))
- Do you believe that just because someone publishes a book with the title “Bible” on it that it has to be “God’s will”? ([Location 2613](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=2613))
- Likewise, just because some academic, scholarly Christian contracts his translation services to a businessman, does it automatically follow that it’s “God’s will” just because he’s agreed to work on a book titled “Bible”? ([Location 2615](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=2615))
- There have been well over 100 English Bible versions published in the last hundred years. Do you think the Lord was behind them all? Even if their publishers and committee members did, that doesn’t make it so. ([Location 2617](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=2617))
- The reason there is such a thing as “King James Onlyism” is because the King James Bible is the only brand millions of folks insist on. In marketing, this is known as “brand insistence.” It didn’t happen by accident. The Lord is the “brand manager.” ([Location 2641](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=2641))
- The fact is, any version of the Bible is loaded with many words some people don’t use (or misuse) today. Anybody who wants to really understand God’s word—in any version—has to learn a new vocabulary. They have to learn history and geography as well. ([Location 2727](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=2727))
- It would be one thing if all the ©1982 NKJV did was to simply “polish” the archaisms in the 1611 KJB. A number of publishers have done this, but their products have gone nowhere. Polishing is one thing, but “enhancing” the vocabulary is another. ([Location 2740](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=2740))
- There are material translational differences between any edition of the 1611 King James Bible and the ©1982 NKJV. There has to be. You can’t use different English words without changing the meaning in many passages. That doesn’t mean either is necessarily a wrong translational choice, it just means they’re different. ([Location 2743](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=2743))
- It’s what keeps lawyers in business. If you’ve ever bought a house, financed a car, or been involved in a business agreement, you know how important the choice of words is; changing words can (and often does) mean changing the deal. ([Location 2746](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=2746))
- As you will see, some of the word choices used in the ©1982 NKJV match up with the Revised Standard Version of 1952. This is significant because the RSV was roundly criticized by fundamentalists and evangelicals alike back in the day because of its liberal bias and poor theology. ([Location 2900](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=2900))
- Dr. Laurence M. Vance said: The Revised Standard Version (RSV) was perhaps the most controversial version of the Bible ever translated. Its publication (the New Testament in 1946; the Old Testament in 1952) brought forth a multitude of books and pamphlets against it that attracted the attention of both the secular and religious press. Copies of the RSV were even burned. The RSV relegated Mark 16:9–20 and John 7:53–8:11 to footnotes, attacked the deity of Christ by changing the punctuation of Romans 9:5, dropped the word begotten from John 3:16, replaced the word propitiation throughout the New Testament, and, in what became the most controversial passage of all, changed the word virgin to “young woman” in Isaiah 7:14. This is all in addition to the scores of omitted phrases and verses in the New Testament because of the corrupt Greek text that the RSV was translated from.12 ([Location 2903](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=2903))
- Consider the legacy of the RSV: NIV committee member Dr. Jack P. Lewis said: The RSV opened the era of the multiple translations flooding today’s market, all competing with each other.13 ([Location 2915](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=2915))
- Pretty interesting comment, isn’t it? Note the words “all competing with each other.” Does that sound like something the Lord is behind? ([Location 2918](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=2918))
- The RSV is an authorized revision of the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901. It was a production of the forerunner of what is now the National Council of Churches. The controversy stemming from the RSV helped reignite the King-James-Only Movement within the Independent Baptist and Pentecostal churches … Funding for the revision was assured in 1936 by a deal that was made with Thomas Nelson & Sons. The deal gave Thomas Nelson & Sons the exclusive rights to print the new version for ten years.14 ([Location 2920](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=2920))
- By the way, in 2001, publisher Crossway Bibles released its own revision of the RSV called the English Standard Version (ESV). We’ll examine how this happened in a later chapter. ([Location 2924](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=2924))
- Sometimes the translational choices of the ©1982 NKJV match up exactly with the way other modern versions translate the text too. If the wording in modern versions is unacceptable to the Lord, then why should he accept it from the ©1982 NKJV? ([Location 2973](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=2973))
- The word meanings are clear in the 1611 King James Bible and they are clear in the ©1982 NKJV as well as the other versions. The words aren’t the same and don’t mean the same thing. ([Location 3002](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=3002))
- It was the editors’ conviction that the use of footnotes would encourage further inquiry by readers. They also recognized that it was easier for the average reader to delete something he or she felt was not properly a part of the text, than to insert a word or phrase which had been left out by the revisers.15 Look how their variant reading ([Location 3021](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=3021))
- The truth is that the committee members, editors, and publisher of the NKJV as well as the men who promote it really believe that only “The Original Bible” is the real Bible. And only “The Original Bible” is inspired and inerrant. The New King James Version is just a shadow of the real thing. ([Location 3042](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=3042))
- It’s the motive that counts. The NKJV editors’ motive, by their own admission, was to make it “easier for the average reader to delete something he or she felt was not properly a part of the text.” ([Location 3056](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B00KTV5GM2&location=3056))