Another Video from Mark Ward
Mark Ward made another video about the underlying text of the NKJV, differing with the KJV. He brought back the blog discussion he, some of his followers, and I had (see this, this, and this) in an original assertion that King James users make this claim, but they give zero evidence. In the comment section, I started by giving five examples (that’s called giving evidence). Mark argues with those, so I provided more, and this occurred until I gave 19 of them (no wonder people may not want to try to give their evidence).
I did not put a lot of work into looking for my 19 examples. It did take awhile, however, to write the comments at his blog and argue with Ward (and some other men who assisted him) in his defense. Ward finally relented and concluded that the two underlying texts were not identical. So there we were. Deep breath. Go back to normal life.
Changing Tune
Now Ward changes his tune and he says he can defend all nineteen I showed (the video is here). His treatment of me was about a third, a little less or more, of his video. He takes a personal shot by saying that it’s the only time he’s ever seen me defer on anything (what’s the point of that?). Ward spoke of four of the examples on which I deferred. My listing of nineteen was not intended as a scholarly paper. The examples convinced me the two texts (the ones behind each the NKJV and the KJV) were not identical.
Mark Ward doesn’t try very hard to use his resources to find the answer on the text underlying the NKJV from its translators. He seems to favor burying his head in the sand and just trusting whatever the translators said, rejecting every other critic. Many of those translators still live. Why not just ask some of them? Instead, someone such as myself must look up these examples for him to shoot down.
My Comments Blocked Under Bad Faith Video
Now when I comment on Ward’s video, he blocks my comments. He cancels me, thereby keeping his false claims unrefuted. He creates the bubble in which acolytes might abide in ignorance of the facts. I’m not insulting him with comments, unless proving him wrong is an insult.
I thought everyone could see my comments, but I noticed I got zero thumbs-up from anyone. Since I didn’t see this as possible, I logged in with a different account and found that none of my comments appeared to anyone. Ward for sure has the right to block me. However, he really should make it known he’s blocking my comments, and at least explain why he won’t allow them. That would be Christian behavior.
Ward did not make an even-handed presentation with his latest video. It was not a pursuit of the truth, but an attempt to buoy up his own indefensible position. I would also call it a bad faith video, since the discussion is not about the use of variants from other TR editions. Never ever have I taken that view of preservation, that God preserves the exact words from among all the TR editions. He misrepresents me in that way. I’ve explained all this in a recent series I did here. I would assess that he doesn’t care if he represents his contestants correctly.
Underlying Text Different
The NKJV translators should have used the identical text as the KJV. Not doing so is a form of false advertising in my opinion. The NKJV publishers are fooling people into thinking that it’s the same as the KJV except with updated language. It’s just not the case. I still prefer the NKJV to almost every other modern version. Of course I like it better than most. It’s closer to the KJV than most modern versions. But the translators went ahead and did this thing. Ward should be upset at them, not at me. He should give them the comeuppance they deserve instead of beating this dead horse with me and others.
Because of Mark Ward’s video, I again started looking for more differences, except this time in a more systematic fashion. I did not do that to find my 19 examples, published in the comment section of his blog and repeated here on mine. What I am doing now is beginning a series of posts in which I provide more evidence that the NKJV uses a different underlying text than the KJV. I don’t mind if someone wants to argue with my conclusions, but I’m being careful with my observations. I can only look at the two translations and then some textual evidence found in the United Bible Society Greek New Testament, the Greek text behind the KJV, Stephanus 1550, and even Robinson-Pierpoint “Majority Text” New Testament. I’ve started to do that.
More Examples of Textual Variation Between NKJV and KJV
So far I looked only at Matthew 1-17, and I’ve found over ten examples of textual variation between the underlying Greek text of the NKJV and the KJV. At this rate, I’m going to get far more than 19 for the whole New Testament. Mark Ward now behaves as if there are three total differences, even though he’s never looked for differences. He doesn’t care.
I don’t get Mark Ward. It would take a list several pages long to explain. He admits that he gets angry privately over all people like me, as if he is a persecuted saint. His statements and attitude show that it’s more than private. He rails on people who take my position and treats them like trash. His followers in the comment section seem almost entirely clueless. Almost none of them know what’s going on, and he’s happy to keep them in the dark. Even though they don’t even understand, they still defend him rabidly. He accepts many of their falsehoods, leaving them uncorrected — almost no push back against serial slanderers.
Mark Ward’s followers don’t understand even this NKJV text issue among many others, because he doesn’t represent properly those he opposes. No one would know the real problem, because Mark Ward doesn’t tell them. He caricatures his foes and knocks down strawmen.
With everything above being said, I want to end this post by beginning to give other example I’ve found of textual variation between the underlying text of the NKJV and the KJV. Know this. There is not published underlying text of the NKJV. To find it, I’ve got to look probably like Scrivener had to cull printed editions and manuscripts to represent the text behind the KJV. Ironic, huh?
Matthew 9:17
I’m only in Matthew, so look at Matthew 9:17, an example somewhere in the middle of my list. Here is the quotation from the KJV first, the NKJV second, and the ESV third.
KJV — Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.
NKJV — Nor do they put new wine into old wineskins, or else the wineskins break, the wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined. But they put new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.
ESV — Neither is new wine put into old wineskins. If it is, the skins burst and the wine is spilled and the skins are destroyed. But new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved.
The NKJV and the ESV agree. They both follow the Nestle-Aland 27th edition present-indicative-passive verb from apollumi, appolluntai. The underlying text for the KJV is apolountai, future-indicative-middle from apollumi. I would think Ward would find difficulty denying this example, because it follows his KJV parallel Bible online for Matthew 9:17. Here in Matthew 9:17 the NKJV follows the critical text reading, not the TR. Both Stephanus 1550 and Robinson-Pierpoint have the same verb as the underlying text of the KJV, seen in Scrivener’s text.
More to Come
Kent, these are some comments for a future blog post that I have scheduled for July. The initial claim was that the NKJV used the SAME TEXT as the KJV.
What was the base text of the New King James translation New Testament? Is there a very clear and direct statement about what text or texts the NKJV translators used? The following statement was included in the “Preface” to the 1979 NKJV New Testament (p. v.).
“Of greater importance than the beauty of language in the King James Version is the textual base from which that work was translated. The New Testament of the New King James Bible is a useful and accurate revision, based on the traditional Greek text underlying the 1611 edition of the English Bible.”
Sources:
https://archive.org/details/holybiblenewking0000unse_d4l4/page/n7/mode/2up?view=theater
https://bibleversion.org/bible/versions/modern-english/new-king-james-version/new-king-james-version-new-testament-preface-1979/
This explanation has been nuanced to saying that the NKJV translators used ANY Greek TR to which the King James translators might have had access. This is now the popular polemic against accusations that the NKJV translators does not follow the text the KJV follows. However, in the initial wake of the publication of the NKJV, the average reader in the early 1980s was led to believe that the NKJV was translated at any given point from the same text chosen by the KJV translators in that place. That assumption has had to be nuanced in modern times because the initial claim is in fact not true.
Hi Robert,
That’s very good information.
I should have included this quote; it is even clearer:
“While the New Testament scholars were free to consult any available Greek text, and they did so, each agreed to follow the Greek text developed by Dr. F. H. A. Scrivener. This text, originally published by Cambridge University Press, reconstructed as closely as possible the Greek text underlying the King James Version.
Source:
“A New King James Version,” in “The History of the King James Bible,” Holy Bible, The New King James Version, Thomas Nelson, 1982, pp. 1233-34.
https://archive.org/details/holybible00thom/page/1234/mode/2up?view=theater
BTW, Kent, thanks for your work on this. I have done some of this myself, and know that going through in detail and comparing the things necessary is very tedious work. How much easier if the defenders of the NKJV would just admit that the differences exist, and both sizes could move on to something more edifying.
I have recently summed up my objections to the NKJV in three categories: text issues, translation issues, and trust issues (i.e., none of the translators of the NKJV thought the TR was the best Greek text to use for the basis of a New Testament translation).
And what Greek TR edition do you affirm as providentially and perfectly preserved?
Scrivener is missing amen at the end of Ephesians. Either Scrivener has an error, And you don’t have a perfect TR text, or the KJV has an error and you don’t have a perfect English bible. Which one is it?
Your comment is an insidious form of gaslighting, which is why you won’t or can’t attach your identity to it.
Read this series: https://kentbrandenburg.com/2024/05/29/new-list-of-reasons-for-maximum-certainty-for-the-new-testament-text-part-6
I believe what God said He would do. Confidence in scripture is certainty. The deity of Christ is not up for grabs. If God said He would do it, then He did it.
I am interested in others’ presuppositions, not just their hand grenades.
And what exactly did I gaslight you on?
You guys are the ones who gaslight, you claim God’s word is “perfectly preserved” but you can’t show us any Greek text you believe is perfectly preserved.
It’s always “jot and tittle, jot and tittle” but you affirm an English translation that does not match any Greek text jot and title.
At least the Ruckmanites are consistent enough to admit they don’t believe we have a perfect preserved Greek text.
The gaslighting is turning the conversation to a different topic to confuse on the point of this post. There are textual differences between the underlying text of the NKJV and KJV despite what the translators said they were doing.
If you read the series I wrote last month, I say what the text is. I don’t agree with the Scrivener reconstructed text where it disagrees with what saints believed. Printed Greek editions had Amen at the end of Eph 3. That’s why Amen is in the KJV, Tyndale Bible, Elzivir, and several other editions. Scrivener himself didn’t have biblical presuppositions as communicated in my series.
Wrong on your third sentence.
Ruckman’s don’t believe in divine preservation and they’re not consistent, because they’ve got a problem between 1611 and 1769. They just blow up when you ask about that.
You might call it gaslighting but that’s a improper use of the term, at best you might call it a red herring, but like you, I am interested in getting at presuppositions.and this whole KJVO debate has many.
To be clear are you saying you don’t believe any single printed Greek TR is the perfectly preserved word of God?
And I agree with you that Ruckmanism has problems.
But I think your brand of KJVOism(which I use to hold to) And Ruckmanism have more in common than you would like to admit.
Many of the presuppositions are the same.
BB,
You might be right that you were doing a red herring rather than gaslighting. I thought about ‘being a troll.’ The one doing it should be the one apologetic, not the one who he or she targets. A different approach would have been nice. I did look up the definition of gaslighting beforehand. I’ve heard it used to describe what you did.
The idea that what we believe is like Ruckman. This gets used all the time, usually by people who criticize us for not updating, like Ward. I’m not against updating. I don’t have to do it though just because, if I don’t, I’m a Ruckmanite. I’ve explained the method it should be accomplished, and I don’t think the KJV users want it. That should be noted and often isn’t. I believe translations should come from the original language text. There are many differences between me and Ruckmanism, dozens, and you didn’t give one explanation for why? You just said it, which is typical.
Kent, you wrote, “I’m not against updating…I don’t think the KJV users want it. That should be noted and often isn’t.”
That is an important point, and it is a major flaw regarding the NKJV. It was not done by TR & KJV supporters.
Dear B Barometer,
Commonly used TR editions like Elzeveir’s 1633 have an “Amen” at the end of Ephesians, as do 97% of Greek MSS. There is no reason to say that all the words of God are not in the TR because “Amen” is missing in one TR printing at the end of Ephesians.
Thanks.
I don’t think you understand my point. I affirm the Amen. My point is that in many KJVO colleges they affirm Scrivener’s text as the preserved Greek text, but it has differences from the KJV.
I think it’s fine to use Scrivener’s text and point out that one error. This does not depart from what scripture says about this.
You don’t see any cognitive dissonance between talking about the need for jot and title preservation in other posts, arguing for a perfectly preserved English bible, while simultaneously basically admitting that there is no single jot and tittle perfectly preserved Greek text?
Do you hold a corpus view like the TBS where you think all the words are preserved along the TR editions? Or do you think the word is now perfectly preserved in the KJV and not Greek anymore?
1) I believe jot and tittle preservation based on the presuppositions. I take the Hills position, stated clearly in my series. I agree with Thomas — the Amen could have been a misprint by Scrivener, the latter whom doesn’t take our position, so it wouldn’t matter as much to him to get it corrected. That doesn’t mean that we don’t know about the Amen and that it isn’t printed. Do you know the Hills position, BB?
2) I don’t take a position of a perfectly preserved English Bible, and have never said that.
3) Show one place where I admit there is not one perfectly preserved Greek text. I’m expecting you to show me this.
4) I don’t take the “corpus view” even though it’s more attractive than all other views besides the one I take.
5) Your last line is not the Hills view. Not.
I’m open to your comments, but you have not represented in anything you have written the position we take, BB.
By the way, I would not rule out the possibility that there was a printing error at the end of Ephesians in the Scrivener edition, rather than it being a specific decision to exclude the “Amen.”
Kent, you wrote, “I thought everyone could see my comments, but I noticed I got zero thumbs-up from anyone. Since I didn’t see this as possible, I logged in with a different account and found that none of my comments appeared to anyone. Ward for sure has the right to block me. However, he really should make it known he’s blocking my comments, and at least explain why he won’t allow them. That would be Christian behavior.”
After reading this I tried logging in from my wife’s account and found I could not see my comments. You’re right that it is Mark’s channel and he can block the comments if he wants to. But you are also right that this is not straightforward Christian behavior.
I agree Robert. It’s also very insecure on his persuasion abilities.
Ward’s hypocrisy is so obvious, I don’t quite understand how his followers don’t see it. They rather see him as the most charitable human being on earth. He savages Surrett and Brennan for being “even-handed”, because that might be insinuating that the NKJV translators lied (I will say that Hodges has some crazy doctrine on salvation, though). Nobody said they lied, that I’m aware of. (All we are saying is the two texts are not nearly identical, though the NKJV is clearly mostly based on the TR.)
But when it comes to TR supporters, he does far worse, insinuating that you (Kent) are never willing to admit when you’re wrong. Not only that, but his whole entire schtick is to basically claim that non-Ruckmanite TR-supporters are really just secret Ruckmanites in disguise. But, Mark, we say that we are not Ruckmanites. Isn’t it insidious to not just take us at our word?
– Mat D.
Well said, Mat.
Good points, Mat.
1. In his first point in the video, Mark says we are to believe that the New King James is based on Textus Receptus because the NKJV translators say that their New Testament is based on the TR.
2. In his dealing with TR supporters, Mark shows we are not to believe that TR supporters are TR supporters just because they say they are TR supporters.
Two opposite and completely different approaches. 1. Believe what they say against any evidence to the contrary. 2. Don’t believe what they say and try to find evidence that is contrary. Why? Probably simply because the different approaches agree with conclusions.
BB,
Criticizing and asking questions about Kent’s position is fine. However, if you reject it (you said you used to hold to something similar) you should put forth a better position. There are hard questions regarding preservation of Scripture, which all positions have to answer. Kent has given his Scriptural presuppositions, and I for one, would rather have Scriptural presuppositions even if I cannot answer all the questions. Much like in the creation/evolution debate, there may be things that creationists are still looking for answers on, but the presuppositions of Scripture are paramount.
Bro. Kent,
I read your series and it’s excellent, thank you. As for the Greek text behind the KJV that you believe is perfectly preserved, do you mean the one that is printed by the TBS currently?
I do have a question/remark about your current post, on comparing the KJV to NKJV and ESV on Matthew 9:17.
The TR reads apolountai (future middle indicative), and the CT reads apolluntai (present middle/passive indicative). In the article you said that apolluntai is Active, which is incorrect. Apolluntai is middle/passive.
Therefore, I don’t know if this is a very good example of the textual difference between KJV and NKJV (I do not doubt there are better examples). It seems to me (English not being my first language), that the NKJV translation in Matthew 9:17 could have arisen from the TR. In fact, the whole difference between the TR and the CT at this exact point seems to be whether it’s a Future tense or a Present tense.
And since all 3 of KJV, NKJV, and ESV all translated into the Present tense in the English anyway, is this a place where the textual difference does not really alter the sense?
Tenrin,
The active was definitely a typo, which I’ve changed. It does show how scribal errors can be made. I changed it. It’s translated passive by the ESV and NKJV too. “Perish” is different than “are destroyed” or “are ruined.” Apollumi in the middle is perish, and the NKJV didn’t follow that. Think about it.
I think there are varied degrees of examples. I’m not saying this one is the best, but I thought it would work well for Mark Ward not arguing against it, because it is exactly how he has the difference between the TR and CT on his KJVparallel page.
On what is preserved, I believe it is the underlying text of the KJV. That is almost identical to Scrivener’s, which I think is what TBS publishes.
I think you are saying that you don’t think the NKJV comes from a different underlying Greek text. I don’t think you should say that unless you looked at it. That’s what I said before, then I looked and saw I was wrong. When I’m closer to done with this project, which I’m not working on non-stop, you’ll think different. I have about 12 examples and I’m not done with Matthew only. Some I think are better than Matthew 9:17, but I don’t agree with you that they translated it from the same word there.
Bro. Kent,
I’m not making any statement at all about the underlying text of the NKJV. I trust you can speak much better about this issue. I’ve never used the NKJV, never studied it. When I was in the US, all I used was the KJV, and if I need to consult an English translation, the KJV is still my go to translation.
It just piqued my interest since you lead with the Matthew 9:17.
What I mean is: yes, structurally “perish” and “are destroyed” is different, but the sense is pretty much the same, no? Or at least greatly overlapping. I was just thinking, if I were to translate “perish” and “are destroyed” from English into my target language, I can easily translate both into the very same phrase.
In fact, this has got me digging. So, I looked up Mark 2:22, which has the exact Greek phrase: οἱ ἀσκοὶ ἀπολοῦνται. And in Mark 2:22, the KJV translates it: “the bottles will be marred.” In Mat. 9:17 the KJV translates it “the bottles perish.”
Therefore, according to the KJV translators, apolountai has enough elasticity to be translated into “perish” (Active voice in English, Present Tense) or “will be marred” (Passive voice, Future Tense). Therefore, it is not outside the realm of possibility, that the NKJV translates apolountai into a Present Passive form in the English.
Again, I’m not siding with the NKJV, or making any claims about it. In fact, I look forward to other examples from you. I just don’t think Mat. 9:17 is a very strong reason not to use the NKJV.
Tenrin,
I think your comments are realistic and balanced and when we’re dealing with some of these issues, for some it doesn’t seem like it matters too much, because the net outcome in an English translation doesn’t seem to effect it that much. But, again, the main purpose I chose that one, Matt 9:17, which was somewhere in the middle of the ones I found, was because, as I said, when you look at Mark Ward’s KJV Parallel Bible (in which he tries to diminish the importance of the variation), he himself says this is a sign of something different and he uses this example.
This is a lot of verbiage for a very technical point, but I get how you want me to use even better examples. We’ll see if you’re convinced by the time I’m done. I’m open to criticism, as I’ve said. I’m convinced though, and I don’t think I have skin in the game. I accepted that the NKJV was identical. However, I never used the NKJV, so I didn’t on a regular basis look at it. Now I am looking at it, and I see what happened. It would be good for people just to be honest.
As it relates to the passive and the middle, and then the Present versus the future, it does show up. The middle according to BDAG is “perish.” The idea here is that this is happening on its own, not being done by some other force. The passive shows that. It does mean something different. I believe the future doesn’t show up in the KJV with a “shall” and a “will” probably because the sequence of events reveals a passing of time, ending with perishes in the narrative of Jesus.
Anyway, let’s just where this goes as I add more verses. I’m not going to publish anything today, because I want to get more examples first. That was a mere introduction.
Bro. Kent,
I will not belabor the point. It makes sense if you picked Matthew 9:17 in response to Mark Ward said. Please know that I firmly believe in the perfect preservation of Scripture, and this website has been a blessing.
You did mention that there is no urge or consensus from KJV using churches to update. I wonder though, how many percent of KJV using churches are ruckmanites, who will never consent to it.
Count me as a KJV using person who will not mind if a new strong TR based translation is attempted. A True NKJV so to speak, since the current NKJV is considered not an accurate one. Of course I defer to English speaking churches for this, as there may be many reasons not to update (lateness of the hour, potential division, etc). But from my “selfish” viewpoint, the KJV does require more explanations for people who are learning English as a second language. Many times I’ve had to explain that “Ghost” is basically Spirit in the KJV, as they are shocked that at the term Holy “ghost.” Several years ago, in my electronic bible, I ran into the word “rereward,” which I don’t recognize. I checked my physical KJV, and saw it printed as “rearward.” So I flagged it as a typo, but I got feedback that “rereward” is the real reading. I checked other physical KJVs, and found that yes, all except the first KJV I checked has “rereward.” Apparently it’s an old and now obsolete word. Somehow though, that first KJV I checked updated it to “rearward.” Some commented though, that they prefer the old and obsolete word as part of the charm of the KJV. So there is that.
Thanks Tenrin. I think it’s a good query about Ruckmanism being a possible impediment to some kind of update. It would take a lot of work to do an update, and from my perspective in ministry myself, it doesn’t seem a priority to me. There are other priorities for our time. I see the KJV still suitably understandable for people and right now I’m in rural Indiana. I would consider that people with my position on preservation do not talk about updating. If we were going to update, I don’t think it should be putting the effort into making plainer Mark Ward’s false friends. It seems a red herring to me from him, especially in light of his satisfaction with thousands of differences in the actual text — this is his position.
On the typo excuse I used, there are different types of typos, like there are varied types of scribal errors. For me it is the pattern of typing “indicative-active.” I took almost all my Bible classes in college and seminary in Greek, and I write these posts very quickly. It’s easy to get mixed up and type indicative active, and then not even see it in the quick self-edit afterwards. You caught it. Thanks.
What place does the fact that the NKJV includes footnotes saying “NU omits (fill in the blank) here” fit into this? It seems to me that it doesn’t matter what underlying text they used when they constantly give credence to the idea that the certainty of certain portions of the Bible is up for debate.
To put it in question form, why does it matter if the underlying texts are identical if they include footnotes casting doubt on the promised preservation of God’s Word?
Bro Thompson,
What you are saying is true and it does work against the presuppositions. 1 Tim says teach no other doctrine and the critical text faithless naturalist presupposition teaches another doctrine of scripture. Thanks.
Hello,
I’m not going to publish my examples one book at a time. It would take too many posts to do that. I will say that I am done looking at Matthew. This is not something that I did the last time I was looking.
I had to be persuaded to add an example of the text of the NKJV differing from the text of the KJV. That doesn’t mean it is or isn’t a mistake. There is no “text behind the NKJV available. I have to give evidence that the NKJV followed a different text than the KJV.
I have 19 examples for the book of Matthew, so that’s one NT book. That equals the total amount I gave to Mark Ward based on a random search. I’m sure he would argue against some. But it’s one book. And 19 examples. There are going to be many more by the time I get through the whole New Testament, if I decide to do so.
Nineteen in Matthew. On to Mark.
Thank you for the article. I believe it is wrong to make a video critiquing or criticizing someone and then block them from commenting (when that person does not use improper language and can calmly and intelligently hold a discussion). Welcome to the club.
Matthew 9:4 might be a place where the NKJV agrees with the KJV against Scrivener. Beza’s footnote pointed to Chrysostom’s variant in this passage and the KJV translation differs from all previous English Bibles and many foreign language Bibles. But Dr. Farstad said one of the rules given to the translators was to “Correct all departures [in the KJV] from the Textus Receptus.” and we know that by TR, Scrivener’s edition was intended (even though they leave the amen at the end of Ephesians against Scrivener). I know this one is a bit picky and probably could be translated with “know”, but I also think there is enough evidence to suggest a purposeful change.
Thanks for the heads-up on this one. One point you addressed that is a question of value is the slight variety on the “settled text” position.
Apparently the NKJV translators were instructed then to attach everything to at least a TR edition. Is the “settled text” the TR editions, Scrivener’s, the text behind the KJV, or the Byzantine manuscripts. What I see as scriptural presuppositions says to me the text behind and that preceded the KJV. That has some overlap with the TR edition position. I respect those who start with biblical presuppositions and attempt consistency in the application from that. I hear nothing like that from the Mark Ward side and all the variation of those somewhat like him.
Hi. I really enjoy reading on this blog since I discovered it along with faithsaves.net maybe a year ago. Looking forward to more on this topic. God bless.
Thanks, Andy! Glad it is a blessing!
Considering Mark Ward’s repeated behavior and video being the medium most of his audience seems to engage with, it may be worthwhile to produce a high-quality video of your own, with highlights of your KJV/NKVJ findings, and a soft call out on his uncharitable behavior. It’s not likely many of his viewers are making there way here to read your side of the argument. If enough of his audience view it and themselves ask Mark questions, it may force him to be more charitable, considering he seems to care a lot about his public image.
Hi Benjamin,
At some point, I would like to do some videos, but it’s going to be awhile.