The false friends are largely why I don't recommend the KJV. Archaic language isn't a big problem because you can look those words up and find out what they mean, but false friends mean something different and there's a risk that the reader won't realize that, leading them to an incorrect understanding of the text. I feel like many (most?) people who love the KJV have fallen in love with the early modern English style. A word often used to describe it is "majestic", but I'm not convinced that this was intentional on the part of the translators. To our modern ears, the early modern style sounds more reverent and gives a sense of credibility. Joseph Smith, founder of the LDS church, relied upon that to give his Book of Mormon a false sense of credibility. But when the KJV was written, this would have been considered contemporary language. The whole point of Bible translation during the Reformation era was to get the text of Scripture in the common vernacular so that the laity could read it for themselves. The early modern English of the KJV has stopped being the vernacular, just as the Old English of the Wycliffe Bible stopped being the vernacular and necessitated a new translation. We have a wealth of modern English Bibles to choose from. Even if one were to successfully argue that the KJV is still readable, I would counter that modern English Bibles are MORE readable. Candles still work for seeing in the dark, but we have electricity now. We still use candles on birthday cakes, and people can still read the KJV, but don't make it your primary Bible translation.
My experience: I am 66 years old, and have been reading the KJV for almost 55 years. I teach a Bible class at my church, and we use the KJV, not because we are a KJVO church, rather that is the translation that most everyone has. I still read from the KJV every day, even so, after all of these years I still come across passages that are quite difficult. When I am preparing my weekly Bible lesson I use the KJV, the NKJV, NASB, ESV, and sometimes the AMP, as well as commentaries and dictionaries, whatever I need to have a fuller understanding of God's Word.
When I first read shakespear in grade 10, I had to be taught what "thou art" meant. The idea that the Holy Spirit gives every Christian English speaker the ability to understand KJV English flies in the face of 1 Cor 12:30.
@@BeleeuerThat's not the point. The point is that KJV English has not just different words, but quite a lot of different syntax from contemporary English. The KJV's English is now literary and only learnt for Shakespear or KJV. The Bible was not originally written in a literary form of Greek.
I Corinthians 12:30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? One does not need the gift of tongues to read one's own language, just a good old fashioned education and a good dictionary. Make America Educated Again
Dwayne - One of the main reasons Mark uses 1 Corinthians 14 is because the KJV translators did. He is attempting to make a bridge between KJV devotes. So to suggest that he is forcing that is not fair since it has been long established in Christianity being used by church fathers and most importantly for this context the KJV translators.
and as a Charismatic myself, I can agree with drawing the principle. So I don't think it is entirely a cessationist position that forces Mark to make the application.
Mark Ward makes a disingenuous argument when he refers to the King James Translators to support his 1 Corinthians 14 argument. They are not making the same argument. Here is the quote in the fullest context of KJV preface: "But how shall men meditate in that, which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept close in an unknowen tongue? as it is written, Except I know the power of the voyce, I shall be to him that speaketh, a Barbarian, and he that speaketh, shalbe a Barbarian to me. The Apostle excepteth no tongue, not Hebrewe the ancientest, not Greeke the most copious, not Latine the finest. Nature taught a naturall man to confesse, that all of us in those tongues which wee doe not understand, are plainely deafe; wee may turne the deafe eare unto them. The Scythian counted the Athenian, whom he did not understand, barbarous: so the Romane did the Syrian, and the Jew, (even S. Jerome himselfe calleth the Hebrew tongue barbarous, belike because it was strange to so many) so the Emperour of Constantinople calleth the Latine tongue, barbarous, though Pope Nicolas do storme at it: so the Jewes long before Christ, called all other nations, Lognazim, which is little better then barbarous. Therefore as one complaineth, that alwayes in the Senate of Rome, there was one or other that called for an interpreter: so lest the Church be driven to the like exigent, it is necessary to have translations in a readinesse." Words to various degrees obsolete in contemporary English is not the same as the KJV preface says, 'Hebrewe, Greeke, Latine, Scythian, Athenian, Romane, Syrian,' which are not known languages to 99% plus of English speakers. That was their point. The Bible shouldn't be in the Latin tongue as it was in Roman Catholicism. This is their point, which is a legitimate application of 1 Corinthians 14. He says they were making an argument for updating an English word for English speaking people. That's false. Paul wasn't doing that in 1 Corinthians 14, as the KJV translators weren't either in their preface. This type of argument is deceptive in its nature, because it depends on an audience being ignorant, believing his take without their own reading of the preface. I agree with the translators and their application of 1 Corinthians 14. It works. It is not the same argument that Mark is making though.
“The basic distinction between the Renaissance and the modern translators is one of fidelity to the original. Partly the loss of faith in the Hebrew and Greek as the definitive word of God has led to the translators’ loss of contact with it, but more responsibility lies in the belief that a modern Bible should aim not to tax its readers linguistic or interpretive abilities one bit. If this aim is to be achieved then it seems clear that a new Bible will have to be produced for every generation---each one probably moving us further away from the original text, now that the initial break has been made.” Gerald Hammond, “The Making of the English Bible” (p.12)
Martin Luther: "If the languages had not made me positive as to the true meaning of the Word, I might have still remained a chained monk, engaged in quietly preaching Romish errors in the obscurity of a cloister; the pope, the sophists, and their anti-Christian empire would have remained unshaken." It seems to me he did not lose faith in the Hebrew and Greek as the definitive word of God. Also consider, from the same man: "And let us be sure of this we will not long preserve the gospel without the languages. The languages are the sheath in which this sword of the Spirit is contained; they are the casket in which this jewel is enshrined; they are the vessel in which this wine is held; they are the larder in which this food is stored; and, as the gospel itself points out, they are the baskets in which are kept these loaves and fishes and fragments . . . For this reason even the apostles themselves considered it necessary to set down the New Testament and hold it fast in the Greek language, doubtless in order to preserve it for us there safe and sound as in a sacred ark."
Some passages in the KJV are not understandable due to the language issues. Its past time for an update. I watched the debate, the most charitable in a long time. Mark hit it out of the park in my opinion and outshined Pastor Dan by a lot, but finding out that he was very ill must be taken into account. The NKJV and MEV are fine for TR preferred guys like myself for preaching and devotions. There are parallel Bibles for those that want to use the KJV but wish to understand the problematic passages. There are lexicons that are available for those that wish to use them. Bottom line, read a Bible that you can understand.
As an Anglican, I use the Anglican King James Version as my Bible for Morning and Evening Prayer and the Book of Common Prayer Book Lectionary. But for study, I don't use the KJV. I use the Septuagint for OT study and the RSV for NT study. But as far as worship goes, go with the KJV for dignified language.
Dwayne, I saw you last night in the comments mention that Eugene Peterson had said he did not think The Message should be used as the Bible church services. I know that I have seen a video with him saying that but I cannot for the life of me find it anymore. Do you know where that can be found either as a video or in print?
@@Dwayne_Green Its illusive! I have rewatched 20 hours or more of video in search of it. I'm sure he said it multiple times, but the occasion I had in mind was him saying that it bothers him when he hears a church say lets turn to such and such a passage in the Message. And that that was not what the Message was written for. He referred to other more appropriate for church translations as study bibles or bibles designed for study.
@@Dwayne_Green it's in Christianity Today apparently. Someone posted on some forum that 'Eugene Peterson stated the following to users of his book on a Christianity Today interview: When I'm in a congregation where somebody uses it [The Message] in the Scripture reading, it makes me a little uneasy. I would never recommend it be used as saying, "Hear the Word of God from The Message." But it surprises me how many do."'
I think Mark's weakest argument is that the KJV shouldn't be used in a church or academic setting but that it's fine for personal use. I'd argue the opposite: when there's a knowledgeable teacher to guide learners, the KJV is perfectly adequate. But I'd never recommend it as a first Bible for ANYONE to study on their own when they first become a Christian or are interested in learning about Christianity.
I listened (MP3 download to listen while walking my dog) to the debate and then to this review. I, too, felt that Dr. Ward won hands down but have a couple of thoughts on this review. First, while Pastor Green's suggestion to have a debate on the textual basis is very important, that's not a topic that Ward is interested in. He stated that, though he prefers the CT, he would gladly switch to the TR if KJVO's would embrace a revision, which clearly won't happen. Also, the KJVO argument for the TR is hypocritical, since they already reject two TR-based translations. The issue ain't the text, it's their blind adherence to this ancient translation. Second, both Pastor Green and others laud the KJV because it "sounds like the Bible". I'm not entirely sure what that means other than it's been around for so long that it's familiar. What KJVO's fail to grasp is that the inspired New Testament autographs were penned, not in eloquent, elite classical Greek, but in everyday Koine Greek, which was, I believe, unknown to the KJV translators. Shouldn't we emulate the Holy Spirit (Eph 5:1) by utilizing translations that faithfully and accurately render His word in "Koine English"? I respectfully disagree with Pastor Green regarding Dr. Ward's use of 1 Cor 14. The underlying principle holds, that it's more beneficial in the church, for both believers and unbelievers, to receive communication from the Lord in understandable language. That's exactly what happened at Pentecost. Finally, a minor critique of this video: It seemed to be somewhat unorganized and meandering. I was looking for a bit more in-depth analysis of the debate, and what I heard was interesting, but it seemed that too much time was spent commenting on the fly on viewers' comments, many of which were way off topic, and in haphazardly trying to queue up debate excerpts. I generally enjoy and appreciate Pastor Green's presentations, but this one seemed a bit below his usually well-prepared sessions. Thanks.
Thanks for the feedback! I did feel a bit more more unorganized with this one, but interacting with the comments is what I normally do with my livestreams.
@@Dwayne_Green One thing I forgot to mention earlier was your description of the "law of first mention". I had understood it to be a (false) hermeneutic principle that the first appearance of a word or phrase on Scripture determines how it should be interpreted in every other instance. I wasn't clear on how you were defining it. In contrast to this "law", I've read (from D.A. Carson?) that John uses "world", for example, ten different ways in his writings, e.g. John 3:16 vs. 17:9 / 1 John 1:15. Can you clarify your definition, as maybe I've misunderstood the term? Thanks.
Brother... you are right!!! Haifely was steamrolled because Mark Ward's case and evidence CANNOT BE ANSWERED. What was Haifely supposed to say? *He can't refute the evidence of the amount of false friends and no one can.* I firmly believe Ward has found an epistemological defeater to *exclusive reading* use of the KJV: How are people supposed to look up words that they don't know that they don't know? What was Haifely supposed to say to that they would be even minutely rational?
He could have suggested something like, "Well, there's only 50, and thanks to your work Mark, you've popularized there definitions and helped immensly to keep the KJV relevant" or something like that... Again, I'm not KJVo, but Dr. Haifley could have certainly offered SOME pushback to Marks case!
@@Dwayne_Green Hmm that’s true…I guess I would have considered that lame as evidence but you’re right, at least it would have been on topic unlike most of what he did say.
@@Dwayne_Green brother Ward has 88 right now and counting. I’ve got 100+ on my list (and a lot of them-50+ at least-are not on his list from his UA-cam series). I understand your response brother, but “there’s only 50”… *that we’ve caught so far.* All Ward has to say is we haven’t caught all of them yet and how are we supposed to remember all of these once we do, the mother of 3 children, the 16 year old farm kid, the new believer on Wall Street being discipled? Why should they be required to? They MUST read such a translation with all these dead senses *exclusively*? I believe Ward has made a case where if people have a desire for understanding of God’s words on a common level they *must* supply a modern translation to help attain to the AV. Dr. Ruckman was my teacher and I tried and tried and tried to find a way around Ward’s arguments about dead senses of common words in the AV and found myself in a corner with no way to answer his questions rationally.
One thing I appreciate about Ward's approach to the question of intelligibility is that he strives to objectively prove, through testing, whether people really do or do not understand what they read in the KJV. Lots of people feel they understand the KJV, but they don't fair well on such tests. How much less someone who hasn't spent decades in the text. If people really want greater readership of the KJV, an edition should be produced with a page by page gloss of words and terms, similar to those found in students editions of Shakespeare or Milton.
I suppose Mr Haifely could have been more prepared however I don't think it would have made much difference Since Mr Wards arguments were sound and reasonable and in line with the writers of the KJ bible themselves. I think Jesus might say something like. Beware of those who boast in having the precise words of God. It's interesting that the command we as chistians are to keep is identified many different ways. One might say 'I follow the royal law' while another says I follow 'Christ law' and yet another says 'I follow the second greatest commandment'. I might say let me teach you the Golden Rule. I hope we all end up practicing the same and honoring our Creator.
I felt the debate shifted to readability to we should retain the Elizabethan English in the KJV because it’s not only literary and poetic , but there’s something holy and sanctified about it. Pastor Dan made going away from the old English to going away from what God said originally. He was definitely putting the old English on a very high pedestal.
Here's my summary - Dr. Haifley's debate presentation boiled down to the German Heimat premise: 'The King James Bible Only environment is our home where we feel safe and comfortable being singularly devoted to one particular translation of God's Word. Why challenge it?'
@@KenBeeKJV 1.I'm not KJVO and was just conveying my impression of their position as expressed by Dr. Haifley. 2. However, there is one error in the KJB translation from the Greek which is the conjunction in the first clause of 1 Corinthians 11:27.
@@annakimborahpa yeah I get that I am KJVO but it’s wild that these people are literally after the King James. Mark Wade is sinfully arrogant in the first place but man alive that flesh was full display and why? Why is the anti-KJV crowd so stuck on ruining the KJV? Don’t wanna read just that…..then literally go read anything else. Brother Dan is operating from a position of defense over something we shouldn’t have to. The ESV, NRSV, NIV etc etc are unstable, frequently needing updates….maybe focus on that and don’t worry about what the KJVO crowd is busy about ya know? We’re good over here, we don’t need rescued from the bible I promise lol
Also Mr. Green, can you explain what Reuben Swanson means when he, “lines of text in the NA/UBS text that have no manuscript support” Thomas Ross, a stand alone KJV defender, keeps repeating that assertion, and it came up again in his debate preview. He won’t acknowledge any other arguments it seems. However, Dr. Gurry and James Snapp Jr. said his assertion was nonsensical. Can you explain it, being that you’re neither CT or TR in your approach?
Yes actually, I did a video a while back on the 'frankentext argument', I think there is some substance to the discussion. There are short streatches of text where there is NO manuscript support. Maurice Robinson wrote a paper where he shared that this occured 105 times in the NA27. Peter Gurry is not a fan of the argument, well, because he's a CT guy. Here's the link, you would likely find this helpful regardless of your position :) ua-cam.com/users/liveHVsHaGg8MfE
@@Dwayne_Green Thank you, I’m sympathetic to the MJ text position but I’m explaining down below why I don’t hold to it. Your video on Acts 8:37 was really great. Is it true however that we can find many places in the KJV where that occurs as well. That assertion came from James Snapp Jr in his 1 John 5:7 debate, but I’m not exactly a fan of his….
The Nestles Aland, the critical text, has lines of text without manuscript support. Ross showed this in the White debate, and White just attacked Ross for talking too fast and other ad hominem too. This point relates to the Which TR? Question. Does the KJV have 100% manuscript support? The CT side will argue about Revelation 22:16 and one or two places they say have no manuscript support or conjectural emendation. If they're concerned for manuscript support, why don't these lines of text and their own conjectural emendations matter to them? It shows an insincerity or hypocrisy to their arguments. It's a gotcha style argument for those who believe in perfect preservation based on scriptural presuppositions. If manuscript support is important, the TR has manuscript support, while the CT does not. Ward won't argue textual criticism, and his posture is that if KJV advocates won't deal with intelligibility or readability, then they obviously don't care about understanding of individual words. Therefore, Ward and others need not proceed any further with textual arguments if the TR/KJV guys are not sincere in their perfection argument. I haven't seen and no one sent me Ward's test, maybe because I would ruin his score average. From what I hear, half of it relates to the singular and plural second person personal pronouns, asking if certain usages of "you" are singular or plural based on the context, and even pastors getting it wrong, because it looks like a plural in the context. However, in the KJV , if it starts with a "y," it's a plural. In modern English, the reader must depend on context alone unless he knows the original languages and can look at the form of second person personal pronoun. On Ward's false friends, apparently he asked questions that would be the most likely to trip people up on the meaning of words with his most difficult archaic words. Everyone knows there are relatively obsolete words in the KJV. I don't have any problem with bringing those up to date to an easier contemporary word choice because of the change of language, but I would look for agreement among KJV churches. Ward is not persuasive as a spokesman, because of how he argues, how he represents the issue, how he savages the other side, how dishonest he is, and most of all by far, that he is a critical text person, who believes in the superiority of the underlying text of the modern versions.
@@betbapt I hate to say this, but just reading over your comment two or three times in the last few minutes, you put forward erroneous arguments and assertions similar to Ross. While what you say about Swanson’s argument is true, I believe Mr. Green’s grain of sand paradox holds out. If we isolate a few words here and there we could create endless examples. James Snapp Jr., in his Johannine Comma debate said that there are over 1000 places according to Swanson where we could say the same thing about the KJV, something that Ross refused to acknowledge in my correspondence with him. Also, Ross did speak way too fast in the debate, he threw out so much information that I had to watch his opening statement about 5 times and pause it just to see what was on the slides. If you read his slide carefully he brought up just over 100 small examples and dramatized it by saying “triple digits”. However, when you look at the actual impact these “lines of text” make on translation there is almost no translatable difference and I went through every example on his slides. Furthermore, your misrepresentation of Dr. Ward, is only about 1mm away from appalling… He very clearly says that the thees, thous, ye, and yous are easy to understand and that is not what his quiz consists of. For, it’s mostly the words that have changed meanings that he is concerned about that obscure the message of the scriptures. Next, the reason why he “doesn’t dive into textual criticism” is because as far as printed Greek texts he sees very little difference between the CT and the TR short of the “Big 3”. The reason he brings up the “Which TR” argument is because the same type of differences he sees in the former texts are the same types of ones he sees between TR additions. Very few of these “no manuscript support passages” make very little sense and difference in English… I personally just like the Critical Text translations better. Lastly, Mark Ward says very clearly along with James White, Kenneth Barker, and even Pastor Scott Ingram (who was a staunch KJVO supporter) says that if the text is the issue then use the NKJV, MEV, KJVer or anyone that puts the TR in intelligible English. I have an NKJV right next to my NRSVue, or CSB when I’m reading, and regularly consult the World English Bible, KJV, and even Young’s literal translation on an almost daily basis when doing devotions. So to say, that critical text people like us, want to somehow misrepresent the other side is hardly a fair assertion. But I will end with the same question I posed to Thomas Ross and probably has been asked for the last half century… Is there any information that anyone can put forward that would change your mind about perfection of the KJV. I assume the answer is no, so there is really no point in talking further.
@anthonytylernecerato4289 You have not shown one erroneous argument that I made. I'd be fine with your doing it, but instead you put up a smoke cloud of verbiage and said very little. I mean that respectfully. The big argument by White against the TR was a lack of manuscript evidence, one word or two in one or two places. If you're going to make that argument, you must have manuscript evidence for your text. When you don't, that's a serious blow to your argument. What I just wrote is not an erroneous argument. It is very sound. The way to argue back is to say, "No, there is manuscript evidence for these "Frankentext" lines." Since there isn't, you attack the person, like White (and you) did. That is extremely, devastatingly appalling, more than that. What Ross did was show a sample of the Matthew passages to manifest what the CT does, which almost no one out there in the pew knows the process, in essence how the sausage is made. Your doctrinal bias is seen in that you don't care if there are errors in the text of scripture, defying the biblical and historical doctrine of preservation of scripture in the original languages. If God says He will do something, shouldn't we believe Him? Who are you to choose that it doesn't matter? Without faith, it is impossible to please Him. Should we not believe, have faith, that God did what He said He would do? A Frankentext doesn't represent that. I don't expect you to answer. Someone I trust took the quiz and did very well and he said the first ten were on the second person personal pronoun and the way they worked was asking if they were a singular or a plural, because in their context, they seemed singular. Sure, those men should have known that, but that's how they would trip someone up. I am making a point that is again, true, and yet you call it something false. It was true. How was it appalling? This shows the tone of CT supporters like your self. There are not the same types of differences between the CT and the TR, but that is besides the point. Was the text available and used by God's churches for hundreds of years in fact not His very Words? Were the very words of scripture lost for centuries? But it is more than that. Large chunks of text are missing. Have you seen the editions of the TR annotated in one edition? Those words were all available before the King James translation. I don't call the King James translation perfect. I call it accurate, which it is. I was a biblical language major and have preached through every single word of the OT and NT in the original languages, and I have seen the translation to be accurate. You can show me where it isn't accurate. Please do. However, I don't call it perfect. There are places I would translate differently, but they are not inaccurate. The nature of translation is that there is ambiguity in certain prepositions for instance that can be translated 17 or 18 different ways. I hope to hear some retractions from you, but I don't expect it.
51:30 I think the point he was trying to make is that it breaks the law of first mention in English. This seems a nonstarter of an argument unless the KJV is infallible because the KJV's preface says it does not try to render the same Greek word the same way even when it means the same thing. Also the law of first mention treats the Bible as something more than plain language (of course KJVO already does lol). I also find it ironic that "seed" ended up as an example from the IFB side which is presumably dispensational, because the connection made in Galatians 3:16 is actually pulling me away from that position.
Underlying the "Is it a sin" question and the issue of readability as a whole is the fact that many want to use one translation exclusively and add a divine imperative behind that choice. I'm going to help my kids learn the KJV, but I'm also going to give them good translations written in contemporary English. I believe that to hold back a translation that speaks to them in their language would be a sin. I've worked with too many kids on scripture memory to be fooled into thinking that giving a small child a KJV and telling them that any other translation is satanic trash is wise. I think the irregular grammar is actually more of a problem for children than the vocabulary itself, and it's a lot harder to help them with.
I agree, and parhaps Mark does too, but it came out with little clarity to this point, and as I've said in the video, the KJV only guys will run with this.
@@Dwayne_Green Yeah, I'm assuming this is building off of what he wrote in Authorized, where he suggests that key texts in the KJV like Psalm 23 and the Lord's Prayer should be taught to kids at the very least. But the apparent acceptance of the premise does open the door for bad-faith interlocutors to take it out of context.
Totally agree with your point the textual basis of KJV v critical text rather than readability as someone who uses the KJV would agree it's not an easy read the textual issue is more important than readability
@@murrydixon5221 I use a variety and am in the process of learning NT Greek. I use the NRSVUE and the CSB the most. If I encounter a difficult verse, I like comparing a few of them
@@anthonytylernecerato4289 When you say sympathetic to the MT position, do you mean that you understand where people are coming from that hold the position? Or do you hold the position as well? Because of course, neither of those translations are MT. I fail to see the majority text position being anything close to controversial, just simple math.
@@murrydixon5221 I’m sympathetic in the sense that I can understand why they hold it. The problem I have with it comes from the fact that it is just simple math, and generally internal evidence isn’t always considered, such as in cases of the long ending of Mark or the woman taken in adultery. However, I use the World English Bible when I want a translation based on it because there are quite a few places where the CT and MJT join together, in the so called “deleted verses”. I have studied a lot of James White’s material along with Dr. Wallace and Dr. Mark Ward.
@@anthonytylernecerato4289 The majority text is a position where we are considering the majority of extant manuscript evidence east and west Greek and Latin, right? In regards to both the King James version and the Majority Text are we not getting the best of both worlds translation and manuscript wise? In a sense, the via media? Why isn't the Minority text position or variant readings considered extreme? What is it exactly about the math that troubles you?
Im not either position but I respect what both men do. I believe any bible based of the texus receptus is good. I just dont want the missing verses. And nkjv and mev are more readable. Mark ward did better in the debate but sometimes seems to want to get rid of the kjv which is crazy.
First mentions are about establishing various typologies in the Bible. When an evangelist wants to say that Goliath’s sword is a picture of victory, he will look for the earliest mention in the Bible of the word sword. When he wants to establish that priests’ clothing is a representation of service, he will go back to where the priestly garments are first mentioned. This is done to establish all kinds of things, like Antioch, like Egypt, etc. I have heard Kenneth Copeland use the phrase “law of first mention.” I have heard Ruckman and many visiting pastors and evangelist come to my KJVO church in the 70s and 80s preach whole sermons based solely on typologies. I have heard an evangelist preach a sermon on how are victory is hiding behind our service based on the passage where David in fleeing from Saul stops to meet the priest and get Goliath’s sword. This is very common in the IFB.
I think Dr. Haifley failed because when you remove the textual criticism aspect from the KJVO debate, many KJVOist don't have a leg to stand on. Im personally on the TR/MajorityText side of that debate but my NKJV Bible suits me just fine.
Mark Ward seems to be opposed to giving a KJV to a child and then leaving the child alone on a desert island with no one to instruct him. I'll say that seems reasonable. But calling it a sin to give a KJB to a child, period, is ludicrous.
We've never talked, but I've been an admirer of your material and love your comments. I know where you stand and yet you are so fair and will defend points even when they are used on KJv or TR only. You seem to be one of the few fair minded and reasonable "experts". I appreciate that.
Dwayne is believe the “calling it a sin argument by Mark”, will cause KJVO leaders to double down unfortunately. Mark has the most intellectual understanding and research and crossed over to the belief for himself that it’s a sin but nobody is on his language level for the most part. Forming tools to help read KJV would bring more unity to the body. I’m 41 and when i’m in my 60’s i’m sure that use of KJV will be less and less and will organically dwindle from mainline use. I think Mark could slightly shift his course and reach more people but his convictions may not allow him. Mark has done a great work though overall and i appreciate his efforts a ton!
I think Mark is more saying that it would be wrong to give someone a KJV with no help. I doubt he would have a problem with giving someone a KJV NIV parallel or something like that.
Unfortunately I’m not sure KJV use will organically dwindle without being punched down by heroes such as Mark. I’m 43 and literally only this year discovered this nonsense still exists, thru a fundie I started dating. (He doesn’t promote it. But he knows people who do…) Ie, it’s already not “mainstream”; it’s in an EXTREMELY small niche corner of the Christian world. But those poor sheep in that particular corner are fleeced by such unreasonable leaders that… I can’t see it changing. We’re already 225 years overdue for an update (this small many rather than 350 since most are actually using the 1769 while being deceived into thinking it’s 1611); what difference will 20 years make at this point?!?
Mark is saying something is a sin. If it is a sin, then he really should help someone not sin. However, if someone said the same thing to him with the same kind of logic or reasoning, he would call it bad tone or unloving or unChristian. This is how he operates. Is it a sin not believing that God did what He said He would do, not believing the historical passages that defend the doctrine of perfect preservation? Ward very often mentions how that KJV supporters won't defer in a suitable enough way to his arguments. I can say that he does exactly the same thing. Is that a sin of not removing the beam from your own eye? Do you see how calling some violation of Ward's very specific application of 1 Corinthians 14 is a sin is very much like something Peter Ruckman himself would do?
I do read the kjv as my personal Bible but preach using the NKJV . If kjv didn’t have words that were not hard to understand, then KJV onlyist DA Waite wouldn’t have put out his defined KJV Bible. That has the archaic words in italics and definition at bottom of page.
I personally don't think the KJV is unreadable. Ward's "false friends" argument is true to some degree, but also lends itself to criticism as a dramatic overstatement. I had to read Shakespeare, the KJV, and John Donne in school growing up. That being said, to read it involves a certain level of awareness as to the language structure and usage of early modern English. One can learn the language structure and it really isn't a problem. I would argue that the largest concern for any of us should be that many College Students today graduate unable to write a coherent sentence. This is concerning even for NIV users. I do think both sides of the issue tend to overstate their case though. I'd keep the beard brother!
Thank you for your interesting take on the debate between Dan Haifely and Mark Ward. I think these discussions are good as long as we remember we are all brothers and sisters in Christ. This topic can touch up deeply so I would expect strong arguments. But only Satan is helped by needless anger and division. This topic is personal to me also. I am a good English student, and I know my Bible better than most. But to be honest, I often struggle to understand the words in the KJV. A problem I do not have in other translations. And this is my first point. If I struggle, how much more will people who have poor English skills or only a casual understanding of the Bible? Let me give you an illustration. I am currently studying Romans 11:1-3. The ESV is easy for me to understand. It is written in reasonably English with only the word “foreknew” being a little difficult. The NKJV is a little harder. A reader will need to know what is meant by “cast away”. “seed” and “foreknew” but that is not too bad. Alas though the KJV is much harder. A reader will need to know what is meant by “hath”, “cast away”, “foreknew”, “seed”, “saith”, “Elias”, “maketh”, “intercession” and “digged down”. An experienced KJV reader will probably understand these verses without any effort. Although I wonder how many would know what the unusual “digged down” means. But, this is not so with me. I need to make my own translation in my head to understand what this means. And this is even before I start to work out what Paul is trying to communicate to me. This is a relatively simple section of text. There are plenty of other important passages that are far harder to read. And this is my second point. If the only way I can understand a text is to retranslate it, then I would prefer it to be written from the start in a translation that do understand. Why should we use words and sentences that are unnecessarily difficult? Why should make barriers that obscure the message of the Bible? The Bible is challenging enough to understand without these issues. I understand the reluctance to change from the KJV. I know that Mark Ward also has regrets in changing from the KJV. It is a wonderful version that has served us well. I do not wish to let it go. But alas I do think it is time to start moving to versions that are more understandable to more people. Romans 11 English Standard Version 1 I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? 3 “Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.” New King James Version 1 I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying, 3 “Lord, they have killed Your prophets and torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life”? King James Version 1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying, 3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
I graduated from KJV only Bible College in the late 80s as a 21 year old. Since then from experience I've learnt debating KJV only people are a waste of time, it's like talking to a stubborn brick wall. I've debated many including my GK language lecturer, and Baptist Pastor's. I'm a Baptist who always used the NASB 77 due to conviction based on evidence. I used it in Bible College, and boy was I vilified by many. I use the magnificent NET (full notes) the excellent CSB, and the fabulous LSB daily in all my studies, teachings. Brother Mark Ward won hands down.
The only problem with Mark's argument is that there are innumerable resources from a ton of Bible scholars over the last 400 years that make the KJV not only readable but understandable. Fact is, the KJV is intelligible, if one puts in the work. Mark specifically addresses the KJVO folks who do not necessarily utilize the original languages. The rest of us really don't have a problem with the KJV. You are right, Dan was steamrolled in this debate, and he was not prepared. Unfortunately, passion for the KJV does not equate to preparation. And Dan exposes the precise problem with KJVO's, they are not always approachable. On the same token, I would love to see Mark go up against a fellow scholar who does use the KJV (non-KJVO of course). I'll bet Mark would be woefully unprepared. Overall, nothing was ultimately established that would benefit anyone who is KJVO.
Didn't catch the whole review live, finished watching it now; nice work as always, Dwayne! I'm a byzantine priority guy, but I'm with Ward on this one although I agree it seemed like Haifley wasn't really prepared. You mentioned Adam Boyd in the video, I enjoy his "Text critical english New Testament" a lot, probably my go to english bible version since I only use it for personal reading as I don't live in an english speaking country; however I used to use the NKJV for this purpose before.
I think that the debate from Wards perspective is completely skewed and backward. The issue is not that the KJV is in a readable up to date language but rather, its the only bible based on the right text with the greatest group of scholars in history using the best possible principles undergirding their decisions with translation. That is the issue. Only the most extreme KJV onlyist will assert that there are no words that should be changed, but where is the Lancelot Andrews who can do the work? there are none, neither are there many scholars who even understand the textual debate and what the Bible says concerning it. its an absolute mess. I am by no means against a sympathetic revision of the KJV but nothing even comes close today... there is NO standard a part from it, there is NO Bible that uses the text accepted by the People of God through history except the KJV. Yes Dwayne, I would agree that the NKJV is the best outside of the KJV but its has it has many serious issues of its own. Mark Ward has nothing except the fact that there are outdated words in the KJV but gives nothing to replace it with and therefore should in this case remove himself from the debate. Ive learnt one thing in life, do not complain about a thing unless you have a viable solution... the modern versions are not it.
Amen. Not for most today. This is Laodicea. Today's Christians are pro choice when it comes to music, Bible translations, and which church they attend. Which version does God approve of is never even discussed or considered. Man centered and selfish times. I think the Bible predicted that.
No, but his concern is that if all you read is the KJV you may read the same passage 100 times and never understand the words God inspired the authors to write because of language change. So he would encourage those who love the KJV to also read a modern English version to help see things the unfamiliar words may have obscured.
@@jamessheffield4173 without using commentaries, reading multiple translations can be a very helpful way to get a fuller understanding. Your humble opinion is valid, but you asked a question about what Mark would like, and about reading the NIV once. So the answer to your questions is that Mark would commend that no one should be a one translation onlyist but rather should feast from the multitude of good options (including the KJV)
James are you saying that understanding the Bible itself alone doesn’t matter since we use commentaries and teachers? So it’s ok if i take away your English and give you an Albanian Bible, you’ll just use commentaries and teachers? No. Give me my English, and give the masses (this century’s) English too!
@@Dwayne_Green My point is that a debate between the TR and the CT should be a debate between, say, the NKJV and the NASB. When you don't do that, you get the disaster of a debate between James White and Thomas Ross, where one person is arguing about the readability issue while the other one's talking about supposed Waldensian translations. Nobody won that debate, least of all the audience...
Weird, I grew up with a "Learning Disability" Yet, I can understand the KJV just fine! I'm failing to understand what's so hard about it according to a few commenter's?
Our educational system in the USA isn’t what it used to be, so things have to be dumbed down, including bibles and piano lesson books. I’m a classically trained pianist and teacher, and can tell you there has been a dramatic shift in piano pedagogy over the years. I’m glad there are translations of the bible for everyone’s reading and comprehension level, but hate that there are those who want to disregard the KJV entirely. It’s really sad. 😢
But my recollection is Dan Haifely has always agreed the KJV can be hard to read in places, so if the debate is on ease of readability, well, not sure if Haifely is going to argue that.
I don't have nearly as much trouble with reading and understanding my King James Bible as I do with keeping up with all of the 1,000 flavors of King James Only and etc. labels. If we don't fall in line with the NA, then you get labeled as a Ruckmanite or KJVO. Then people have to fall over themselves to disassociate from Ruckman. How does one keep track of all of these?
I've been very careful in my videos to make distinctions between Ruckman/Riplingerism and other KJVo views. There are certainly a number of KJVo guys who are thoughtful and bring excellent arguments to bare (even though I disagree with their conclusions). I'm a Byzantine Prioritist, and though many understand what that means, others tend to conflate that with KJVo as well.
@@Dwayne_Green This wasn't directed at you Dwayne, just in general. I have found you to be fair and upfront. I appreciate you being willing to hear and engage both sides of the matter. It has been my experience at Ward's channel: that if you speak up at all in defense of the King James in anything other than a dulcet or effeminate tone you get immediately labeled as either a Ruckmanite, Riplingerite, IFBer or an extremist. Then you have to deny that profusely. Then you are a King James Only level and so on down to whatever passes for normal. I don't know enough about either Ruckman or Riplinger or their works to deny them. I know they support the King James and that is good enough for me. I don't believe there are only two types KJV or NA, I am sure there are many more types. You mentioned four types of people in your video. I know I could benefit (perhaps others??) from a 2024 or 2025 breakdown video of what all the types are. KJV only, KJV only extreme, KJV demure, sympathetic and so on.
I want to start by saying I like the KJV, go to a KJV church. The KJV is still a top 10 best seller so there is a demand for it. Is it readable? Yes, for us who grew up on it. It is sufficient for people who use it on a regular basis no matter the age. Our church, our church school and our small college all use the KJV. However, if a person did not grow up on the KJV , who has a limited education or English as a second language or a child or new convert. It is probably not sufficiently readable. Saying it is sinful to give a child a KJV is absurd. I will end by saying that the newer translations such as the NKJV, NLT, NASB, CSB or the WEB are far more readable and understandable than the KJV. Its absurd to say they are not no matter your manuscript or translation preference.
I'm kjv only. There is one perfect word of God in one language. If someone wants the perfect word of God, they will learn that language. NOTE: I didn't say English. A non kjv onlyist would say one has to learn Greek to have the perfect word of God. I would say they have to learn English. What's the difference? How is the other viewpoint better? English is the universal language of the world. Greek and Hebrew are spoken by less than 1 % of the world.
@@BrianBeam1611Your view is the type people have zero respect for because it implies there was no perfect Bible before 1611. Also there is no reason to say the KJV is infallible, whereas there is reason to say the originals are. The reason why KJVO is so bad is that it undermines the basis for sola scriptura, that no one other than the writers of scripture, who had the original apostolic authority, could be infallible.
It was a huge win for those who see this for what it truly is...rock vs. the Rock in Deut. 32. True vine vs. the wild sour grapes of error. Mark Ward is a false teacher who attempts to deceive as he is deceived. You can be as passionate as you want about ERROR yet its still ERROR! 😢
Mark's false friends are not all false friends. There are some words that are no longer popular, however, with a little research you can figure it out. Most modern versions have Jesus lying to his brothers in John 7:8-10. This makes them unreliable. I would rather have reliable than readable.
But that’s Mark’s whole point. A person may not know they have a wrong definition and therefore would not research it. That’s why they are false “friends”.
@@jonathanchaney5896 except he is wrong on several of them. He picks one definition, when there are other definitions in the OED that match what the word means today. For instance when you look up the word "halt" it not only meant limp it also meant stop as early as the 13th century.
I watched the debate, yes Mark won like a terminator cause Dan w asn't ready, but Dan was gonna lose in the end anyway, but he should have atleast touched on why we are TR only
I feel like Mark Ward has an agenda. The KJV has been around for centuries. It does require extra effort to understand, but at the same time it improves one’s vocabulary. I grew up with it and will continue to use it, though I do own a few other translations.
I've noticed that too. I've had some personal interaction with Mark over email. He tries to come off as just helping modern people understand the Bible better, but I've seen at least one other video he has done where he snidely attacks another man who holds to a KJV position, and who Mark admitted treated him with charity. Mark came across as slimy and somewhat of a little "punk" in that video, and I've never cared for him since.
The problem I see is that opponents of the KJV overstate the difficulty sometimes: It’s not Shakespeare AND it certainly isn’t Chaucer’s Middle English…I’ve heard some opponents even rate the NKJV as too difficult!
GOD seemed to put HIS Stamp of Approval on KJV as teen in mid 70s. Read from NIV in college days early 80s, and didn't like the omissions. Never had problem with understanding KJV text, and I had very poor grammar skills growing up.
When I decided that my 8 year old needed to read the Bible, I examined the RSV, King James, and every other version we had in the house. I was surprised to find that the King James Bible was the easiest for a child. When it was first published, many argued it was to simple for a Bible. My how things have changed. One needs a good dictionary. I believe a hundred years ago, high school students would have good enough English to understand at least 99 percent of it. It still does not take that much to read it. The biggest problem is finding a good English teacher. I teach mathematics, but English teachers I have questioned seem to have a very limited knowledge of the English language. There are some good English teachers, but they seem to be in the minority.
@@casey1167 It forces us to study English. I once read: Psalm 119:148 Mine eyes prevent the night watches, that I might meditate in thy word. I said to myself, I thought I knew what prevent means. It comes from the French.word preventar, to come before. I found that in a decent dictionary of 55,000 words. Now, I an O.E.D. which can help.with almost any archaic word.
It's funny how the loudest voices on this issue are the scholars. I heard Maurice Robinson, whom I love as a byz defender, say in an interview with Mark Ward that the KJV ia too hard to understand. Then i heard him say, when asked by brother Hackett, which Bible he recommended, that all Christians ahould learn Koine Greek and read it in the originals. Those were his exact words. Learn a whole new language that takes years to master....no problem. Read a KJV...bad. we all have phones, even if you don't have a dictionary. Anyone can look up any words in 5 seconds and find out the meaning.
I agree that is a funny answer. Not all Christians will learn koine, and that's fine. Would I want all Christians to learn koine? Absolutely, but it's not about my wants and desires, lol.That's part of the reason why God provides teachers in the Church who are gifted in some way.
Ok whether or not we agree on KJVO or not, you lost me when you start saying insane stuff like it’s sinful to give a child a KJV. Imagine if Brother Dan said ESVs did that the chat would be roasting him like Alex Jones. I am 100% a King James man no apologies but I appreciate these debates cept Wade is not interested in spreading the word of God. That man legit believes without him ppl won’t be able to read the Bible at all, the arrogance even IF he could make a persuasive argument the amount of flesh behind it kills any power to it ya feel me?
Taylor DeSoto already destroyed Mark Ward's arguments years ago, and it's really one single argument Ward has in his arsenal: that the KJV can't be understood. But as Taylor rightly pointed out, Mark usually contradicts the very thing he claims if you read long enough. From an article review of Mark Ward's book 'Unauthorized' DeSoto writes... "Ward says that the KJV is intelligible, but not actually. He says that he loves the KJV, but those that use it are sinning by doing so. He says that all he wants is an updated KJV, but also that that has already been done. He establishes his primary argument, that people don’t actually know how to read the KJV, based on his own personal difficulty reading it and other anecdotes. He tells his reader that if they do not know Greek, they should “humbly acknowledge that their opinions about textual criticism” essentially do not matter." Taylor continues... "Ward does in this chapter what many Christians are growing weary of - speaking down from the scholarly high tower. He is the expert, not you. If you disagree with Ward, then you are literally sinning. If you, a “non-specialist,” have an opinion on textual criticism that goes against the academic meta, it isn’t wise to comment in the discussion. He then advises those of his readers to subvert the authority of their KJV reading pastors by instructing them to ask their pastor to recommend a Bible “In their own language.” Not only is this divisive, it is misinformed, and offensive, especially to myself, who recognizes the KJV as a beautiful articulation of the English language. This chapter solidifies my thought that Ward’s problem is one only a scholar could have." Ward has been writing these things for years, claiming that it's basically sinful to read the KJV and want others to read the KJV as well. From; "3 Ways to Graciously Engage KJV-Only Believers" by Mark Ward Ward writes... "KJV-onlyism is not a Christian liberty issue, like eating meat offered to idols. It makes void the Word of God by human tradition-one archaizing lexeme at a time (Mark 7:13). I pray that my brethren’s consciences will one day be liberated to read more than just the KJV." This is Mark Ward's schtick and people are seemingly fine with it. ~God bless you
By brother Ward's logic (using the term loosely) Bible-distribution in 1800 to educated English-readers was fine but the same act in 2024 to dumb Americans is sinful -- but the real fulcrum is not the KJV; it's intelligibility; how well the text is understood. And that is a quantity that is constantly in flux because readers are perpetually learning and gaining new insights. The KJV's archaisms are real, and can be improved, but they are not the problem nearly as much as the problem is modern Bible-readers desiring to understand the Bible on their own without instruction from the church - a goal for which the books of the New Testament were never intended as their primary purpose.
Just you saying the KJV can be “improved” is enough for many KJV onlyists to call you a heretic. And don’t lump all those who use the modern translations as people who want to leant independent of the church. You’re painting with some VERY broad strokes there.
@@jonathanchaney5896 , I don't much care what schismatics think of me. And I make a clear distinction between "dogmatic KJBO" and other bands of the spectrum.
@@JamesSnappJr right but I know plenty of people who support the CT/modern translations who are very much not independent of the church. Plus, let’s be honest. I know plenty of KJBO folks who split over something and go start a new church, over and over again. That is what I saw growing up in the south all the time. So i don’t think you can say the KJVO never has any ecclesiological concerns. That is what I’m pushing back in your comment.
Setting aside Dan's mediocre debate performance - Learning archaic words is part of the fun of using the KJV. I mean, come on, there are people who make Klingon versions of the New Testament. I don't think Mark's "False Friends" are going to slow anyone down.
Two problems with this: 1) if Dr. Haifley knew that he couldn't do the debate justice, he could have said no. I doubt he was forced into it. 2) It's not likely that Dr. Haifley would desire to show mark as superior in the debate, this conspiratorial thinking just doesn't work here.
@@debras3806 Bryan Denlinger would have been a better match. How about Robert Breaker. Or even Brother Sam, who has been at the helm for decades. Wards slander of Brandon Peterson was unfair. Yet Ward and wildsmith had no problem mocking Peterson. wildsmith & Ward have replaced Westcott & Hort in spewing apostate manure.
@@JosephAquino1430 At what minute mark do you consider Ward to have slandered? Is it more or less severe than your slander of Mark above? Also who is Wildshit-is that a real person or are you mocking someone?
@@debras3806 my apologizes, typo, which I’ve corrected. Ward tries to bully us into taking his outlook. Convince people of his opinions from every possible angle. For me, I haven’t the ability to agree with his argument. But who am I? 🙏Col. 3:17🙏
@@murrydixon5221 , You're asking the wrong question. I would argue that given sufficiently competent instruction, and a sufficiently teachable student, anything can be sufficiently readable.
@@JamesSnappJr Fair enough, and we would be in complete agreement. I simply don't understand how Mark can be given the W when he left the topic as subjective as he found it. How about a draw?
I can see why Ward hand-picked Dan Haifley. He had a lot of notes up there and it seemed, ideas in his head, but he couldn't put them together in a cohesive, cogent fashion. Ward "won," but not really, because he chose solely on someone who was agreeable with him. Ward tries to shame those who won't approach him in an agreeable way, even when he is wrong, using poor tone or style himself, or even dishonest. Essentially, he won't allow you to comment on his youtube page if you disagree with him. Your comments will not show up there and without explanation. Mark Ward will say that the NKJV is the same underlying text in the NT and this is demonstrably false. Ward's standard of "the same" means "close to the same," which is similar to his position on preservation. You don't need certainty, just confidence, something like we would have when we read Homer's Iliad and Odyssey or any other ancient secular book. The NKJV is what it is, but it isn't from the same underlying text as seen in dozens of examples.
@@jonathanchaney5896 Jonathan, do you think that you are open minded? If you see the truth, will you accept it? If not, then we would not have grounds for discussing almost anything. I took the same position as you, trusting the NKJV translators, knowing they were scholars, that they translated from the same underlying text as the KJV, because they said so. However, I have personally examined it. I was a biblical language major in college, started taking Greek in high school and kept taking it all the way through two grad degrees. I preached through every verse of the NT, using the Greek. It is not the same underlying text. After a cursory look and finding a dozen or more examples, I went more systematically through Matthew and Mark and found twenty more. If I took that ratio and applied it to the whole NT, it would be over 100. Maybe that just doesn't matter to you. "The same" means "sort of close to the same," but it is not the identical.
@@betbapt I would love some examples to research myself. I certainly do not want to spread false information. So please do share where the underlying Greek (not English translation) differs from the TR. And not an example like 1 Cor. 1:18 where the KJV translated a participle (it can be argued) incorrectly. Because that Greek is identical, the KJV and NKJV just translated differently. NKJV got it more right IMO. I’m willing to investigate.
@@jonathanchaney5896 The one difficulty of making the comparison is that there is no NKJV Greek text. The investigation must come by looking at the TR/MT/CT/NKJV/KJV -- all of them. Who wants to do that? I didn't and don't, but after finding they were not the same, I looked. Just like you mention 1 Cor 1:18, there are places that people will then say, "Sure, they are not the same, and that's a clear example, but it doesn't change the meaning of the text." If that's not going to be you, still doubling down because something more than the truth is at stake, then I don't mind going further on this.
@@betbapt so you have approx. 100 but you can’t give me some? Sorry I’m not going to believe without doing my own investigation. And the issue with 1 Cor. 1:18 is that the KJV translators muffed on that one. So KJV onlyists will say the modern translations (including NKJV) changed it when they are actually correcting it to the Greek parallelism clearly in the verse. Perishing/being saved.
The false friends are largely why I don't recommend the KJV. Archaic language isn't a big problem because you can look those words up and find out what they mean, but false friends mean something different and there's a risk that the reader won't realize that, leading them to an incorrect understanding of the text.
I feel like many (most?) people who love the KJV have fallen in love with the early modern English style. A word often used to describe it is "majestic", but I'm not convinced that this was intentional on the part of the translators. To our modern ears, the early modern style sounds more reverent and gives a sense of credibility. Joseph Smith, founder of the LDS church, relied upon that to give his Book of Mormon a false sense of credibility. But when the KJV was written, this would have been considered contemporary language.
The whole point of Bible translation during the Reformation era was to get the text of Scripture in the common vernacular so that the laity could read it for themselves. The early modern English of the KJV has stopped being the vernacular, just as the Old English of the Wycliffe Bible stopped being the vernacular and necessitated a new translation. We have a wealth of modern English Bibles to choose from. Even if one were to successfully argue that the KJV is still readable, I would counter that modern English Bibles are MORE readable. Candles still work for seeing in the dark, but we have electricity now. We still use candles on birthday cakes, and people can still read the KJV, but don't make it your primary Bible translation.
My experience: I am 66 years old, and have been reading the KJV for almost 55 years. I teach a Bible class at my church, and we use the KJV, not because we are a KJVO church, rather that is the translation that most everyone has. I still read from the KJV every day, even so, after all of these years I still come across passages that are quite difficult. When I am preparing my weekly Bible lesson I use the KJV, the NKJV, NASB, ESV, and sometimes the AMP, as well as commentaries and dictionaries, whatever I need to have a fuller understanding of God's Word.
When I first read shakespear in grade 10, I had to be taught what "thou art" meant. The idea that the Holy Spirit gives every Christian English speaker the ability to understand KJV English flies in the face of 1 Cor 12:30.
You also had to learn normal English as well. It is readable and need a dictionary just like I did for the ESV.
@@BeleeuerThat's not the point. The point is that KJV English has not just different words, but quite a lot of different syntax from contemporary English. The KJV's English is now literary and only learnt for Shakespear or KJV. The Bible was not originally written in a literary form of Greek.
@@maxxiong I read the 1611 AV reprint copy from 1833. It's just fine and I'm not a rocket scientist 😂
I Corinthians 12:30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
One does not need the gift of tongues to read one's own language, just a good old fashioned education and a good dictionary.
Make America Educated Again
@@williamearl7837False friends though? Haifely appeals to the Spirit for that which is where this problem arises.
Dwayne - One of the main reasons Mark uses 1 Corinthians 14 is because the KJV translators did. He is attempting to make a bridge between KJV devotes. So to suggest that he is forcing that is not fair since it has been long established in Christianity being used by church fathers and most importantly for this context the KJV translators.
and as a Charismatic myself, I can agree with drawing the principle. So I don't think it is entirely a cessationist position that forces Mark to make the application.
Mark Ward makes a disingenuous argument when he refers to the King James Translators to support his 1 Corinthians 14 argument. They are not making the same argument. Here is the quote in the fullest context of KJV preface:
"But how shall men meditate in that, which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept close in an unknowen tongue? as it is written, Except I know the power of the voyce, I shall be to him that speaketh, a Barbarian, and he that speaketh, shalbe a Barbarian to me. The Apostle excepteth no tongue, not Hebrewe the ancientest, not Greeke the most copious, not Latine the finest. Nature taught a naturall man to confesse, that all of us in those tongues which wee doe not understand, are plainely deafe; wee may turne the deafe eare unto them. The Scythian counted the Athenian, whom he did not understand, barbarous: so the Romane did the Syrian, and the Jew, (even S. Jerome himselfe calleth the Hebrew tongue barbarous, belike because it was strange to so many) so the Emperour of Constantinople calleth the Latine tongue, barbarous, though Pope Nicolas do storme at it: so the Jewes long before Christ, called all other nations, Lognazim, which is little better then barbarous. Therefore as one complaineth, that alwayes in the Senate of Rome, there was one or other that called for an interpreter: so lest the Church be driven to the like exigent, it is necessary to have translations in a readinesse."
Words to various degrees obsolete in contemporary English is not the same as the KJV preface says, 'Hebrewe, Greeke, Latine, Scythian, Athenian, Romane, Syrian,' which are not known languages to 99% plus of English speakers. That was their point. The Bible shouldn't be in the Latin tongue as it was in Roman Catholicism. This is their point, which is a legitimate application of 1 Corinthians 14. He says they were making an argument for updating an English word for English speaking people. That's false. Paul wasn't doing that in 1 Corinthians 14, as the KJV translators weren't either in their preface.
This type of argument is deceptive in its nature, because it depends on an audience being ignorant, believing his take without their own reading of the preface. I agree with the translators and their application of 1 Corinthians 14. It works. It is not the same argument that Mark is making though.
“The basic distinction between the Renaissance and the modern translators is one of fidelity to the original. Partly the loss of faith in the Hebrew and Greek as the definitive word of God has led to the translators’ loss of contact with it, but more responsibility lies in the belief that a modern Bible should aim not to tax its readers linguistic or interpretive abilities one bit. If this aim is to be achieved then it seems clear that a new Bible will have to be produced for every generation---each one probably moving us further away from the original text, now that the initial break has been made.”
Gerald Hammond, “The Making of the English Bible” (p.12)
Martin Luther: "If the languages had not made me positive as to the true meaning of the Word, I might have still remained a chained monk, engaged in quietly preaching Romish errors in the obscurity of a cloister; the pope, the sophists, and their anti-Christian empire would have remained unshaken."
It seems to me he did not lose faith in the Hebrew and Greek as the definitive word of God. Also consider, from the same man:
"And let us be sure of this we will not long preserve the gospel without the languages. The languages are the sheath in which this sword of the Spirit is contained; they are the casket in which this jewel is enshrined; they are the vessel in which this wine is held; they are the larder in which this food is stored; and, as the gospel itself points out, they are the baskets in which are kept these loaves and fishes and fragments . . . For this reason even the apostles themselves considered it necessary to set down the New Testament and hold it fast in the Greek language, doubtless in order to preserve it for us there safe and sound as in a sacred ark."
@@Dwayne_Green Hammond favors the Renaissance and Reformation era Bible translations. He's critical of the modern translations.
Some passages in the KJV are not understandable due to the language issues. Its past time for an update.
I watched the debate, the most charitable in a long time. Mark hit it out of the park in my opinion and outshined Pastor Dan by a lot, but finding out that he was very ill must be taken into account. The NKJV and MEV are fine for TR preferred guys like myself for preaching and devotions. There are parallel Bibles for those that want to use the KJV but wish to understand the problematic passages. There are lexicons that are available for those that wish to use them. Bottom line, read a Bible that you can understand.
Just read a different translation and leave the KJV alone lol it’s insane to me ppl who don’t even read the King James are so pressed to ruin it.
@@KenBeeKJVlol exactly.
As an Anglican, I use the Anglican King James Version as my Bible for Morning and Evening Prayer and the Book of Common Prayer Book Lectionary. But for study, I don't use the KJV. I use the Septuagint for OT study and the RSV for NT study. But as far as worship goes, go with the KJV for dignified language.
Dwayne, I saw you last night in the comments mention that Eugene Peterson had said he did not think The Message should be used as the Bible church services. I know that I have seen a video with him saying that but I cannot for the life of me find it anymore. Do you know where that can be found either as a video or in print?
I took a quick look actually and wasn't able to find it... Perhaps later when I have a moment I'll see if can locate it.
@@Dwayne_Green Its illusive! I have rewatched 20 hours or more of video in search of it. I'm sure he said it multiple times, but the occasion I had in mind was him saying that it bothers him when he hears a church say lets turn to such and such a passage in the Message. And that that was not what the Message was written for. He referred to other more appropriate for church translations as study bibles or bibles designed for study.
@@Dwayne_Green it's in Christianity Today apparently. Someone posted on some forum that
'Eugene Peterson stated the following to users of his book on a Christianity Today interview:
When I'm in a congregation where somebody uses it [The Message] in the Scripture reading, it makes me a little uneasy. I would never recommend it be used as saying, "Hear the Word of God from The Message." But it surprises me how many do."'
@@ianholloway3778 Thank you!
I think Mark's weakest argument is that the KJV shouldn't be used in a church or academic setting but that it's fine for personal use. I'd argue the opposite: when there's a knowledgeable teacher to guide learners, the KJV is perfectly adequate. But I'd never recommend it as a first Bible for ANYONE to study on their own when they first become a Christian or are interested in learning about Christianity.
I listened (MP3 download to listen while walking my dog) to the debate and then to this review. I, too, felt that Dr. Ward won hands down but have a couple of thoughts on this review. First, while Pastor Green's suggestion to have a debate on the textual basis is very important, that's not a topic that Ward is interested in. He stated that, though he prefers the CT, he would gladly switch to the TR if KJVO's would embrace a revision, which clearly won't happen. Also, the KJVO argument for the TR is hypocritical, since they already reject two TR-based translations. The issue ain't the text, it's their blind adherence to this ancient translation. Second, both Pastor Green and others laud the KJV because it "sounds like the Bible". I'm not entirely sure what that means other than it's been around for so long that it's familiar. What KJVO's fail to grasp is that the inspired New Testament autographs were penned, not in eloquent, elite classical Greek, but in everyday Koine Greek, which was, I believe, unknown to the KJV translators. Shouldn't we emulate the Holy Spirit (Eph 5:1) by utilizing translations that faithfully and accurately render His word in "Koine English"? I respectfully disagree with Pastor Green regarding Dr. Ward's use of 1 Cor 14. The underlying principle holds, that it's more beneficial in the church, for both believers and unbelievers, to receive communication from the Lord in understandable language. That's exactly what happened at Pentecost. Finally, a minor critique of this video: It seemed to be somewhat unorganized and meandering. I was looking for a bit more in-depth analysis of the debate, and what I heard was interesting, but it seemed that too much time was spent commenting on the fly on viewers' comments, many of which were way off topic, and in haphazardly trying to queue up debate excerpts. I generally enjoy and appreciate Pastor Green's presentations, but this one seemed a bit below his usually well-prepared sessions. Thanks.
Thanks for the feedback! I did feel a bit more more unorganized with this one, but interacting with the comments is what I normally do with my livestreams.
@@Dwayne_Green One thing I forgot to mention earlier was your description of the "law of first mention". I had understood it to be a (false) hermeneutic principle that the first appearance of a word or phrase on Scripture determines how it should be interpreted in every other instance. I wasn't clear on how you were defining it. In contrast to this "law", I've read (from D.A. Carson?) that John uses "world", for example, ten different ways in his writings, e.g. John 3:16 vs. 17:9 / 1 John 1:15. Can you clarify your definition, as maybe I've misunderstood the term? Thanks.
Brother... you are right!!! Haifely was steamrolled because Mark Ward's case and evidence CANNOT BE ANSWERED. What was Haifely supposed to say? *He can't refute the evidence of the amount of false friends and no one can.* I firmly believe Ward has found an epistemological defeater to *exclusive reading* use of the KJV: How are people supposed to look up words that they don't know that they don't know? What was Haifely supposed to say to that they would be even minutely rational?
I guess he was just supposed to talk about country music lol
That’s the thing…there is no rational case for its readability!
Yet they keep saying it. I really don’t get it.
He could have suggested something like, "Well, there's only 50, and thanks to your work Mark, you've popularized there definitions and helped immensly to keep the KJV relevant" or something like that... Again, I'm not KJVo, but Dr. Haifley could have certainly offered SOME pushback to Marks case!
@@Dwayne_Green Hmm that’s true…I guess I would have considered that lame as evidence but you’re right, at least it would have been on topic unlike most of what he did say.
@@Dwayne_Green brother Ward has 88 right now and counting. I’ve got 100+ on my list (and a lot of them-50+ at least-are not on his list from his UA-cam series).
I understand your response brother, but “there’s only 50”… *that we’ve caught so far.* All Ward has to say is we haven’t caught all of them yet and how are we supposed to remember all of these once we do, the mother of 3 children, the 16 year old farm kid, the new believer on Wall Street being discipled? Why should they be required to? They MUST read such a translation with all these dead senses *exclusively*?
I believe Ward has made a case where if people have a desire for understanding of God’s words on a common level they *must* supply a modern translation to help attain to the AV.
Dr. Ruckman was my teacher and I tried and tried and tried to find a way around Ward’s arguments about dead senses of common words in the AV and found myself in a corner with no way to answer his questions rationally.
One thing I appreciate about Ward's approach to the question of intelligibility is that he strives to objectively prove, through testing, whether people really do or do not understand what they read in the KJV. Lots of people feel they understand the KJV, but they don't fair well on such tests. How much less someone who hasn't spent decades in the text.
If people really want greater readership of the KJV, an edition should be produced with a page by page gloss of words and terms, similar to those found in students editions of Shakespeare or Milton.
I suppose Mr Haifely could have been more prepared however I don't think it would have made much difference Since Mr Wards arguments were sound and reasonable and in line with the writers of the KJ bible themselves. I think Jesus might say something like. Beware of those who boast in having the precise words of God. It's interesting that the command we as chistians are to keep is identified many different ways. One might say 'I follow the royal law' while another says I follow 'Christ law' and yet another says 'I follow the second greatest commandment'. I might say let me teach you the Golden Rule. I hope we all end up practicing the same and honoring our Creator.
I felt the debate shifted to readability to we should retain the Elizabethan English in the KJV because it’s not only literary and poetic , but there’s something holy and sanctified about it.
Pastor Dan made going away from the old English to going away from what God said originally. He was definitely putting the old English on a very high pedestal.
Here's my summary -
Dr. Haifley's debate presentation boiled down to the German Heimat premise: 'The King James Bible Only environment is our home where we feel safe and comfortable being singularly devoted to one particular translation of God's Word. Why challenge it?'
Answer the question, other translations exist why would you need to replace the KJV? Just read something else problem solved.
@@KenBeeKJV 1.I'm not KJVO and was just conveying my impression of their position as expressed by Dr. Haifley.
2. However, there is one error in the KJB translation from the Greek which is the conjunction in the first clause of 1 Corinthians 11:27.
@@annakimborahpa yeah I get that I am KJVO but it’s wild that these people are literally after the King James. Mark Wade is sinfully arrogant in the first place but man alive that flesh was full display and why? Why is the anti-KJV crowd so stuck on ruining the KJV? Don’t wanna read just that…..then literally go read anything else. Brother Dan is operating from a position of defense over something we shouldn’t have to. The ESV, NRSV, NIV etc etc are unstable, frequently needing updates….maybe focus on that and don’t worry about what the KJVO crowd is busy about ya know? We’re good over here, we don’t need rescued from the bible I promise lol
Also Mr. Green, can you explain what Reuben Swanson means when he, “lines of text in the NA/UBS text that have no manuscript support” Thomas Ross, a stand alone KJV defender, keeps repeating that assertion, and it came up again in his debate preview. He won’t acknowledge any other arguments it seems. However, Dr. Gurry and James Snapp Jr. said his assertion was nonsensical. Can you explain it, being that you’re neither CT or TR in your approach?
Yes actually, I did a video a while back on the 'frankentext argument', I think there is some substance to the discussion. There are short streatches of text where there is NO manuscript support. Maurice Robinson wrote a paper where he shared that this occured 105 times in the NA27. Peter Gurry is not a fan of the argument, well, because he's a CT guy. Here's the link, you would likely find this helpful regardless of your position :)
ua-cam.com/users/liveHVsHaGg8MfE
@@Dwayne_Green Thank you, I’m sympathetic to the MJ text position but I’m explaining down below why I don’t hold to it. Your video on Acts 8:37 was really great. Is it true however that we can find many places in the KJV where that occurs as well. That assertion came from James Snapp Jr in his 1 John 5:7 debate, but I’m not exactly a fan of his….
The Nestles Aland, the critical text, has lines of text without manuscript support. Ross showed this in the White debate, and White just attacked Ross for talking too fast and other ad hominem too. This point relates to the Which TR? Question. Does the KJV have 100% manuscript support? The CT side will argue about Revelation 22:16 and one or two places they say have no manuscript support or conjectural emendation. If they're concerned for manuscript support, why don't these lines of text and their own conjectural emendations matter to them? It shows an insincerity or hypocrisy to their arguments. It's a gotcha style argument for those who believe in perfect preservation based on scriptural presuppositions.
If manuscript support is important, the TR has manuscript support, while the CT does not. Ward won't argue textual criticism, and his posture is that if KJV advocates won't deal with intelligibility or readability, then they obviously don't care about understanding of individual words. Therefore, Ward and others need not proceed any further with textual arguments if the TR/KJV guys are not sincere in their perfection argument.
I haven't seen and no one sent me Ward's test, maybe because I would ruin his score average. From what I hear, half of it relates to the singular and plural second person personal pronouns, asking if certain usages of "you" are singular or plural based on the context, and even pastors getting it wrong, because it looks like a plural in the context. However, in the KJV , if it starts with a "y," it's a plural. In modern English, the reader must depend on context alone unless he knows the original languages and can look at the form of second person personal pronoun.
On Ward's false friends, apparently he asked questions that would be the most likely to trip people up on the meaning of words with his most difficult archaic words. Everyone knows there are relatively obsolete words in the KJV. I don't have any problem with bringing those up to date to an easier contemporary word choice because of the change of language, but I would look for agreement among KJV churches. Ward is not persuasive as a spokesman, because of how he argues, how he represents the issue, how he savages the other side, how dishonest he is, and most of all by far, that he is a critical text person, who believes in the superiority of the underlying text of the modern versions.
@@betbapt I hate to say this, but just reading over your comment two or three times in the last few minutes, you put forward erroneous arguments and assertions similar to Ross. While what you say about Swanson’s argument is true, I believe Mr. Green’s grain of sand paradox holds out. If we isolate a few words here and there we could create endless examples. James Snapp Jr., in his Johannine Comma debate said that there are over 1000 places according to Swanson where we could say the same thing about the KJV, something that Ross refused to acknowledge in my correspondence with him.
Also, Ross did speak way too fast in the debate, he threw out so much information that I had to watch his opening statement about 5 times and pause it just to see what was on the slides. If you read his slide carefully he brought up just over 100 small examples and dramatized it by saying “triple digits”. However, when you look at the actual impact these “lines of text” make on translation there is almost no translatable difference and I went through every example on his slides.
Furthermore, your misrepresentation of Dr. Ward, is only about 1mm away from appalling… He very clearly says that the thees, thous, ye, and yous are easy to understand and that is not what his quiz consists of. For, it’s mostly the words that have changed meanings that he is concerned about that obscure the message of the scriptures.
Next, the reason why he “doesn’t dive into textual criticism” is because as far as printed Greek texts he sees very little difference between the CT and the TR short of the “Big 3”. The reason he brings up the “Which TR” argument is because the same type of differences he sees in the former texts are the same types of ones he sees between TR additions. Very few of these “no manuscript support passages” make very little sense and difference in English… I personally just like the Critical Text translations better.
Lastly, Mark Ward says very clearly along with James White, Kenneth Barker, and even Pastor Scott Ingram (who was a staunch KJVO supporter) says that if the text is the issue then use the NKJV, MEV, KJVer or anyone that puts the TR in intelligible English. I have an NKJV right next to my NRSVue, or CSB when I’m reading, and regularly consult the World English Bible, KJV, and even Young’s literal translation on an almost daily basis when doing devotions. So to say, that critical text people like us, want to somehow misrepresent the other side is hardly a fair assertion. But I will end with the same question I posed to Thomas Ross and probably has been asked for the last half century… Is there any information that anyone can put forward that would change your mind about perfection of the KJV. I assume the answer is no, so there is really no point in talking further.
@anthonytylernecerato4289 You have not shown one erroneous argument that I made. I'd be fine with your doing it, but instead you put up a smoke cloud of verbiage and said very little. I mean that respectfully. The big argument by White against the TR was a lack of manuscript evidence, one word or two in one or two places. If you're going to make that argument, you must have manuscript evidence for your text. When you don't, that's a serious blow to your argument. What I just wrote is not an erroneous argument. It is very sound. The way to argue back is to say, "No, there is manuscript evidence for these "Frankentext" lines." Since there isn't, you attack the person, like White (and you) did. That is extremely, devastatingly appalling, more than that. What Ross did was show a sample of the Matthew passages to manifest what the CT does, which almost no one out there in the pew knows the process, in essence how the sausage is made.
Your doctrinal bias is seen in that you don't care if there are errors in the text of scripture, defying the biblical and historical doctrine of preservation of scripture in the original languages. If God says He will do something, shouldn't we believe Him? Who are you to choose that it doesn't matter? Without faith, it is impossible to please Him. Should we not believe, have faith, that God did what He said He would do? A Frankentext doesn't represent that. I don't expect you to answer.
Someone I trust took the quiz and did very well and he said the first ten were on the second person personal pronoun and the way they worked was asking if they were a singular or a plural, because in their context, they seemed singular. Sure, those men should have known that, but that's how they would trip someone up. I am making a point that is again, true, and yet you call it something false. It was true. How was it appalling? This shows the tone of CT supporters like your self.
There are not the same types of differences between the CT and the TR, but that is besides the point. Was the text available and used by God's churches for hundreds of years in fact not His very Words? Were the very words of scripture lost for centuries? But it is more than that. Large chunks of text are missing. Have you seen the editions of the TR annotated in one edition? Those words were all available before the King James translation.
I don't call the King James translation perfect. I call it accurate, which it is. I was a biblical language major and have preached through every single word of the OT and NT in the original languages, and I have seen the translation to be accurate. You can show me where it isn't accurate. Please do. However, I don't call it perfect. There are places I would translate differently, but they are not inaccurate. The nature of translation is that there is ambiguity in certain prepositions for instance that can be translated 17 or 18 different ways.
I hope to hear some retractions from you, but I don't expect it.
51:30 I think the point he was trying to make is that it breaks the law of first mention in English. This seems a nonstarter of an argument unless the KJV is infallible because the KJV's preface says it does not try to render the same Greek word the same way even when it means the same thing. Also the law of first mention treats the Bible as something more than plain language (of course KJVO already does lol).
I also find it ironic that "seed" ended up as an example from the IFB side which is presumably dispensational, because the connection made in Galatians 3:16 is actually pulling me away from that position.
Underlying the "Is it a sin" question and the issue of readability as a whole is the fact that many want to use one translation exclusively and add a divine imperative behind that choice. I'm going to help my kids learn the KJV, but I'm also going to give them good translations written in contemporary English. I believe that to hold back a translation that speaks to them in their language would be a sin. I've worked with too many kids on scripture memory to be fooled into thinking that giving a small child a KJV and telling them that any other translation is satanic trash is wise. I think the irregular grammar is actually more of a problem for children than the vocabulary itself, and it's a lot harder to help them with.
I agree, and parhaps Mark does too, but it came out with little clarity to this point, and as I've said in the video, the KJV only guys will run with this.
@@Dwayne_Green Yeah, I'm assuming this is building off of what he wrote in Authorized, where he suggests that key texts in the KJV like Psalm 23 and the Lord's Prayer should be taught to kids at the very least. But the apparent acceptance of the premise does open the door for bad-faith interlocutors to take it out of context.
Totally agree with your point the textual basis of KJV v critical text rather than readability as someone who uses the KJV would agree it's not an easy read the textual issue is more important than readability
Dan was clearly not prepared. It was evident in introduction/opening statements
Yeah there wasn’t much of a debate going on… I’m not a KJV user however I’m sympathetic to the Majority Text position.
Hello, I would be interested to know what other single translation do you prefer?
@@murrydixon5221 I use a variety and am in the process of learning NT Greek. I use the NRSVUE and the CSB the most. If I encounter a difficult verse, I like comparing a few of them
@@anthonytylernecerato4289 When you say sympathetic to the MT position, do you mean that you understand where people are coming from that hold the position? Or do you hold the position as well? Because of course, neither of those translations are MT. I fail to see the majority text position being anything close to controversial, just simple math.
@@murrydixon5221 I’m sympathetic in the sense that I can understand why they hold it. The problem I have with it comes from the fact that it is just simple math, and generally internal evidence isn’t always considered, such as in cases of the long ending of Mark or the woman taken in adultery. However, I use the World English Bible when I want a translation based on it because there are quite a few places where the CT and MJT join together, in the so called “deleted verses”. I have studied a lot of James White’s material along with Dr. Wallace and Dr. Mark Ward.
@@anthonytylernecerato4289 The majority text is a position where we are considering the majority of extant manuscript evidence east and west Greek and Latin, right? In regards to both the King James version and the Majority Text are we not getting the best of both worlds translation and manuscript wise? In a sense, the via media? Why isn't the Minority text position or variant readings considered extreme? What is it exactly about the math that troubles you?
Im not either position but I respect what both men do. I believe any bible based of the texus receptus is good. I just dont want the missing verses. And nkjv and mev are more readable. Mark ward did better in the debate but sometimes seems to want to get rid of the kjv which is crazy.
39:06 so is it about the “plowboy” can understand or is it about learning a different/stepped up English? Because you can’t have it both ways.
Do not be conformed to this shaven faced world but be ye transformed by the growing of your beard!
🤣🤣🤣
First mentions are about establishing various typologies in the Bible. When an evangelist wants to say that Goliath’s sword is a picture of victory, he will look for the earliest mention in the Bible of the word sword. When he wants to establish that priests’ clothing is a representation of service, he will go back to where the priestly garments are first mentioned. This is done to establish all kinds of things, like Antioch, like Egypt, etc. I have heard Kenneth Copeland use the phrase “law of first mention.” I have heard Ruckman and many visiting pastors and evangelist come to my KJVO church in the 70s and 80s preach whole sermons based solely on typologies. I have heard an evangelist preach a sermon on how are victory is hiding behind our service based on the passage where David in fleeing from Saul stops to meet the priest and get Goliath’s sword. This is very common in the IFB.
I think Dr. Haifley failed because when you remove the textual criticism aspect from the KJVO debate, many KJVOist don't have a leg to stand on. Im personally on the TR/MajorityText side of that debate but my NKJV Bible suits me just fine.
Mark Ward seems to be opposed to giving a KJV to a child and then leaving the child alone on a desert island with no one to instruct him. I'll say that seems reasonable.
But calling it a sin to give a KJB to a child, period, is ludicrous.
What about giving them a Wycliffe Bible? Or the Latin Vulgate and tell them all other translations are of the devil? Would that be a sin? If so, why?
We've never talked, but I've been an admirer of your material and love your comments. I know where you stand and yet you are so fair and will defend points even when they are used on KJv or TR only. You seem to be one of the few fair minded and reasonable "experts". I appreciate that.
Dwayne is believe the “calling it a sin argument by Mark”, will cause KJVO leaders to double down unfortunately. Mark has the most intellectual understanding and research and crossed over to the belief for himself that it’s a sin but nobody is on his language level for the most part. Forming tools to help read KJV would bring more unity to the body. I’m 41 and when i’m in my 60’s i’m sure that use of KJV will be less and less and will organically dwindle from mainline use. I think Mark could slightly shift his course and reach more people but his convictions may not allow him. Mark has done a great work though overall and i appreciate his efforts a ton!
absolutely! I agree with everything you said here :)
I think Mark is more saying that it would be wrong to give someone a KJV with no help. I doubt he would have a problem with giving someone a KJV NIV parallel or something like that.
Unfortunately I’m not sure KJV use will organically dwindle without being punched down by heroes such as Mark. I’m 43 and literally only this year discovered this nonsense still exists, thru a fundie I started dating. (He doesn’t promote it. But he knows people who do…) Ie, it’s already not “mainstream”; it’s in an EXTREMELY small niche corner of the Christian world. But those poor sheep in that particular corner are fleeced by such unreasonable leaders that… I can’t see it changing. We’re already 225 years overdue for an update (this small many rather than 350 since most are actually using the 1769 while being deceived into thinking it’s 1611); what difference will 20 years make at this point?!?
Mark is saying something is a sin. If it is a sin, then he really should help someone not sin. However, if someone said the same thing to him with the same kind of logic or reasoning, he would call it bad tone or unloving or unChristian. This is how he operates. Is it a sin not believing that God did what He said He would do, not believing the historical passages that defend the doctrine of perfect preservation? Ward very often mentions how that KJV supporters won't defer in a suitable enough way to his arguments. I can say that he does exactly the same thing. Is that a sin of not removing the beam from your own eye? Do you see how calling some violation of Ward's very specific application of 1 Corinthians 14 is a sin is very much like something Peter Ruckman himself would do?
I do read the kjv as my personal Bible but preach using the NKJV . If kjv didn’t have words that were not hard to understand, then KJV onlyist DA Waite wouldn’t have put out his defined KJV Bible. That has the archaic words in italics and definition at bottom of page.
I personally don't think the KJV is unreadable. Ward's "false friends" argument is true to some degree, but also lends itself to criticism as a dramatic overstatement. I had to read Shakespeare, the KJV, and John Donne in school growing up. That being said, to read it involves a certain level of awareness as to the language structure and usage of early modern English. One can learn the language structure and it really isn't a problem. I would argue that the largest concern for any of us should be that many College Students today graduate unable to write a coherent sentence. This is concerning even for NIV users. I do think both sides of the issue tend to overstate their case though. I'd keep the beard brother!
I think would agree here. And I'm also growing back the beard!
Thank you for your interesting take on the debate between Dan Haifely and Mark Ward. I think these discussions are good as long as we remember we are all brothers and sisters in Christ. This topic can touch up deeply so I would expect strong arguments. But only Satan is helped by needless anger and division.
This topic is personal to me also. I am a good English student, and I know my Bible better than most. But to be honest, I often struggle to understand the words in the KJV. A problem I do not have in other translations.
And this is my first point. If I struggle, how much more will people who have poor English skills or only a casual understanding of the Bible?
Let me give you an illustration. I am currently studying Romans 11:1-3.
The ESV is easy for me to understand. It is written in reasonably English with only the word “foreknew” being a little difficult.
The NKJV is a little harder. A reader will need to know what is meant by “cast away”. “seed” and “foreknew” but that is not too bad.
Alas though the KJV is much harder. A reader will need to know what is meant by “hath”, “cast away”, “foreknew”, “seed”, “saith”, “Elias”, “maketh”, “intercession” and “digged down”.
An experienced KJV reader will probably understand these verses without any effort. Although I wonder how many would know what the unusual “digged down” means.
But, this is not so with me. I need to make my own translation in my head to understand what this means. And this is even before I start to work out what Paul is trying to communicate to me. This is a relatively simple section of text. There are plenty of other important passages that are far harder to read.
And this is my second point. If the only way I can understand a text is to retranslate it, then I would prefer it to be written from the start in a translation that do understand. Why should we use words and sentences that are unnecessarily difficult? Why should make barriers that obscure the message of the Bible? The Bible is challenging enough to understand without these issues.
I understand the reluctance to change from the KJV. I know that Mark Ward also has regrets in changing from the KJV. It is a wonderful version that has served us well. I do not wish to let it go. But alas I do think it is time to start moving to versions that are more understandable to more people.
Romans 11
English Standard Version
1 I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin.
2 God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel?
3 “Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.”
New King James Version
1 I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2 God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying,
3 “Lord, they have killed Your prophets and torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life”?
King James Version
1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,
3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
Well said!
I graduated from KJV only Bible College in the late 80s as a 21 year old. Since then from experience I've learnt debating KJV only people are a waste of time, it's like talking to a stubborn brick wall. I've debated many including my GK language lecturer, and Baptist Pastor's.
I'm a Baptist who always used the NASB 77 due to conviction based on evidence. I used it in Bible College, and boy was I vilified by many.
I use the magnificent NET (full notes) the excellent CSB, and the fabulous LSB daily in all my studies, teachings.
Brother Mark Ward won hands down.
The only problem with Mark's argument is that there are innumerable resources from a ton of Bible scholars over the last 400 years that make the KJV not only readable but understandable. Fact is, the KJV is intelligible, if one puts in the work. Mark specifically addresses the KJVO folks who do not necessarily utilize the original languages. The rest of us really don't have a problem with the KJV. You are right, Dan was steamrolled in this debate, and he was not prepared. Unfortunately, passion for the KJV does not equate to preparation. And Dan exposes the precise problem with KJVO's, they are not always approachable. On the same token, I would love to see Mark go up against a fellow scholar who does use the KJV (non-KJVO of course). I'll bet Mark would be woefully unprepared. Overall, nothing was ultimately established that would benefit anyone who is KJVO.
Thanks for sharing your assessment of the debate.
Im indonesian..when i dont understand bout a verse..block the verse, hold..then click translate....
I remember Denise Prager stating that "thou shalt not kill" is a mistranslation.. probably not the best example for him to use
I’m guessing his point was it should have been “thou shall not murder?”
@@kaltech04 yes
I agree. Dr. Haifley came across incredibly unprepared.
Bro, enjoyed the video. But you’re a content creator. Spend $20 a month and get UA-cam premium. Skipping ads is bush league.
I just might! I didn't realize the impact of ads on my livestreams until this video!
Never mind all this banter over the readability of the KJV: you look much better without that beard. ;) Have a blessed day!
I agree with Mark
44:26 - I would love to debate Mark Ward about this subject - and I'm neither KJV-Only, nor TR-Only, nor a Byzantine Priority advocate!
Didn't catch the whole review live, finished watching it now; nice work as always, Dwayne! I'm a byzantine priority guy, but I'm with Ward on this one although I agree it seemed like Haifley wasn't really prepared. You mentioned Adam Boyd in the video, I enjoy his "Text critical english New Testament" a lot, probably my go to english bible version since I only use it for personal reading as I don't live in an english speaking country; however I used to use the NKJV for this purpose before.
He did attempt to answer study comparative to diligent
I think that the debate from Wards perspective is completely skewed and backward. The issue is not that the KJV is in a readable up to date language but rather, its the only bible based on the right text with the greatest group of scholars in history using the best possible principles undergirding their decisions with translation. That is the issue. Only the most extreme KJV onlyist will assert that there are no words that should be changed, but where is the Lancelot Andrews who can do the work? there are none, neither are there many scholars who even understand the textual debate and what the Bible says concerning it. its an absolute mess. I am by no means against a sympathetic revision of the KJV but nothing even comes close today... there is NO standard a part from it, there is NO Bible that uses the text accepted by the People of God through history except the KJV. Yes Dwayne, I would agree that the NKJV is the best outside of the KJV but its has it has many serious issues of its own. Mark Ward has nothing except the fact that there are outdated words in the KJV but gives nothing to replace it with and therefore should in this case remove himself from the debate. Ive learnt one thing in life, do not complain about a thing unless you have a viable solution... the modern versions are not it.
You certainly look more youthful! Bless you!
ha! Thank you!
It's never about readability. It's about whether you have a Bible or not
That's the elephant in the room nobody wants to address.
Amen. Not for most today. This is Laodicea. Today's Christians are pro choice when it comes to music, Bible translations, and which church they attend. Which version does God approve of is never even discussed or considered. Man centered and selfish times. I think the Bible predicted that.
There was plenty of ad hom in the live chat though
There always is :( Doesn't matter what the debate topic is.
@@Dwayne_Green true. However some of it was done if the worst I've ever seen from processing Christians.
Most of us gain insights every time we read the Bible, does Mark Ward believe he fully understand the Bible fully after reading the niv once?
No, but his concern is that if all you read is the KJV you may read the same passage 100 times and never understand the words God inspired the authors to write because of language change. So he would encourage those who love the KJV to also read a modern English version to help see things the unfamiliar words may have obscured.
@@gen_lee_accepted5530 We use commentaries and teachers with all translations. We have the same problems with them all. It's a nugatory issue. INMOHO.
@@jamessheffield4173 without using commentaries, reading multiple translations can be a very helpful way to get a fuller understanding. Your humble opinion is valid, but you asked a question about what Mark would like, and about reading the NIV once. So the answer to your questions is that Mark would commend that no one should be a one translation onlyist but rather should feast from the multitude of good options (including the KJV)
@@gen_lee_accepted5530 I believe the OED has studies on the 16th and 17th centuries. Blessings.
James are you saying that understanding the Bible itself alone doesn’t matter since we use commentaries and teachers? So it’s ok if i take away your English and give you an Albanian Bible, you’ll just use commentaries and teachers?
No. Give me my English, and give the masses (this century’s) English too!
The textual debate is irrelevant. The NKJV exists. Thus, the debate really is about the clarity of the English.
Yes, the textual question was irrelevant for this debate, but it's not entirely irrelevant, but I'm sure that's what you meant :)
@@Dwayne_Green My point is that a debate between the TR and the CT should be a debate between, say, the NKJV and the NASB. When you don't do that, you get the disaster of a debate between James White and Thomas Ross, where one person is arguing about the readability issue while the other one's talking about supposed Waldensian translations. Nobody won that debate, least of all the audience...
@@MAMoreno right.
Weird, I grew up with a "Learning Disability" Yet, I can understand the KJV just fine!
I'm failing to understand what's so hard about it according to a few commenter's?
Like your show Dwayne, but saying "right" every 30 seconds doesn't make you more persuasive
Ha, My apolgies, one of those filler words I need to work on removing! Thanks for pointing it out.
@@Dwayne_Green I'm disappointed that your response wasn't laiden with "right" 5-6 times 🤣 that would been great.
@@4jgarner Right?!?! I'm disappointed too!
@@Dwayne_Green theeeeeeere it is. I love it! 🤣
it is never about readability. it is always about reading comprehension.
Our educational system in the USA isn’t what it used to be, so things have to be dumbed down, including bibles and piano lesson books. I’m a classically trained pianist and teacher, and can tell you there has been a dramatic shift in piano pedagogy over the years. I’m glad there are translations of the bible for everyone’s reading and comprehension level, but hate that there are those who want to disregard the KJV entirely. It’s really sad. 😢
@@ST52655 Well said
That's what they mean by readability. Not "able to pronounce the words" but "able to understand the words, sentences, and paragraphs".
@@ST52655all languages change. English came from a "corruption" of German and the multiple Romance languages came from "corruptions" of Latin.
But my recollection is Dan Haifely has always agreed the KJV can be hard to read in places, so if the debate is on ease of readability, well, not sure if Haifely is going to argue that.
I think this is why the thesis was originally "Is the KJV SUFFECIENTLY readable."
@@Dwayne_Green Well, it's more readable than books I had to read in the 8th grade to be frank about it.
I don't have nearly as much trouble with reading and understanding my King James Bible as I do with keeping up with all of the 1,000 flavors of King James Only and etc. labels. If we don't fall in line with the NA, then you get labeled as a Ruckmanite or KJVO. Then people have to fall over themselves to disassociate from Ruckman. How does one keep track of all of these?
that ain't true. The problem is precicesely in the conflation of KJV onlyists of the issue as "KJV or Nestle-ALAND/UBS"
I've been very careful in my videos to make distinctions between Ruckman/Riplingerism and other KJVo views. There are certainly a number of KJVo guys who are thoughtful and bring excellent arguments to bare (even though I disagree with their conclusions). I'm a Byzantine Prioritist, and though many understand what that means, others tend to conflate that with KJVo as well.
@@Dwayne_Green This wasn't directed at you Dwayne, just in general. I have found you to be fair and upfront. I appreciate you being willing to hear and engage both sides of the matter. It has been my experience at Ward's channel: that if you speak up at all in defense of the King James in anything other than a dulcet or effeminate tone you get immediately labeled as either a Ruckmanite, Riplingerite, IFBer or an extremist. Then you have to deny that profusely. Then you are a King James Only level and so on down to whatever passes for normal. I don't know enough about either Ruckman or Riplinger or their works to deny them. I know they support the King James and that is good enough for me.
I don't believe there are only two types KJV or NA, I am sure there are many more types. You mentioned four types of people in your video. I know I could benefit (perhaps others??) from a 2024 or 2025 breakdown video of what all the types are. KJV only, KJV only extreme, KJV demure, sympathetic and so on.
I want to start by saying I like the KJV, go to a KJV church. The KJV is still a top 10 best seller so there is a demand for it. Is it readable? Yes, for us who grew up on it. It is sufficient for people who use it on a regular basis no matter the age. Our church, our church school and our small college all use the KJV. However, if a person did not grow up on the KJV , who has a limited education or English as a second language or a child or new convert. It is probably not sufficiently readable. Saying it is sinful to give a child a KJV is absurd. I will end by saying that the newer translations such as the NKJV, NLT, NASB, CSB or the WEB are far more readable and understandable than the KJV. Its absurd to say they are not no matter your manuscript or translation preference.
I'm still waiting for a KJV onlyist to tell me what non-English speakers are to do.
Personal anecdote: I know someone who was complete confused by the title of the hymn "How Great Thou Art".
Block the verse..hold..then click translate..im indonesian
I'm kjv only. There is one perfect word of God in one language. If someone wants the perfect word of God, they will learn that language. NOTE: I didn't say English. A non kjv onlyist would say one has to learn Greek to have the perfect word of God. I would say they have to learn English. What's the difference? How is the other viewpoint better? English is the universal language of the world. Greek and Hebrew are spoken by less than 1 % of the world.
@@BrianBeam1611Your view is the type people have zero respect for because it implies there was no perfect Bible before 1611.
Also there is no reason to say the KJV is infallible, whereas there is reason to say the originals are. The reason why KJVO is so bad is that it undermines the basis for sola scriptura, that no one other than the writers of scripture, who had the original apostolic authority, could be infallible.
@@maxxiong what does that have to do with your question and the answer I gave?
Revelation 1:6
Did you get that one right?
Big difference in bibles.
Readability is not the problem.
How can readability to be a reason when the modern versions are watered//dumbed down for the masses who are less literate than society used to be?
I disagree with the premise, not all modern translations are 'watered down'.
It was a huge win for those who see this for what it truly is...rock vs. the Rock in Deut. 32. True vine vs. the wild sour grapes of error. Mark Ward is a false teacher who attempts to deceive as he is deceived. You can be as passionate as you want about ERROR yet its still ERROR! 😢
Mark's false friends are not all false friends. There are some words that are no longer popular, however, with a little research you can figure it out.
Most modern versions have Jesus lying to his brothers in John 7:8-10. This makes them unreliable. I would rather have reliable than readable.
But that’s Mark’s whole point. A person may not know they have a wrong definition and therefore would not research it. That’s why they are false “friends”.
@@jonathanchaney5896 except he is wrong on several of them. He picks one definition, when there are other definitions in the OED that match what the word means today.
For instance when you look up the word "halt" it not only meant limp it also meant stop as early as the 13th century.
Ultimately imo it's about preservation and authority.
I watched the debate, yes Mark won like a terminator cause Dan w asn't ready, but Dan was gonna lose in the end anyway, but he should have atleast touched on why we are TR only
I feel like Mark Ward has an agenda. The KJV has been around for centuries. It does require extra effort to understand, but at the same time it improves one’s vocabulary. I grew up with it and will continue to use it, though I do own a few other translations.
I've noticed that too. I've had some personal interaction with Mark over email. He tries to come off as just helping modern people understand the Bible better, but I've seen at least one other video he has done where he snidely attacks another man who holds to a KJV position, and who Mark admitted treated him with charity. Mark came across as slimy and somewhat of a little "punk" in that video, and I've never cared for him since.
The problem I see is that opponents of the KJV overstate the difficulty sometimes: It’s not Shakespeare AND it certainly isn’t Chaucer’s Middle English…I’ve heard some opponents even rate the NKJV as too difficult!
@ST52655 then you are on Mark's team. Mark's plea is that churches and institutions cease to mandate the exclusive use of the KJV. That's his agenda.
I would love to hear this sort of debate with how Bibliology influences the position… you can’t argue with God.
I don’t find his agenda to be sinister. What is sinister is how much Satan loves to see this civil war.
GOD seemed to put HIS Stamp of Approval on KJV as teen in mid 70s. Read from NIV in college days early 80s, and didn't like the omissions. Never had problem with understanding KJV text, and I had very poor grammar skills growing up.
I don't think this was a fair debate. They should have paired those of a similar generation.
When I decided that my 8 year old needed to read the Bible, I examined the RSV, King James, and every other version we had in the house. I was surprised to find that the King James Bible was the easiest for a child. When it was first published, many argued it was to simple for a Bible. My how things have changed. One needs a good dictionary. I believe a hundred years ago, high school students would have good enough English to understand at least 99 percent of it. It still does not take that much to read it. The biggest problem is finding a good English teacher. I teach mathematics, but English teachers I have questioned seem to have a very limited knowledge of the English language. There are some good English teachers, but they seem to be in the minority.
my seven year olds are reading the KJV to me today..... it is not more harder than any other book.
@@casey1167 It forces us to study English. I once read:
Psalm 119:148 Mine eyes prevent the night watches, that I might meditate in thy word.
I said to myself, I thought I knew what prevent means. It comes from the French.word preventar, to come before. I found that in a decent dictionary of 55,000 words. Now, I an O.E.D. which can help.with almost any archaic word.
It's funny how the loudest voices on this issue are the scholars. I heard Maurice Robinson, whom I love as a byz defender, say in an interview with Mark Ward that the KJV ia too hard to understand. Then i heard him say, when asked by brother Hackett, which Bible he recommended, that all Christians ahould learn Koine Greek and read it in the originals. Those were his exact words.
Learn a whole new language that takes years to master....no problem. Read a KJV...bad. we all have phones, even if you don't have a dictionary. Anyone can look up any words in 5 seconds and find out the meaning.
I agree that is a funny answer. Not all Christians will learn koine, and that's fine. Would I want all Christians to learn koine? Absolutely, but it's not about my wants and desires, lol.That's part of the reason why God provides teachers in the Church who are gifted in some way.
Ok whether or not we agree on KJVO or not, you lost me when you start saying insane stuff like it’s sinful to give a child a KJV. Imagine if Brother Dan said ESVs did that the chat would be roasting him like Alex Jones. I am 100% a King James man no apologies but I appreciate these debates cept Wade is not interested in spreading the word of God. That man legit believes without him ppl won’t be able to read the Bible at all, the arrogance even IF he could make a persuasive argument the amount of flesh behind it kills any power to it ya feel me?
Taylor DeSoto already destroyed Mark Ward's arguments years ago, and it's really one single argument Ward has in his arsenal: that the KJV can't be understood.
But as Taylor rightly pointed out, Mark usually contradicts the very thing he claims if you read long enough.
From an article review of Mark Ward's book 'Unauthorized' DeSoto writes...
"Ward says that the KJV is intelligible, but not actually. He says that he loves the KJV, but those that use it are sinning by doing so. He says that all he wants is an updated KJV, but also that that has already been done. He establishes his primary argument, that people don’t actually know how to read the KJV, based on his own personal difficulty reading it and other anecdotes. He tells his reader that if they do not know Greek, they should “humbly acknowledge that their opinions about textual criticism” essentially do not matter."
Taylor continues...
"Ward does in this chapter what many Christians are growing weary of - speaking down from the scholarly high tower. He is the expert, not you. If you disagree with Ward, then you are literally sinning. If you, a “non-specialist,” have an opinion on textual criticism that goes against the academic meta, it isn’t wise to comment in the discussion. He then advises those of his readers to subvert the authority of their KJV reading pastors by instructing them to ask their pastor to recommend a Bible “In their own language.” Not only is this divisive, it is misinformed, and offensive, especially to myself, who recognizes the KJV as a beautiful articulation of the English language. This chapter solidifies my thought that Ward’s problem is one only a scholar could have."
Ward has been writing these things for years, claiming that it's basically sinful to read the KJV and want others to read the KJV as well.
From; "3 Ways to Graciously Engage KJV-Only Believers" by Mark Ward
Ward writes...
"KJV-onlyism is not a Christian liberty issue, like eating meat offered to idols. It makes void the Word of God by human tradition-one archaizing lexeme at a time (Mark 7:13). I pray that my brethren’s consciences will one day be liberated to read more than just the KJV."
This is Mark Ward's schtick and people are seemingly fine with it.
~God bless you
By brother Ward's logic (using the term loosely) Bible-distribution in 1800 to educated English-readers was fine but the same act in 2024 to dumb Americans is sinful -- but the real fulcrum is not the KJV; it's intelligibility; how well the text is understood. And that is a quantity that is constantly in flux because readers are perpetually learning and gaining new insights. The KJV's archaisms are real, and can be improved, but they are not the problem nearly as much as the problem is modern Bible-readers desiring to understand the Bible on their own without instruction from the church - a goal for which the books of the New Testament were never intended as their primary purpose.
Just you saying the KJV can be “improved” is enough for many KJV onlyists to call you a heretic. And don’t lump all those who use the modern translations as people who want to leant independent of the church. You’re painting with some VERY broad strokes there.
@@jonathanchaney5896 ,
I don't much care what schismatics think of me. And I make a clear distinction between "dogmatic KJBO" and other bands of the spectrum.
@@JamesSnappJr right but I know plenty of people who support the CT/modern translations who are very much not independent of the church. Plus, let’s be honest. I know plenty of KJBO folks who split over something and go start a new church, over and over again. That is what I saw growing up in the south all the time. So i don’t think you can say the KJVO never has any ecclesiological concerns. That is what I’m pushing back in your comment.
Mark only accepts debates with opponents he thinks are weak so he's sure he can win. It's too bad the kjv was left undefended.
Beard is better.
Dan was steamrolled, but not because he was that wrong.
Shaved, you look like the Greek god Apollo (or, at least, more than I do!) :)
lol....
Setting aside Dan's mediocre debate performance - Learning archaic words is part of the fun of using the KJV.
I mean, come on, there are people who make Klingon versions of the New Testament. I don't think Mark's "False Friends" are going to slow anyone down.
Not even gonna to watch your video because Mark Ward. All I'm saying about him is satan is trying to get rid of the one true Bible.
Cult member
That's too bad that you won't watch, I tried to be fair in my analysis of the debate, and I actually don't agree entirely with Mark on this one.
He was chosen to debate Ward in order to elevate Wards opinion. This was a shine job for the wrong side.
That’s unfair slander. You can’t know that!
And apparently it’s a KJO church!? They obviously wouldn’t have hosted it if you were right…
Two problems with this: 1) if Dr. Haifley knew that he couldn't do the debate justice, he could have said no. I doubt he was forced into it. 2) It's not likely that Dr. Haifley would desire to show mark as superior in the debate, this conspiratorial thinking just doesn't work here.
@@debras3806 Bryan Denlinger would have been a better match. How about Robert Breaker. Or even Brother Sam, who has been at the helm for decades.
Wards slander of Brandon Peterson was unfair. Yet Ward and wildsmith had no problem mocking Peterson. wildsmith & Ward have replaced Westcott & Hort in spewing apostate manure.
@@JosephAquino1430 At what minute mark do you consider Ward to have slandered? Is it more or less severe than your slander of Mark above?
Also who is Wildshit-is that a real person or are you mocking someone?
@@debras3806 my apologizes, typo, which I’ve corrected. Ward tries to bully us into taking his outlook. Convince people of his opinions from every possible angle. For me, I haven’t the ability to agree with his argument. But who am I?
🙏Col. 3:17🙏
32:00 - Mark Ward wrecks here.
Mr. Snapp, what percentage is considered to make it sufficiently unreadable? 0.3%? 1%?? 5%?
@@murrydixon5221 , You're asking the wrong question. I would argue that given sufficiently competent instruction, and a sufficiently teachable student, anything can be sufficiently readable.
@@JamesSnappJr Fair enough, and we would be in complete agreement. I simply don't understand how Mark can be given the W when he left the topic as subjective as he found it. How about a draw?
I can see why Ward hand-picked Dan Haifley. He had a lot of notes up there and it seemed, ideas in his head, but he couldn't put them together in a cohesive, cogent fashion. Ward "won," but not really, because he chose solely on someone who was agreeable with him.
Ward tries to shame those who won't approach him in an agreeable way, even when he is wrong, using poor tone or style himself, or even dishonest. Essentially, he won't allow you to comment on his youtube page if you disagree with him. Your comments will not show up there and without explanation.
Mark Ward will say that the NKJV is the same underlying text in the NT and this is demonstrably false. Ward's standard of "the same" means "close to the same," which is similar to his position on preservation. You don't need certainty, just confidence, something like we would have when we read Homer's Iliad and Odyssey or any other ancient secular book. The NKJV is what it is, but it isn't from the same underlying text as seen in dozens of examples.
The NKJV absolutely is the same underlying Greek in the NT. If you disagree with their translation, that’s one thing. But it is directly from the TR.
@@jonathanchaney5896 Jonathan, do you think that you are open minded? If you see the truth, will you accept it? If not, then we would not have grounds for discussing almost anything. I took the same position as you, trusting the NKJV translators, knowing they were scholars, that they translated from the same underlying text as the KJV, because they said so. However, I have personally examined it. I was a biblical language major in college, started taking Greek in high school and kept taking it all the way through two grad degrees. I preached through every verse of the NT, using the Greek. It is not the same underlying text. After a cursory look and finding a dozen or more examples, I went more systematically through Matthew and Mark and found twenty more. If I took that ratio and applied it to the whole NT, it would be over 100. Maybe that just doesn't matter to you. "The same" means "sort of close to the same," but it is not the identical.
@@betbapt I would love some examples to research myself. I certainly do not want to spread false information. So please do share where the underlying Greek (not English translation) differs from the TR. And not an example like 1 Cor. 1:18 where the KJV translated a participle (it can be argued) incorrectly. Because that Greek is identical, the KJV and NKJV just translated differently. NKJV got it more right IMO. I’m willing to investigate.
@@jonathanchaney5896 The one difficulty of making the comparison is that there is no NKJV Greek text. The investigation must come by looking at the TR/MT/CT/NKJV/KJV -- all of them. Who wants to do that? I didn't and don't, but after finding they were not the same, I looked. Just like you mention 1 Cor 1:18, there are places that people will then say, "Sure, they are not the same, and that's a clear example, but it doesn't change the meaning of the text." If that's not going to be you, still doubling down because something more than the truth is at stake, then I don't mind going further on this.
@@betbapt so you have approx. 100 but you can’t give me some? Sorry I’m not going to believe without doing my own investigation. And the issue with 1 Cor. 1:18 is that the KJV translators muffed on that one. So KJV onlyists will say the modern translations (including NKJV) changed it when they are actually correcting it to the Greek parallelism clearly in the verse. Perishing/being saved.