I believe the earth is thousands of years old, with roughly six thousand years as a reasonable estimate from the biblical chronology. Genesis does not give a BC date for creation, but it does describe a creation week and tell us the fathers’ ages when the next named sons were born. Those ages let us follow the years from Adam toward Abraham. The later history of Israel then carries the chronology toward Christ.
Adding ages at the births is fairly straightforward. Fitting a period of sojourning or a king’s reign into the larger record can require comparison with other passages. I want to distinguish the time Scripture expressly states from the decisions we make when arranging those periods, so that an approximate creation date is not presented as an exact one.
Reading the Beginning as History
Before Genesis tells us how long creation took, it tells us who created everything.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:1
“The heavens and the earth” includes the whole created order. God did not assemble a world from materials that existed independently of Him. Everything owes its existence to Him, including time itself. His authority over us follows from that relationship: the One who made us has the right to tell us who we are and how we ought to live.
Genesis goes on to explain marriage, the entrance of sin, and God’s judgment, while beginning the promise that leads to Christ. Those events explain what went wrong with the world He came to redeem. If I rearrange the opening chapters whenever another account of origins requires it, the changes can reach into those teachings as well. I am deciding how to read the history on which they depend, rather than merely adjusting a date.
God created in six days and rested on the seventh. The Hebrew word yom can mean different things depending on its context, much like our English word “day.” Here the days are numbered, with evening and morning marking their progression.
God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
Genesis 1:5
The numbered sequence and the evening-and-morning pattern lead me to understand these as ordinary days. Knowing that yom can describe a longer period elsewhere does not establish that it means a long era in this passage. Moses gives us another reason to read it this way when he connects the creation week with Israel’s weekly work and rest.
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
Exodus 20:11
God gave Israel His six days of work and seventh day of rest as the pattern for their own week. I find that connection a compelling reason to read the creation days as ordinary days. If they represented immense ages, the relationship to Israel’s working week would need an explanation Moses does not give. The study on the literal six days of creation examines that wording more closely.
Jesus also appealed to the creation of Adam and Eve when He taught about marriage.
But from the beginning of the creation, God “made them male and female.”
Mark 10:6
Genesis describes Adam being formed from dust and Eve being made from him. Jesus treated them as real people whose union established God’s pattern for marriage. I understand His reference to the beginning as fitting Genesis placing humanity near the start of creation history. Some Christians who accept an older earth also affirm a historical Adam and Eve, so disagreement about the earth’s age gives me no grounds to accuse them of denying those people.
Paul’s explanation of salvation likewise depends on Adam being a real man whose sin had real consequences.
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned.
Romans 5:12
Human death entered through Adam’s sin, while righteousness and life come through Jesus Christ. Paul gives the corresponding contrast in 1 Corinthians 15:22: “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.” If Adam were merely symbolic, we would be changing the explanation of what Christ came to overcome. Accepting a particular creation date cannot save anyone, but the people and events in Genesis belong to the same history that brings us to our Savior.
Animal death before Adam raises a related question. God called His completed creation very good, and Genesis then describes sin and the curse. Romans 8 speaks of creation groaning under corruption, while 1 Corinthians 15 calls death an enemy. I find that sequence difficult to reconcile with ages of animal disease, predation, and extinction before Adam sinned.
Old-earth Christians often respond that Romans 5 specifically connects human death with Adam’s sin. They are right that the passage does not directly tell us when animal death began. I still believe the wider sequence of original goodness, sin, and creation’s corruption supports a young earth. That is an argument from the passages together, and I should not quote Romans 5 as though it explicitly names animal death.
From Adam to Noah and the Flood
Genesis 5 lets us begin tracing the elapsed years through the family line. Adam’s entry gives three figures: his age when Seth was born, the years he lived afterward, and his total lifespan. We need to distinguish those figures before adding the years.
And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters. So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.
Genesis 5:3-5
Adam was 130 when Seth was born. We use that number to move forward in the chronology, not his entire lifespan of 930 years, because father and son were alive at the same time. Seth was 105 when Enosh was born, and Enosh was 90 when Cainan was born. Adding those three ages takes us 325 years from creation to Cainan’s birth.
The remaining ages follow the same pattern in the Masoretic Text, the traditional Hebrew text used for these Old Testament passages. Cainan was 70 when Mahalalel was born, Mahalalel was 65 at Jared’s birth, and Jared was 162 when Enoch was born.
Enoch was 65 at Methuselah’s birth, Methuselah was 187 at Lamech’s, and Lamech was 182 when Noah was born. Adding those ages to the earlier figures places Noah’s birth 1,056 years after creation.
Genesis also mentions other sons and daughters without naming them. Their omission does not make the time between the named births indefinite, because each father’s age is tied to the next birth in the line. We have been given a measure of elapsed time as well as a list of ancestors. The study on Cain’s wife considers those early family relationships.
The extraordinary lifespans recorded in this chapter did not remove the consequence of Adam’s sin. He lived 930 years and still died, and the repeated words “and he died” follow his descendants through the chapter. Enoch is the conspicuous exception because God took him. The ages tell us how the years passed, while the repeated deaths remind us what had happened to the human family.
After giving us the years up to Noah’s birth, Genesis tells us his age when the Flood began.
Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters were on the earth.
Genesis 7:6
Adding those 600 years to the 1,056 years before Noah’s birth puts the Flood 1,656 years after creation, using the ages supplied by the Masoretic Text.
Genesis continues dating events within Noah’s life. It records when the fountains of the great deep broke open and the windows of heaven opened, how long the waters prevailed, and when the ark came to rest. Later dates follow the receding waters until Noah’s family leaves at God’s command. His covenant with them and the nations descending from that family carry the account forward after the judgment.
I understand Genesis 6–9 as the history of a global Flood. God judged a world filled with violence, while Noah found grace in His sight and received instructions for the ark. By preserving Noah’s family, God also preserved the line of promise. The dated events connect the people before the Flood with their descendants afterward, which is part of my reason for receiving the account as history. Reducing it to an undefined moral illustration would leave those chronological connections unexplained. The study on Noah and the ark follows the judgment and rescue more fully.
From the Flood to Abraham
Genesis 11 continues the family line through Noah’s son Shem toward Abram. The first birth in the passage is dated in relation to the Flood, connecting this part of the chronology to what came before it.
This is the genealogy of Shem: Shem was one hundred years old, and begot Arphaxad two years after the flood. After he begot Arphaxad, Shem lived five hundred years, and begot sons and daughters. Arphaxad lived thirty-five years, and begot Salah.
Genesis 11:10-12
Arphaxad was born two years after the Flood. He was 35 when Salah was born, Salah was 30 at Eber’s birth, and Eber was 34 when Peleg was born.
Peleg was 30 at Reu’s birth, Reu was 32 when Serug was born, Serug was 30 at Nahor’s birth, and Nahor was 29 when Terah was born. Adding those ages and the two years after the Flood places Terah’s birth 1,878 years after creation.
Terah’s entry requires closer comparison with other passages. Genesis 11:26 says he lived seventy years and then names Abram, Nahor, and Haran. Since Abram comes first in the list, we might assume he was born when Terah was seventy. The order of the names, however, does not necessarily give us the order of the births.
Genesis says Terah died at 205 and Abram was seventy-five when he left Haran. Stephen adds that Abram moved on after his father’s death (Acts 7:4). Subtracting Abram’s seventy-five years from Terah’s 205 points to Terah being about 130 at Abram’s birth. I find that a better fit with the passages than assuming the first-named son must have been the oldest.
If Abram was born when Terah was seventy, the total from creation is about 1,948 years. Using 130 for Terah’s age gives roughly 2,008 years. I favor the second calculation, but both place Abraham about two thousand years after creation. The sixty years between those totals deserve attention; they do not create an undefined interval into which we can insert millions of years.
These totals follow the Masoretic Text. The Greek Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch do not always give the same patriarchal ages, so the textual basis affects a proposed creation date. I use the Masoretic Text as the Old Testament base and retain its figures. Some longer ancient readings add centuries or more than a thousand years. That can change a proposed date substantially, but the chronology still falls within thousands of years. The study on the patriarchal lifespans in the Masoretic Text and Septuagint compares those readings in more detail.
From Abraham to Christ
The ages after Abraham carry us toward Israel’s life in Egypt. Abraham was one hundred when Isaac was born, Isaac was sixty at the birth of Jacob and Esau, and Jacob was 130 when he stood before Pharaoh. From there, the history includes longer periods whose starting points need closer examination.
Exodus 12:40–41 gives 430 years in connection with Israel’s sojourning and deliverance, while Galatians 3:17 gives 430 years from the confirmed promise to the Law. Does Exodus count residence in Egypt alone, or a wider patriarchal sojourn beginning with Abraham? Interpreters differ over that question, and their answers can shift the chronology by centuries. We need to establish where the period begins before using it to calculate a creation date.
In 1 Kings, the Exodus is connected to another dated event, Solomon’s construction of the temple.
And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel had come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD.
1 Kings 6:1
Solomon began building in his fourth year, identified here as the 480th year after the Exodus. That stated interval needs to be accounted for when we read the periods of oppression and deliverance in Judges. Some of those periods may have overlapped in different regions, so adding every period as though each began only after the previous one ended can misrepresent the total.
The records of Israel’s and Judah’s kings also date events by rulers in the neighboring kingdom. Some reigns involve a co-regency, a period of shared rule. One passage may count from the beginning of shared rule while another counts from the start of sole rule, so those dates have to be reconciled. The exile and return supply further dates to fit into the record. This requires more comparison than adding the ages at the births in Genesis.
The estimate of roughly four thousand years from creation to Christ comes from fitting that broader history together. Adding approximately two thousand years since Christ points to an earth around six thousand years old. I accept that general estimate without claiming that every disputed date has been settled. Naming a precise BC year for creation would depend on how we resolve the questions just considered.
Luke traces Jesus’ ancestry through David and Abraham, then through Noah back to Adam. Galatians says He came in the fullness of time. His life in Judea and death under Roman authority belong to the history Genesis began. The Son took real human nature to redeem the descendants of Adam whose sin and death we have been following through that record.
Scientific Models, Objections, and Biblical Authority
This chronology differs sharply from the scientific consensus. The U.S. Geological Survey gives Earth’s age as about 4.54 billion years, using radiometric dating of materials from Earth and the wider solar system. That method uses the decay of radioactive isotopes to estimate ages. Modern cosmology places the universe at about 13.8 billion years; NASA’s overview describes that chronology and the ancient light called the cosmic microwave background. These conclusions reflect extensive scientific work. Adding the ages in Genesis explains my biblical calculation, but it does not by itself answer the evidence used to reach those much older dates.
I receive Scripture as God’s inerrant Word, but my interpretation of it can be mistaken. If I misunderstand a passage, appealing to its authority will not correct the mistake. I need to examine its wording and context, just as I need to understand a scientific claim before criticizing it. I can listen to a geologist explain rock layers or an astronomer discuss distant light without pretending to know more than I do. When a technical question exceeds my training, I should acknowledge that limit.
The question for this study remains whether Genesis allows the immense ages being proposed. The gap interpretation places them between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, before the six days begin. Genesis does not state that such an interval exists. I also find that reading difficult to reconcile with Exodus 20:11, which includes the heavens, earth, sea, and everything in them within God’s six days of creation.
The day-age interpretation makes the days themselves long eras. Yet Genesis numbers them, marks them by evening and morning, and gives that week as the pattern for Israel’s ordinary work and rest. The sequence presents a further difficulty: vegetation appears before the sun is appointed to govern the day. If each day represents an immense age, vegetation would exist for an immense period before that appointment. That reading needs an explanation the passage does not supply.
Omitted generations are another proposed way to accommodate longer ages. Matthew’s genealogy can move from an ancestor to a later descendant without stating how many years separate them. Genesis supplies a different kind of information when it tells us Arphaxad was thirty-five at Salah’s birth. I understand the figures in Genesis 5 and 11 as marking the actual time between the named births. Matthew’s omitted names do not give me a reason to set aside those stated intervals.
A young-earth position can cost a Christian intellectual respectability. I should be willing to face ridicule for what Scripture teaches without using it to excuse shoddy reasoning. Nor does disagreement give me reason to treat another person as an enemy. Paul warned that the cross itself is foolishness to those who are perishing, so approval cannot decide what I believe. I want to hold to Scripture while remaining willing to have my own reasoning corrected.
The Christ Paul preached is the eternal Son who made all things. He entered the human family whose generations we have followed, becoming fully man without ceasing to be God. Born of a virgin, He lived without sin and willingly gave Himself to be slain as the perfect sacrifice for our sins. Wicked men tortured His innocent body and killed Him. His shed blood and death completed His saving sacrifice before He was buried and rose bodily from the dead. The Father did not punish, curse, abandon, strike, bruise, or pour wrath on Jesus. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit remained united in our redemption.
Christ died for the whole world and genuinely offers salvation, although people can resist Him. Everyone who repents and believes is forgiven and justified, meaning declared righteous before God. God gives that person new birth, which is what I mean by regeneration. The Holy Spirit lives within the believer and seals him, and his eternal life is secure because Christ saves him. This assurance gives no permission to carry on in lawlessness. Calling myself a Christian does not establish that I have been born again; the new life He gives should become evident in how I live.
My Final Thoughts
The creation week and the linked generations lead me to understand the earth’s age in thousands of years, with roughly six thousand years as a reasonable estimate from the wider chronology. The questions about later dates do not erase the ages Genesis supplies. Neither do those ages settle every decision needed to name an exact BC year for creation.
If another believer reaches a different calculation, I want to compare the passages with him rather than assume he is less devoted to Christ. I can hold a firm conviction and acknowledge what I have not worked out. My confidence rests in the Creator who gave us this account and entered our history to save us. Trusting Him should make me willing to examine a difficult question carefully, without mishandling Scripture or becoming hostile toward the person asking it.
Finding a familiar verse missing from another Bible can be unsettling, especially if you have memorized it or heard it preached for years. The difference may involve the Greek text being translated, rather than a translator choosing other English words. For the New Testament, I use the Textus Receptus and the received Byzantine tradition. I believe this text agrees with the manuscript evidence and with Scripture’s teaching that God preserves His words for His people. Understanding that choice requires us to consider both the evidence and the promise of preservation.
God Preserves His Words
A manuscript is a handwritten copy, the kind people made before printed books became common. We no longer possess the original documents written by the biblical authors, so scholars compare surviving copies to examine their wording. Ancient translations and books arranged for church readings also provide evidence, as do quotations in early Christian writings. A difference between these witnesses is called a textual variant. Many concern spelling or word order, while others involve a whole verse or a longer passage.
Copyists made mistakes, but their mistakes do not require me to conclude that God’s Word disappeared. I believe He kept His words available for His people to read, preach and translate into other languages. For the Old Testament, I use the Hebrew Masoretic Text. Here I am considering how to recognize the preserved New Testament text among the surviving witnesses.
Preservation does not mean that everyone who copied the Bible was inspired. Inspiration belongs to the God-breathed Scriptures, not to each copyist, printer or translator. Concealing their mistakes would weaken the position I am defending. We can acknowledge their limitations while trusting the God who preserved His Word through their work.
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.
Psalm 12:6-7, NKJV
I read Psalm 12 as an assurance that the LORD preserves His pure words. His people have received those words, not merely a religious impression left after the wording disappeared. The psalm does not trace every manuscript or identify a future printed edition, but its promise shapes how I approach that history.
Jesus spoke of the written Law down to its smallest marks and affirmed that it would be fulfilled. He also said that His own words would outlast heaven and earth.
For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
Matthew 5:18, NKJV
Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.
Matthew 24:35, NKJV
Matthew 4:4 says that man lives by every word that proceeds from God’s mouth. Proverbs 30:5 calls every word of God pure, and the following verse warns against adding to His words. Revelation 22 likewise warns against adding to or taking away from the words of that book. I understand these passages to concern words people can actually receive and obey, rather than a general theme whose wording is beyond anyone’s reach.
Those promises do not settle every disputed reading. We still need to examine the evidence, including how manuscripts were copied and why some survived. I approach that work convinced that God preserved a usable text among His people. Climate and the work of institutions help explain the survival of particular copies; they do not fully account for the church having a Bible.
What the Received Text Is
Textus Receptus is Latin for “Received Text.” The name refers to a group of printed Greek New Testaments from the Reformation era. Erasmus published his first edition in 1516, and Robert Stephanus produced an influential edition in 1550. Theodore Beza published several editions later in the century. The Elzevirs’ 1633 edition described the text as received by all, helping establish the name now used for this printed tradition.
These editions differ in some readings as well as spelling and accents. Defending the Received Text does not require me to declare every edition flawless or its editor incapable of error. I believe God cared for the received text through the ordinary work of fallible people, keeping it recognizable and available to the churches.
The Received Text is closely related to the Byzantine tradition, long copied and used in Greek-speaking churches. It is not identical to every Byzantine manuscript or to modern editions called the Majority Text, which seek to represent the majority of surviving Greek witnesses. The NKJV’s own preface distinguishes these texts. Keeping the names clear helps us discuss the evidence for a particular verse without assuming that they all contain the same reading.
The KJV and NKJV were translated from the Received Text tradition. Choosing that Greek foundation does not mean English has replaced Greek or that the KJV translators produced newly inspired Scripture. I honor their work because they sought to convey Scripture faithfully. A translation has authority as it accurately communicates the words God gave and preserved.
The Manuscript Streams and Their Major Witnesses
Ancient translations and quotations can show that a reading was known before many surviving Greek copies were made. A lectionary preserves passages arranged for public worship rather than all the books in their usual order. Early Christian writers supply another witness when they quote Scripture. These sources broaden the evidence we can examine, although each still needs to be weighed carefully.
Not every manuscript fits neatly into a single family. Broadly speaking, the Byzantine text represents the tradition widely copied in the Greek-speaking Byzantine churches. The Alexandrian text is associated especially with early surviving witnesses from Egypt. These are descriptions of recognizable patterns, not a claim that every manuscript from a region has identical wording.
Modern critical editions are called eclectic because editors select readings from different witnesses according to what they judge closest to the original. They do not reprint Sinaiticus or Vaticanus unchanged. Alexandrian witnesses nevertheless carry considerable weight in those decisions, including decisions to omit wording retained in the Received Text. I disagree with that weighting because it can set aside the wider testimony of the churches that received and used the text.
An older copy deserves attention, but its date cannot establish the faithfulness of every reading it contains. Good storage could preserve one book while frequent use wore another out and required its replacement. Those possibilities do not tell us the history of an individual manuscript. We cannot assume that a well-preserved copy was seldom used or that every lost copy wore out in faithful service.
A later copy may preserve wording much older than the book itself. I give weight to the agreement of the Byzantine tradition and its widespread use among the churches. Believers heard Scripture read publicly, committed it to memory and replaced worn copies. That use could help people notice errors, even though errors could also be transmitted. I believe the church’s continuing use of the text belongs in our understanding of God’s preservation.
Two manuscripts frequently discussed are Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, both from the fourth century. A codex is a book with pages rather than a scroll. They are also called majuscules because of their large capital-style Greek writing. Their age makes them valuable witnesses, but it does not make every reading they contain decisive.
Sinaiticus has a long association with Saint Catherine’s Monastery at Mount Sinai. Parts of its nineteenth-century history are disputed, but those disputes do not establish fraud. I can question the weight given to its readings without making an accusation I cannot substantiate.
The Codex Sinaiticus Project describes extensive correction, and its transcription guide explains that most corrections concern spelling. We need to examine what changed before treating a correction as evidence against a reading. Counting every correction as a doctrinal alteration would misrepresent the manuscript. I still question allowing its readings to overrule wording received broadly in the churches without weighing that wider testimony.
Vaticanus is not a complete ancient New Testament. Its surviving fourth-century text ends partway through Hebrews 9:14, with later copying supplying material beyond that point. The ancient portion lacks the letters to Timothy and Titus, known as the Pastoral Epistles, as well as Philemon and Revelation. It cannot testify to a reading where its text is missing. The surviving text remains valuable evidence to weigh alongside other witnesses. A gap does not establish deliberate removal, and the manuscript’s age does not settle the remaining questions about its wording.
Readings That Ordinary Bible Readers Notice
A footnote or a bracketed passage is often a reader’s first encounter with these questions. A note such as “some manuscripts omit” summarizes a judgment about the evidence without explaining the whole case. Brackets often indicate uncertainty about whether words belong in the text, although editions differ in how they use them. We need to know what changed and why: a spelling difference raises a different question from the absence of a whole verse.
In 1 John 5:7-8, the Received Text includes the heavenly witnesses: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. That wording is commonly called the Johannine Comma. I retain it as part of the received reading.
For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.
1 John 5:7-8, NKJV
The NKJV’s note on this passage acknowledges that the wording about the heavenly witnesses has very limited support in surviving Greek manuscripts and is absent from both the critical and Majority Text editions. I cannot defend the wording by claiming that most Greek manuscripts contain it. I retain it because of its place in the Received Text, and the study on the Johannine Comma examines the question more fully. Scripture elsewhere teaches the Trinity: one God in three coequal, coeternal Persons. That teaching does not depend on this passage alone, but its presence elsewhere does not settle whether these particular words belong here.
In 1 Timothy 3:16, the Received Text states explicitly, “God was manifested in the flesh.” Other readings do not explicitly name God in that clause. I retain the received wording, which agrees with Scripture’s teaching that Christ is fully God and fully man.
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.
1 Timothy 3:16, NKJV
In the Received Text, Colossians 1:14 explicitly connects redemption with Christ’s blood. The shorter reading does not erase the teaching about His blood elsewhere in the chapter, but that does not answer whether these words belong in this verse.
in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.
Colossians 1:14, NKJV
Our salvation involved Christ’s actual bodily suffering and death. The blood He shed was physical blood, and the forgiveness we receive by faith rests on His sacrifice for us.
In Acts 8:37, the difference involves a whole verse in which the Ethiopian eunuch confesses his faith before Philip baptizes him. The exchange shows that baptism follows faith in Christ and publicly confesses Him; it does not produce salvation.
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.”
Acts 8:37, NKJV
I want someone learning about baptism to be able to read this exchange with Philip in the passage itself. Here the eunuch plainly identifies Jesus Christ as the Son of God before receiving baptism.
Mark 16:9-20, commonly called the longer ending of Mark, is another disputed passage. I receive it as part of Mark’s Gospel. It records resurrection appearances and the commission, followed by Christ’s ascension and His work through those who preached.
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.
Mark 16:19-20, NKJV
The bodily resurrection is taught throughout the Gospels and apostolic preaching, so it does not depend on this ending alone.
John 7:53-8:11, the account of the woman taken in adultery, is often bracketed or footnoted too. Jesus answered the attempt to trap Him and showed the woman mercy without excusing her adultery. His instruction to “go and sin no more” in John 8:11 belongs with that mercy. We should not use the passage to dismiss the sin or to approve the hypocrisy of her accusers.
Some shorter readings also affect familiar statements about salvation. Matthew 18:11 says, “For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.” John 6:47 makes the object of faith explicit: “he who believes in Me has everlasting life.” I want those statements of Christ’s purpose and the faith through which we have life retained where the Received Text places them.
Romans 16:24 preserves the closing blessing, “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.” Mark 1:2 illustrates a difference in attribution rather than the loss of a whole sentence. The Received Text introduces a combined quotation from Malachi and Isaiah with the words “in the Prophets.”
People can hear the gospel and be saved while reading translations based on a critical text. My concern is the cumulative effect of removing or questioning received wording about Christ and His blood, as well as confession, repentance, baptism and resurrection. Showing that a doctrine survives elsewhere does not answer the textual question in a particular passage.
Why I Use the NKJV
Choosing a Greek text leaves us with the responsibility to translate it faithfully. Formal equivalence, often called word-for-word translation, aims to stay close to the source’s wording and structure. It does not assign one English word mechanically to every Greek word, because languages do not correspond so neatly. Translators must express the meaning accurately in good English. The KJV and NKJV follow this approach.
Dynamic equivalence gives translators greater freedom to express what they understand a sentence to mean, while a paraphrase restates the thought more freely still. This can make an explanation easier to follow, but more of the translator’s interpretation enters the wording. I would consult a paraphrase as an explanation or devotional aid and use a translation closer to the source wording as my foundation for doctrine.
For public teaching at Unforsaken, I use the NKJV. It keeps the Received Text foundation for the New Testament and the Masoretic Text for the Old Testament while using current English. Its notes identify major textual differences, including differences from the critical text and the Majority Text. A reader can examine those differences instead of having to guess what another edition says. The study on which Bible translation I can trust develops the reasons for my choice.
Using the NKJV gives me no excuse to humiliate someone who owns an NIV or ESV. A person beginning to read the Bible needs patient instruction. If a family owns several translations, I should explain the differences without frightening them about every Bible on their shelf. I can give firm reasons for my choice without expecting a fellow believer to know the history of every verse already.
Careful scholarship can serve the church through language work, historical study and manuscript comparison. I welcome that work under Scripture’s authority. My disagreement concerns the practical authority given to a reconstructed critical text over the text received and used among God’s people. I am still responsible to describe the opposing methods accurately.
Receiving and Obeying the Preserved Word
If a footnote has unsettled you, compare the readings and ask what evidence supports the decision. You do not have to master every manuscript before trusting the God who preserved His Word. Bring the questions into the open and work through them instead of withdrawing from Scripture.
I recommend reading the NKJV with confidence and learning its wording. Bring your Bible to church and examine what is being preached. Teach it to your children, and let its instruction govern the decisions you make away from church. If I am too busy arguing about the Bible to read it, I need to change how I am spending my time. The study on how to study the Bible properly offers further guidance.
The Scripture we are defending reveals Jesus Christ and exposes our need for Him. He is the eternal Son, fully God, who became fully man and lived without sin. Wicked men tortured His innocent body and put Him to death. His sinlessness made Him the perfect sacrifice, and He willingly gave Himself to be slain for the sins of the whole world. The Father did not punish, curse, abandon, strike, bruise, or pour wrath on Jesus. Father and Son remained united in providing salvation. Through His shed blood and death, Christ completed His saving work before His burial and bodily resurrection.
God genuinely offers salvation to every person, though people can resist that offer. Everyone who repents and believes in Christ receives forgiveness and everlasting life. God makes that person a new creation, indwelt and sealed by the Holy Spirit for the day of redemption. The believer is eternally secure, but assurance gives no permission for lawlessness. Calling myself a Christian does not establish that I have been born again. The new life should be evident in my conduct; obedience does not earn salvation or keep me saved.
My Final Thoughts
I believe the Textus Receptus and received Byzantine tradition are the proper New Testament foundation for Unforsaken. That conviction does not require an inspired printer or a copying history without mistakes. I trust God’s preservation through the text His people received and used, and I teach from the NKJV so readers can understand it in current English. When I recommend that Bible, I am also acknowledging its authority to correct me, including when it exposes something I would prefer to excuse.
