With so many English Bibles available, which translation can we trust for daily reading, serious study, and teaching? To answer that, we need to look at more than how smooth a version sounds. I want to examine the Hebrew and Greek text behind it, the way its translators handled those words, and what Scripture says about preservation.
Confidence Begins With God’s Promise to Preserve His Words
The Bible is the foundation of our faith. Jesus said that man lives by “every word that proceeds from the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4), so this is not a small or merely academic question. Bible versions do not all follow the same manuscript base, and they do not all use the same method of translation. Some of their differences touch passages that carry important doctrinal clarity.
God has not left His people to believe that His Word vanished somewhere in history. He describes His words as pure and promises to preserve them. The psalmist did not speak only about a general message that would survive. He spoke about the words themselves.
“The words of the LORD are pure words, like silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. You shall keep them, O LORD, You shall preserve them from this generation forever.”
“Forever, O LORD, Your word is settled in heaven.”
Jesus spoke with the same precision. He referred to the smallest marks of Hebrew writing, then promised that His own words would not pass away.
“Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.”
“Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.”
These promises give us confidence that God has kept a faithful record of His words for every generation. They also raise a practical question. Which manuscript line reflects that preservation, and which English translation faithfully carries it into our language?
Preservation does not mean that every handwritten copy or every translation is free from a copyist’s or translator’s mistake. Scripture itself gives the standard, while surviving witnesses allow those differences to be seen. My confidence is that God did not permit His words to disappear so that they had to be guessed back into existence. He kept them available among His people in a received textual stream, and faithful translation can give those words to readers who do not know Hebrew or Greek.
I think it is important to keep both parts of the question together. A translation may use natural English yet begin from a text that removes received words. Another may begin from the right manuscript line but communicate in language a modern reader cannot easily understand. We should look for a sound original-language base and a method that carries it accurately into clear English. The Bible in our hands should invite careful reading without making confidence depend on constant scholarly revision.
Ancient copies do not always agree word for word. For the Old Testament, I receive the Hebrew Masoretic Text as the preserved base entrusted to Israel. The Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls remain historically useful, as does the Samaritan Pentateuch. None of these witnesses stands as the final authority over the Hebrew text. In the New Testament, the main question is whether a translation follows the received Byzantine and Textus Receptus stream or the modern Alexandrian critical text.
This distinction is not an excuse for pride or careless accusations. Many translators who work from the critical text are sincere, and their translations contain much true Scripture. Ancient manuscripts should also be described accurately. My concern is the textual foundation, the translation philosophy built upon it, and the confidence a Bible gives the reader about which words belong in the text.
The Old Testament Text Entrusted to Israel
The Masoretic Text is the Hebrew Bible preserved by the Jewish people. Paul wrote that to the Jews “were committed the oracles of God” (Romans 3:2). Most of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, with a small portion in Aramaic, and Jewish scribes copied those Scriptures from one generation to the next. When Jesus spoke about “the Law and the Prophets” and the Psalms in Luke 24:44, He treated those writings as a fixed and authoritative body.
The Masoretes were Jewish scribes active especially from the sixth through the tenth centuries AD. They are known for their careful transmission of the text and for adding vowel points, accents, and marginal notes that guarded its reading and copying. They did not invent the Hebrew Scriptures. Their work preserved and marked a text that Israel had already received and transmitted.
“Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled”
Jesus affirmed the lasting authority of the Hebrew Scriptures that the Masoretic tradition later safeguarded. Reformation Bibles such as the Geneva Bible and the King James Version used the Masoretic Text for the Old Testament. The New King James Version follows that same base.
The Septuagint, often shortened to LXX, is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Work on it began in Alexandria several centuries before Christ, first with the Torah and later with other books. Greek-speaking Jews used it widely, especially outside Israel, and many early Christians also read it. At times, a New Testament quotation follows wording closer to the Septuagint than to the Masoretic Hebrew.
That history makes the Septuagint valuable, but it does not make the Septuagint the original text. It is a translation, and like every translation it contains choices about wording. Some parts include paraphrase or expansion. Its collections also contain books that Israel did not recognize as Scripture, commonly called the Apocrypha, which Jesus and the apostles did not affirm as part of the Hebrew canon.
Real differences exist between the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text. The Septuagint form of Jeremiah is about one-eighth shorter, while the numbering of the Psalms differs. Other passages vary in wording or order. Isaiah 7:14 is especially interesting because the Greek uses parthenos, meaning “virgin,” where the Hebrew word almah can refer to a young woman and, in this setting, an unmarried woman. Matthew 1:23 uses the Greek word for virgin when it applies Isaiah’s prophecy to Christ.
I think it is important to handle that evidence from both sides. The Septuagint does not replace the Hebrew, but it can show how ancient Jewish translators understood a Hebrew expression. Long before Christ’s birth, those translators understood Isaiah 7:14 to speak of a virgin. Matthew’s inspired use confirms that Isaiah foretold the virgin birth. In this way, the Greek translation can help us understand a word without becoming the authority over the original Hebrew text.
Other Old Testament witnesses also have historical value. The Samaritan Pentateuch preserves only Genesis through Deuteronomy. The ancient Syriac Peshitta and Latin Vulgate show how Scripture traveled into other languages. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain fragments from nearly every Old Testament book and date from roughly the third century BC through the first century AD.
Discovered near Qumran in 1947, the Dead Sea Scrolls gave us Hebrew witnesses more than a thousand years older than the complete Masoretic manuscripts then known. In the great majority of cases, their readings align most closely with the Masoretic Text. Some readings resemble the Septuagint and show that textual variation existed in the ancient world. Even so, their main witness confirms that the Hebrew Scriptures were transmitted with remarkable faithfulness and that the Masoretic line carries forward the same Old Testament known before Christ.
The age of a surviving object is not the same as the age of the textual line it represents. Codex Leningradensis, a complete Masoretic manuscript, dates to about the tenth century AD, but the Hebrew tradition within it reaches much further back. The Septuagint survives from an earlier period because it is an ancient Greek translation. The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Qumran scrolls are also early witnesses, yet neither became the received base of the Hebrew Bible entrusted to Israel.
This distinction explains why the oldest surviving complete copy does not decide the issue by itself. The Masoretic line was carried through Israel long before the medieval codices now in museums. The Septuagint, by contrast, was translated into Greek in Alexandria from Hebrew sources. The Dead Sea Scrolls were preserved in caves rather than copied forward as the standard text of a worshiping community. Each witness can tell us something different about history, but only one served as the continuing Hebrew base.
Most modern English versions begin with the Masoretic Text, but their practice differs. The KJV, NKJV, and MEV retain it as their Old Testament base. Versions such as the ESV, NIV, and NASB sometimes prefer readings from the Septuagint or Dead Sea Scrolls where their editors judge those readings stronger. Catholic Bibles give more weight to Septuagint tradition and include the Apocrypha. In my view, ancient witnesses can clarify history, but the Masoretic Text should remain the base rather than being overruled whenever modern critical judgment prefers a variant.
The New Testament’s use of Greek Old Testament wording does not require us to canonize every reading found in later Septuagint collections. An inspired writer could use the familiar Greek expression that communicated the Hebrew truth. That use does not place a translation above the original-language Scriptures entrusted to Israel. The Hebrew canon and its received text remain the measuring line, while the Greek version serves as a valuable witness to ancient interpretation.
The Received New Testament and the Alexandrian Critical Text
The New Testament evidence involves thousands of Greek manuscripts, early translations, and quotations in the writings of church fathers. These witnesses do not always agree. The broad distinction considered in this study is between the Byzantine tradition, often called the Majority Text, and the Alexandrian tradition that has shaped the modern critical text.
The Byzantine text dominated the Greek-speaking church for more than a thousand years. It received its name because it was copied throughout the Byzantine Empire, and it is called the Majority Text because most surviving Greek manuscripts follow this general pattern. These were manuscripts used in worship and teaching. They were read, copied, and often worn out through repeated use.
When printed Greek New Testaments appeared during the Reformation, editors such as Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza worked from manuscripts in this Byzantine stream. Their editions became known as the Textus Receptus, or Received Text. The Textus Receptus is not identical to every individual Byzantine manuscript, but it belongs to the same received family. Tyndale, the King James translators, and other Reformation translators used it. The NKJV continues with this Greek base and provides notes where the Majority or modern critical texts differ.
The modern critical text gives substantial weight to a smaller group of ancient witnesses associated with Egypt. Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are especially influential. Modern printed editions such as Nestle-Aland and the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament rely heavily on critical evaluation that includes these Alexandrian witnesses. The ESV, NASB, NIV, CSB, NRSV, and most other recent English versions use this critical text.
Supporters of the critical text argue that an older manuscript is closer in time to the original and may preserve a better reading. I do not believe physical age alone settles the question. A manuscript can survive because it was stored in a favorable climate or because it saw little use. Byzantine copies may be later because church manuscripts were continually handled and replaced. A manuscript that happens to survive from an earlier date is not necessarily the text the churches received most broadly.
Codex Vaticanus dates to the fourth century and has long been kept in the Vatican Library. Its public influence arrived late because access was limited before fuller publication in the nineteenth century. It is incomplete. Portions of Genesis and Psalms are missing, as are large parts of the New Testament. It does not include the Pastoral Epistles—1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus—nor Philemon or Revelation. Later corrections also appear in the manuscript. Vaticanus is an important ancient witness, but its age does not make it a flawless judge over the received text.
Codex Sinaiticus also dates to the fourth century. Constantine Tischendorf brought it to wider attention after finding leaves at St. Catherine’s Monastery near Mount Sinai in the nineteenth century. His account included leaves he believed were in danger of being discarded or burned, though details of the discovery and later transfer remain debated. The manuscript contains many corrections by different hands, including spelling repairs and changes to readings. Its quality varies from one section to another. I would treat it as an ancient witness that deserves careful study, not as a final standard that can overrule the church’s received text.
The dry Egyptian climate helps explain why these codices survived. Their condition also shows a history of copying and correction. Modern editions often use their readings to omit, bracket, or footnote words and passages found in the Textus Receptus. Readers then meet notes saying that the “earliest and best manuscripts” do not contain a verse. That wording can make a complex decision sound settled when the witnesses are few, incomplete, corrected, and different from the line copied throughout the churches.
Other New Testament traditions include the Syriac Peshitta, ancient Ethiopic versions, and Latin translations. They show how quickly Scripture spread among different peoples and can provide evidence for particular readings. Still, they are translations rather than the Greek base from which an English New Testament should be made. My confidence rests on the received Byzantine stream and its printed Textus Receptus form.
Surviving Byzantine witnesses begin in the early centuries and grow into the vast majority of later Greek manuscripts. The Textus Receptus editions date from 1516 through the seventeenth century, but the text did not originate at the printing press. Those editions gathered readings from the Byzantine tradition already used by the Greek church. They became the Greek base for the KJV, NKJV, MEV, Luther’s Bible, and other Reformation translations.
Alexandrian witnesses also reach the fourth century, especially Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, but they represent a much smaller manuscript line. Their readings gained new influence through nineteenth-century critical scholarship and now stand behind most modern versions. This contrast is why I do not describe the debate as “old manuscripts versus new manuscripts.” It is a question of which ancient stream God preserved through regular church use and which editorial method should govern the printed New Testament.
This position needs guardrails. We should not pretend that every Byzantine manuscript is identical or that textual variants are imaginary. Neither should we make every disagreement a charge of malice. Ancient manuscripts must be described honestly, and debated parts of their history should be acknowledged as debated. Yet Vaticanus and Sinaiticus remain witnesses, not judges. For this study, the central line of preservation is the text read and copied in the churches.
Nor is preservation reduced to counting manuscripts without examining them. The broad numerical majority is important because it shows the text that was repeatedly copied, but the printed Textus Receptus also contains editorial decisions. I receive that printed tradition as the form through which the Reformation church inherited the Byzantine text. The point is not that every copyist was incapable of error. It is that God preserved a stable and recognizable text through the ordinary life of His churches rather than requiring the church to reconstruct its Bible from witnesses that had not governed its reading.
Translation Method Shapes What the Reader Receives
A sound manuscript base is only part of the question. Translators must also decide how to carry Hebrew and Greek into English. Even when two teams begin with the same text, their translation philosophy can produce noticeably different results.
Formal equivalence is often called word-for-word or essentially literal translation. It seeks to represent the wording and structure of the source as closely as English allows. No translation can replace every original word with one English word in a rigid pattern because languages do not work that way. Still, formal-equivalence translators try to preserve vocabulary and grammatical relationships rather than restating what they think the author meant. The KJV, NKJV, ESV, and NASB generally follow this approach.
For study, teaching, and doctrine, I believe this is the safest method. It keeps the reader nearer to the inspired words and leaves more room for Scripture itself to control interpretation. God promised to preserve His words, not merely a collection of ideas, so a translation should aim to carry those words with as little interpretive filtering as possible.
Formal equivalence still requires judgment. Hebrew and Greek word order cannot always be copied directly into readable English, and one source word may need different English words in different settings. The goal is not wooden language. The goal is a disciplined method in which necessary adjustments serve the source text instead of giving the translator freedom to rewrite the passage’s theology.
Dynamic equivalence, also called functional equivalence, gives greater attention to expressing the thought in natural modern language. The NIV, NLT, and CSB use this method to varying degrees. The result may be easier to read, but the translator must decide what the thought means before restating it. That gives human interpretation a larger place in the finished wording. Readability is valuable, yet it should not be purchased by weakening precision or closing off a meaning present in the source.
Paraphrases go further. The Message and The Living Bible restate biblical ideas in loose contemporary language rather than translating the original wording closely. They can be read as devotional commentary, but they should not serve as the basis for doctrine or serious study. Their wording reflects one person’s interpretation and can add shades of meaning not found in the text.
The need for precision appears inside Scripture itself. In Galatians 3:16, Paul’s argument turns on the singular word “seed” rather than the plural “seeds.” In Matthew 22:32, Jesus reasons from God’s statement “I am the God of Abraham,” not “I was.” Those arguments depend on exact wording and grammar. A method that offers only the general idea can hide the very detail on which an inspired argument rests.
I believe translation philosophy deserves careful attention because it carries doctrinal weight. Formal equivalence does not make a translation inspired as a new original, and no English Bible stands above the preserved Hebrew and Greek. It does, however, show respect for verbal inspiration by trying to give the reader the words rather than a translator’s expanded explanation.
Why Textual Differences Cannot Simply Be Dismissed
The difference between the Received Text and the critical text is not that every Christian doctrine exists in one and disappears from the other. Core doctrine can be taught from critical-text translations. The concern is cumulative. Words, verses, and longer passages are omitted or placed in brackets, which can weaken clarity and unsettle confidence about what belongs in the Bible.
Proverbs 30:6 warns, “Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.” Revelation 22:19 warns against taking away from the words of that book. Since God treats His words seriously, the church should not dismiss variants merely because a doctrine can still be supported somewhere else.
Mark 16:9-20 is present in the Byzantine tradition and was received in the churches. The last two verses describe Christ’s ascension and the apostles’ ministry:
“So then, after the Lord had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God. And they went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word through the accompanying signs. Amen.”
Many modern versions bracket the longer ending or note that early manuscripts omit it. That note can place doubt in the reader’s mind, but the passage was read and received by the churches for centuries. I accept it as part of Mark rather than treating it as a late addition.
The account of the woman taken in adultery, John 7:53-8:11, receives similar treatment. Modern versions often bracket it, while the received tradition includes Jesus’ words of mercy and repentance.
“When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, ‘Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?’
She said, ‘No one, Lord.’ And Jesus said to her, ‘Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.’”
The passage does not offer cheap acceptance. Jesus shows mercy and also commands the woman to leave her sin. I receive this account as inspired Scripture, not as an optional story that may be removed from John.
Some shorter variants also carry clear doctrinal force. The Received Text states the incarnation directly in 1 Timothy 3:16:
“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up in glory.”
Critical texts commonly read “He who was manifested in the flesh” instead of “God was manifested in the flesh.” Christ’s deity can be proved elsewhere, but the received wording declares it plainly. Colossians 1:14 likewise makes the blood of Christ explicit:
“In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.”
Critical editions omit “through His blood” in this verse, even though they affirm that truth elsewhere. The blood of Christ is central to redemption, so the question is not whether another passage can replace these words. The question is whether these words belong here.
Acts 8:37 records the Ethiopian eunuch’s confession before baptism:
“Then Philip said, ‘If you believe with all your heart, you may.’ And he answered and said, ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’”
Most modern versions omit the verse. The received reading clearly places personal faith in Christ before baptism, so its omission weakens the clarity of the passage’s order.
John 6:47 identifies the object of saving faith:
“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.”
The critical text often drops “in Me,” leaving only “he who believes.” The wider context still points to Christ, but the received wording states the object of faith directly.
Luke 2:33 provides another example:
“And Joseph and His mother marveled at those things which were spoken of Him.”
The Received Text says “Joseph and His mother,” while critical texts commonly read “His father and mother.” The received reading guards the truth that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and that Joseph was not His biological father.
Mark 1:2 combines a quotation from Malachi with one from Isaiah:
“As it is written in the Prophets: ‘Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, who will prepare Your way before You.’”
The Received Text says “in the Prophets,” while the critical text says “in Isaiah the prophet.” Since the opening line comes from Malachi, the received wording avoids creating an apparent error.
Matthew 18:11 states Christ’s saving purpose:
“For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.”
Critical editions omit this verse. Christ’s mission to save the lost is taught elsewhere, but I see no reason to remove this received testimony from Matthew.
One of the best-known differences is 1 John 5:7, sometimes called the Johannine Comma:
“For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.”
The verse is present in the Textus Receptus and omitted from modern critical texts. The Trinity does not rest on this verse alone; the whole Bible teaches one God in three co-equal and co-eternal Persons. Even so, I receive this wording and do not believe we are free to discard its testimony.
Other differences appear in Matthew 9:13, Matthew 19:17, Luke 4:4, Luke 9:56, Luke 23:42, and Romans 8:1. Some involve omitted words, while others change the sense or introduce a difficulty. No single example carries the whole case. Taken together, however, they show why textual variants affect more than typography or style.
The Received Text preserves Mark’s ending and the account in John 8. It also keeps the confession before baptism, along with direct wording about Christ’s deity and blood. Together these readings provide clarity and stability. Continual brackets and omission notes have the opposite effect because they leave the reader uncertain about what should be regarded as Scripture. For that reason, I remain with the Byzantine and Textus Receptus stream received in the churches.
From the First English Bibles to the NKJV
The history of the English Bible shows both a hunger to place Scripture in the hands of ordinary people and a later change in the Greek text behind many translations. Each version reflects decisions about its manuscript base and how closely it will represent the source wording.
John Wycliffe and his followers translated the Bible into English in the fourteenth century. Their work came from the Latin Vulgate rather than directly from Hebrew and Greek, but it gave English readers access to Scripture in their own tongue. The Lollards risked their lives to spread it. Though the translation had limits, it helped prepare the way for the Reformation by insisting that common people should hear God’s Word.
William Tyndale translated the New Testament from Greek in the early sixteenth century, using Erasmus’s printed Textus Receptus. His English was clear and forceful, and many of his phrases remain in later Bibles. Tyndale was executed for his work, yet his desire that even the plowboy know Scripture helped shape the English-speaking church.
The Geneva Bible appeared in 1560 through English exiles in Geneva. It used the Received Text for the New Testament and Masoretic Hebrew for the Old. It became the Bible of the Pilgrims and was widely read in Shakespeare’s England. Its Reformation study notes sometimes challenged royal power, which made it controversial with rulers, but ordinary readers valued its clarity.
The King James Version was published in 1611 after King James I commissioned a team of scholars. It followed the Received Greek text and the Hebrew Masoretic Text. Its reverent style and accuracy made it the standard English Bible for centuries, shaping worship and even the English language. For generations it was the common Bible in both pulpit and home.
A major change came during the nineteenth century. Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus gained influence, and Westcott and Hort published a Greek New Testament in 1881 that relied heavily on Alexandrian witnesses. The Revised Version in England and the American Standard Version in the United States followed this critical-text direction. English translation began moving away from the text received in the churches.
During the twentieth century, the NASB, NIV, and later the ESV became prominent critical-text Bibles. The NASB aims at a more literal rendering, the NIV uses a more dynamic method, and the ESV falls between them. Their translation styles differ, but all use a Greek base that omits or brackets readings long received by the church. Notes about missing verses can make readers wonder whether anyone knows what belongs in the Bible.
The shift also changed the way Christians talk about Scripture. Earlier English Bibles presented received passages as the text. Modern readers frequently encounter brackets, divided verse numbering, or notes that question whether a familiar passage is original. Textual notes can be honest and useful, but when the critical text repeatedly removes readings preserved in the church’s Bible, the notes become a steady lesson in uncertainty. The reader is taught to suspend judgment until experts decide which words survive.
I do not believe God’s preservation depends on a manuscript hidden for centuries and restored to authority by modern scholarship. His providence is seen in the text carried openly among His people, copied for worship, and translated during the Reformation. That history is not proof by popularity alone. It fits the biblical pattern of God entrusting His words to a covenant people who receive and use them.
The New King James Version was published in 1982 to update the language of the KJV while keeping its textual foundation. It uses the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus. It removes archaic expressions that can become a barrier for children, new believers, or readers unfamiliar with older English. It also gives textual notes so readers can see where the Majority or critical texts differ without replacing the received reading in the body.
After working through this evidence, this is where I land: the NKJV is a faithful and readable English Bible for the church today. It maintains the same basic textual foundation as the KJV while speaking clear modern English. This makes it practical for serious study, public teaching, and regular family reading.
The KJV remains a faithful translation, and nothing in this recommendation requires a Christian to stop reading it. Its older English, however, can hide meaning from readers who no longer use those words in daily speech. The NKJV keeps the received passages and familiar structure while removing much of that language barrier. This helps a child or new believer read without needing to translate archaic English before understanding the verse.
The NKJV’s textual notes are another strength. They let the reader see where the Majority Text or critical text differs from the Textus Receptus. That transparency allows further study without moving the disputed received wording out of the main text. The reader can compare the evidence while continuing to read a complete Bible with confidence.
I do not recommend the NIV, ESV, NASB, NLT, CSB, or similar critical-text versions as the main Bible for study and teaching. That does not mean their translators intended to attack Scripture or that every sentence is unreliable. Much true Scripture remains in them. My concern is that their Alexandrian base omits or questions received passages, and some also use translation methods that give greater freedom to interpretation.
No English translation should be treated as a new act of inspiration. The authority belongs to God’s preserved Hebrew and Greek Word. The NKJV is not perfect in the sense that every translation choice is beyond discussion, nor should English be placed above the originals. I recommend it because I believe it begins from the right texts and handles them with a largely formal-equivalence method.
A recommendation should also be usable in real Christian life. A believer needs one Bible he can read steadily and carry into church without wondering whether the next footnote will remove the verse before him. Over time, that same Bible becomes familiar enough to mark and memorize. Teachers need wording close enough to the source that they can explain grammar and doctrine responsibly. Families need language that can be understood aloud. The NKJV serves those needs while keeping continuity with the received English Bible tradition.
This conviction should produce humility. We should not treat Christians who use another version as enemies, and we should not assume bad motives whenever scholars disagree. We should listen carefully to evidence and state disputed historical claims with care. At the same time, humility does not require pretending the variants are meaningless. Some change what is read publicly or remove the confession that comes before baptism. Others affect how directly a passage states the truth about Christ. Taken together, they influence a reader’s confidence in received passages.
The goal of a faithful translation is not to win an argument about manuscripts. It is to hear God clearly and know the Christ whom Scripture reveals. Jesus is the eternal Son, fully God and fully man. He was born of a virgin and remained completely sinless. Wicked men physically tortured, punished, and killed Jesus. He willingly bore that real punishment for our sins in His innocent body, shed His blood, died, was buried, and rose bodily.
The Father did not abandon, curse, punish, strike, bruise, or pour wrath on the Son. Christ died for the whole world. Whoever repents and believes in Him is forgiven and born again. The Holy Spirit indwells and seals that believer, who is eternally secure in Christ. Textual confidence serves this gospel by helping the church open Scripture with reverence and follow the Savior it reveals.
Several related studies examine individual parts of this subject in greater depth. The Majority Text and Textus Receptus addresses the received New Testament stream, while The Septuagint and The Dead Sea Scrolls examine important Old Testament witnesses.
The studies on Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus discuss those manuscripts individually. The Johannine Comma considers 1 John 5:7, How to Study the Bible Properly develops a sound reading posture, and The Trinity places that doctrine in the witness of the whole Bible.
My Final Thoughts
After weighing the manuscript lines and the way English versions translate them, I trust and recommend the NKJV. It gives modern readers the Masoretic Old Testament and the received New Testament in clear language without treating English as a new inspired original. I want Christians to open the Bible with confidence, but also with humility toward people who reach a different conclusion. Our purpose is not to win a textual argument. We want to hear God’s preserved Word so that we believe the gospel it proclaims and obey the Lord Jesus Christ whom it reveals.