Why do they not accept an update of the KJV?
This video takes a look at one feature of the NKJV criticized by KJV only proponents: the footnotes. David Daniels from Chick Tracts claims that footnotes only lead to doubt. However, even the original KJV had footnotes and italicized phrases, exposing the underlying realities of Bible translation that have always been true. The Textus Receptus itself was a compilation of manuscripts that had to be compared and a determination had to be made as to the content of the original text. Also, even the translators of the KJV did not always agree on how to best translate a word. The NKJV, therefore, is a worthy contribution to the heritage of the KJV and English Bible translation, despite the criticisms of the KJV only camp. David Daniel's video referenced: • New King James - The Hidden Message Mark Ward's YouTube channel with helpful information about Bible translation: / mlward038 You can become a supporter of A Frisch Perspective at: / timfrisch Buy my book God Matters at: https://amzn.to/3laK3Fo Title music in this video from bensound.com Composer: Benjamin Tissot (also known as Bensound)

How Different Are the TR and the Critical Text? See for Yourself in English.

Is the NIV Missing Verses?

Why Do Textus Receptus Defenders Reject the NKJV? Part 1

The Danger of KJV Only

Going on Offense for the NKJV

Why We Use the KJV Bible

The NKJV Bible Translation - Part 1

Dan Wallace's TOP 5 BIBLE TRANSLATIONS

King James Bible: The Most Reliable Translation?

Textus Receptus (TR) vs. Critical Text - New Testament Textual Bases for the New Testament

An Error in the King James Version

Why You SHOULD NOT Promote KJV Only

English Bible Translations Family Tree

KJV vs NKJV: Does It Actually Matter?

6 GOOD Reasons to use the NKJV!

NKJV vs ESV - How do they COMPARE?

Why Both Moses and Elijah Appear at the Transfiguration — The Answer Is Hidden in Deuteronomy

4 Reasons Why I Believe the KJV is the Best Translation Available

What is the Difference in the KJV 1611 and 1769?

