Excellent interview! My story is the same as Brent's in that I taught Greek at a KJVO institution, but ultimately "saw the light." I appreciate the gracious spirit in addressing this issue.
Great interview! I have been studying for quite a while and often check the UA-cam landscape to hear arguments for and against various topics (Calvinism, KJV-onlyism, etc) and this was a great introduction - God bless you both, and I'll be picking up Authorized to read. It's really awesome Brent had what I would call a 'gentle' crowd of godly KJV believers (I'll chalk it up to Canadians being nicer in general) -- in my Southern upbringing, KJV-onlyism could be taught with force and it can cause great division. 1 Cor 13 should be required reading before any debate or discussion on Bible translations :)
Romans 14 should be taught as well. No line of scripture affirms KJV, so even if it was the "inspired english translation," I would be in error to state that such a claim is supported explicitly by scripture. Romans 14 gives freedom to ALL of us to read the translation our conscience allows...and to restrain ourselves from forcing others to read a translation their conscience does NOT allow. We need to teach unity and freedom.
Mark just wanted to stop by again and say your book Authorized was outstanding (devoured it until 12:30 am --a work night no less-- completing it today after work) I didn't expect to enjoy it as much as I did -- it approaches the level of engagement as Gladwell's "Outliers", which is high praise indeed, and the graceful but firm and clear argument style Lewis uses in Mere Christianity. Well-done indeed, and I'll be suggesting it to others. Thanks and God bless!
Wow great interview of a Greek teacher from the KJVonly group and open to using modern versions in his study and preaching.I am reminded to visit the KJV Parallel Bible site.This video has been helpful to one plowboy again.
I'm from Jamaica and in my country we new nothing of the KJV only vs Modern Translation debate until wide scale availability of the internet (one of the ills of the internet I guess). I just saw a Bible and read it. As far as most of us are and were concerned was that the Bible, whichever one, was the word of God and if we read it and obeyed it we'd be alright. Then came UA-cam and the internet and this debate and still, as far as I can tell, we just read the Bible. Many of us have been exposed to other translations because of Bible apps like Youversion, and most people read their bibles. Because of the Gideons, the NKJV was the most read Bible translation in Jamaica from the 80s onwords because they went into the schools and gave everyone their little New Testament Bible, my first Bible and we read that and found God and faith. As technology has advanced, many people are reading the other translations on their phones or tablets. The other very popular translation is the NIV. It is alluded to or used more often than any other in churches here. Even preachers who used the KJV, always say, it says this in the NIV for clarity. So my question was why don't just read the NIV then. These are the three major translations sold on the island, I've searched but haven't been able to find any of the others. The one question I'd love to ask is "if persons read anything but the KJV are they saved?" If the answer is yes, then this debate is pointless. If no then all the apostles and saints before 1611 are also lost because they didn't read the KJV Bible. I find this debate to be ridiculous and of no value to the body of Christ. Whatever translation you feel comfortable with, that brings the knowledge of Christ to you and points you to him, read that. Everyone will have their preferred translations, but that don't mean the other ls are no good. I've been reading the NKJV for years for the reason I gave above and have loved it. I started to read the ESV and I love it and want to add it as a second translation which could eventually become my main translation. But it doesn't mean I won't ever the NKJV again. I also understand that there are difference in manuscripts for these but I can't see from what I've read so far any glaring contradictions, in fact, they seem to complement each other. Thank you Mark for highlighting these things.
@@markwardonwords There is saying we have here in our local dialect which goes "every ting easy man, no worry yuh self, every ting juss cool, juss work wid it, God wi tek care a di ress." This translates to... "Everything's allright, no need to worry, it's all good, let's do what we can and God will take care of everything else." We apply this to much of our lives including our faith walk with God and our approach to Scripture. There aren't many scholars here that I can readily speak of but we love the Lord. As far as I know there's only one seminary in country and not much people attend it. We have this feeling that the Holy Spirit is the best teacher there is. Many people frown upon the seminary preacher, saying they have head knowledge but not much of the Holy Spirit. That attitude however has changed and more and more people are studying to show themselves approved and this has opened up new opportunities for many of our pastors and preachers and has transformed much of our churches and have lead many to reading the other translations of the Bible. UA-cam and channels like yours have fed us with knowledge we otherwise didn't have.
@@edwardgraham9443 THANK YOU SIR FOR YOUR STATEMETS I 100,000% AGREE AND I WOULD SUGGEST FOR ALL THOSE THAT READ THIS COMMENT IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR IMO THE BEST BIBLES FOR DEEP STUDY--THEY WOULD BE THESE: 1. THE DAKE KJV STUDY BIBLE, 2. THE 2020 NASV HEBREW GREEK KEY WORD STUDY BIBLE--BEST FOR DEEP WORD STUDY---AND 3. THE NET BIBLE.
@@Jitta9 Thank you. While watching UA-cam I heard of the 2020 NASB update. I found it on the Youversion Bible app and started to read it. I had just read the CSB in 90 days and wanted to see what the NASB 2020 was like. I had read the 1995 NASB before. Like I said, we don't have access to many of the Bible translations and you wouldn't be able to get an NASB here whether the 1995 or the 2020. From what I have read of the 2020 do far, I like it. I prefer it to the CSB, but since I've not read it all I'll see if that remains the same at the end. The ESV is the one is use the most. I've read through it more than once and I really enjoy translation. I was fortunate enough to have gotten a physical copy of the ESV and now I'd like to have a copy of the NASB 2020 Wide Margin Reference Bible, but I do not know how I would get that. The Bible is very important to me and reading it is my life. I have no time to worry about translations, I just want the word of God to read and understand so that I can live it.
@@edwardgraham9443 I WANT TO SHARE 1 MORE THING BROTHER. I KNOW YOU SAID YOU LIKE THE NKJV AND SO DO CHECK OUT THE NKJV WORD OF PROMISE AUDIO BIBLE ONLINE--IT IS CERTAINLY THE MOST PROFESSIONALLY DONE PRISTINE AUDIO BIBLE I'VE EVER HEARD WITHOUT A DOUBT AND THE PSALMS OF DAVID ARE AWESOME TO HEAR.
I use so many translations that this would be at first meaningless. But I understand that it is greatly meaning to some. The King James Only people. I still do not know how to school you on the lack of knowledge that you have. And in fact that some reject! I simply cannot help that.
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. 1John 2:19
@@markwardonwords Why would you assume that? i know no one's heart nor were any any names mentioned. The only concrete example that can be given is Bart Ehrman. Began as an evangelical believing in the verbal, plenary inerrant inspiration of the scriptures. Studied the critical text under unregenerate Bruce Metzger. Lost his faith and now is an agnostic. Those who study versions derived from the critical text, and many don't study, are lead only to doubt (or Catholicism since it is primarily the codex Vaticanus), due in large part to the faith destroying notes. And doubt held long enough leads inevitably to a loss of faith. Was Bart ever a believer? If so he is he will return. It is thought that Greek Scholar Philip Schaff had a conversion before his death. Prior to that he was not a believer, just an ecumenical theologian. One of the founders of the New Age Movement and the World's Parliament of Religions. But before his death he destroyed the faith of many Christians with his American Standard Version the critical text of 1901.
KJV onlyest have been the number one most aggressive people I've ran into on my channel. Doing bible reviews brings in all believers and even religions that I completely disagree with . Yet I've only been attacked and out right harassed by KJV onlyest . Being an ex kjv only guy I know their passion but that belief system has a problem within their fellowship. I do not see love of others because they do not see you as a fellow Christian. I have no problem with someone who believes it's the best translation or that they prefer the TR. It's that there are many who judge your spiritual understanding and salvation ...I see that level as cultish. I don't play around with it anymore. I know a couple KJV onlyest and one is not that way, he is a very awesome brother and fellow reviewer who sees me as a brother in Christ. The other brother says that he sees me as a fellow Christian but "I'm deceived and not hearing the Holy Spirits voice" ... These beliefs cause a break in fellowship which is contrary to scripture and contradicts us being related.
Mark, you stated that you get some royalty income that flows to you from your book. Some might have a problem with that so I would like to comment and say that it is a comfort to me to know that some of the money that I spend on this book will go to you. You put in the "blood, sweat, and tears" and you should receive some compensation for that. You are a Godly man doing the Lord's work. You are not living a life of excess.
I think it also actually shows that he *isn't* in it for the money. That may seem counterintuitive but if he was he wouldn't have gone through the book on UA-cam in free videos. He would make people who want the information pay for it.
As an MK, I have observed that Ruckmanite missionaries have done a great disservice to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ in southeast Asia and the Pacific rim. They have sown seeds of division amongst the Bride of Christ and taught preference over doctrinal Truth. God's Word is being translated into every tongue from the original languages. The KJV is pretty good, however it is not the most accurate translation into English.
I know Mark hates textual criticism, but no one has ever explained to me how it is that Jesus lies to his brothers in the bibles that are based on the critical text. Even in Mark's parallel project, John 7:8-10 in modern English it is clearly stated that Jesus lied. If you believe the modern versions are you just pucking and choosing which verses you are going to believe?
I don't hate textual criticism, my friend. I just don't think it's necessary to talk about it here. If you prefer the TR, I can see good reasons for doing so. More power to you. Just make or use a translation of the TR into fully intelligible contemporary English as 1 Cor 14 suggests you should do.
@@markwardonwords I would love to, but I cannot find one that has not been influenced by the CT or modern versions. The NKJV did not use just the TR, otherwise it would not have so many footnotes from the CT. The MEV takes verses like Philippians 2:8 from modern versions, not from the TR or from the CT as your work on the KJV parallel shows.
@@timlemmon2332 Tim, have you watched my recent videos defending the NKJV? The NKJV's footnotes do NOT indicate that it used the CT. And I don't know what you're referring to with regard to Phil 2:8. The TR phrase at the beginning, the one that's not in the CT, is right there in the MEV. What am I missing, brother?
@@markwardonwords the NU references are critical text notes. My apologies for hitting the wrong verse number in Philippians. I was referring to 2:6 not 2:8.
@@timlemmon2332 According to Arthur Farstad, the editor the New King James version (NKJV), the critical text is on every page. “On every page of the NKJV New Testament the studious reader will find three different textual views represented…2 “NU” in the NKJV notes, stands for the critical text, based on Westcott and Hort,…” “The New King James Version in the Great Tradition” - Arthur L. Farstad (executive editor of the NKJV) page 111
Hi. So I would like to know why translation scholars of the Greek language for biblical studies are not translating the Greek properly into English. An example is Mathew 28:1 every English translation I’ve looked into does not translate it properly. Why?
@@markwardonwords Well first of all it’s talking about sabbath’s in the plural. One being the Passover and second one being the Saturday Shabbat. It never mentions a Sunday referring to the first day of the week. It’s amazing to me. And that’s only one example!
they aren't really translating from Greek. They are copying and pasting from prior versions and making some changes in order to obtain a derivative copyright, which requires them to be 25% different from the "exemplar". Example: The National Council of Churches owns the copyright to the NRSV and by proxy the ESV. Crossway Publications through an agreement with NCC may use the NRSV as the basis for the ESV. The ESV is nothing more than a resurrected RV(1881),ASV(1901),RSV(1952),NRSV(1989), contrary to the preface to the ESV.
I don’t think most of KJV-Onlyism is cultish. I think Ruckmanism is a cult. It is an extreme form of the doctrine. And to answer your question, a cult is an extreme, heterodox group whose doctrines inspire radical adherence. That is, no quarter, not even graciousness, can be shown to the perfidious enemies on the outside. This is the way Rickman led his acolytes to be.
@@christopheryetzer, I don't make the claim-except regarding a few extremists. Here's NOAD on "cult": "A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister." I believe Ruckman's views are both strange and sinister. He taught that the KJV is advanced revelation beyond the Hebrew and Greek. He constantly demonstrated that he viewed Christian people who disagreed with him as dupes or devils. He openly believed in aliens with ray guns. He described their skin color. He promoted other conspiracy theories. And his views are absolutely still influential among extremist versions of KJV-Onlyism. That part of KJV-Onlyism is cultic, because it is strange and sinister. The vast majority of KJV-Only brothers that I have known are not cultish. They are Christians whom I love and respect who are wrong about certain biblical teachings and matters of history.
The Bible is the Bible and after using so many translations over the years, I personally have settled back into the "TR ONLY" belief . If the TR is telling the truth of doctrine, to me it is the Word of God since this nation was developed on it's hinges long before the other manuscripts/texts were ever introduced
My friend, the New King James Version and the Modern English Version both use the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts as the King James. And they translate those texts into fully intelligible contemporary English, which means they meet the principle of 1 Corinthians 14, edification requires intelligibility. I recommend the NKJV and MEV to you.
You should not violate your conscience, but you should be willing to educate your conscience by the Bible. And the Bible teaches that edification requires intelligibility. It also does NOT teach that there will be one reliable Bible translation and no others in any given language. Christ has set us free from what the KJV translators call "moldy traditions."
I wouldn't view guilt as a bad thing. Read the beginning of John 8:1-12 then John 16:7-11. Don't but into these sissy teachings that reading the bible should make you feel good about yourself. It's to make people holy.
I've read many evangelical English (and Spanish) translations. None of them caters to human nature, my friend. They all tell me not to lust, not to be proud, to love God and neighbor in ways that my flesh is not inclined to do.
I have had the exact opposite thing happen in my life. Where i was given an F on a seminary paper for simply citing the NKJV. And was later told by my professor that you cannot use the KJV, NKJV or any version of the King James for serious scholarly work. That was so divisive that I left that place not long after that for another issue coupled with this one and it is what led me to be predominately King James.
The KJV is an excellent translation-but if you're going to read it exclusively, you need to understand that it was translated into a form of English no one quite speaks or writes anymore. So there are going to be some places where you think you understand but, because of language change, you're going to miss the intent of the KJV translators. For help discerning when this is the case, I encourage you to check out my "Fifty False Friends in the KJV" series on UA-cam for help reading the KJV! ua-cam.com/play/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc.html
@@markwardonwords I get what you’re saying for instance “quit you like men” is no longer the way we speak, but that wasn’t my point. I don’t disagree there are some places it could be hard to understand. I’m not disputing that. My point was I have found in my own life that those Christians who have been the most divisive with me over the King James have been rabid anti KJV crowd rather than the meme tier IFBers who make the rounds on the internet saying you can correct the Greek by the King James - which is clearly a joke of a statement. Yet those people like my seminary professor are never rebuked the way the KJV onlyists are rebuked. Again this individual I mentioned was so anti King James he even hated the NKJV from which I was citing. I literally failed a paper only because I cited the New King James Version - a translation in which a member of the faculty itself was on the translation committee for by the way.
@@markwardonwords The executive editor of the ESV is on record as saying that when he came to America from Norway as a 10 year old boy, he immediately began having daily devotions in the King James Bible and that he never had any trouble understanding it. He doesn't agree that the TR is a better text but neither does he agree that the KJV is heard to understand. Are there things that are hard to be understood? 2 Peter 3:16 "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."
The wisdom of man is foolishness to God. Rejecting the KJV with its historical successes, and the best candidate for God's perfect Word (which He promised) is the height of folly.
He did not promise a perfect translation, my friend. And the KJV translators explicitly denied that their work was perfect. See their brilliant preface. The KJV translators were not KJV-Only.
@@markwardonwords Those are not actual arguments. The translators' opinion of their own work was humble. That is how it is supposed to be. If the Words of God are not perfect, that violates Prov. 30:5-6. So which is it? "Perfect only in the originals"? That is an argument devoid of belief in the verse I just gave you. Nice try.
And yet the vast majority of people who believe the gospel and the inerrancy of Scripture hold my view-and that of the KJV translators. Perhaps more humility is called for on your part, my friend.
@@markwardonwords so I’m arrogant now for believing that God did what He promised in His Word? Maybe just maybe the “vast majority” are mistaken? It happens all the time. The vast majority of the world are unsaved and incorrect. The tyranny of the majority is no argument. Perhaps it is you who should revisit attacking the KJV. After all what harm has it done you or anyone ? None
@@OpenTheirEyes My friend, a couple things. Causing divisions over bible translations is a work of the flesh and grieves Christ's desire, prayer and command for unity in his body. Concerning proverbs 30: Technically the KJV translaters did add words albeit in italics. To me this passage seems to be dealing with prophecy to not add your own words to it - just my opinion. Calling the bible "the word of God" is incorrect. Jesus Christ is the word of God, he himself is the double edged sword as your bible teaches. (Rev 19:11-13, Hebrews 4:12,13). A lot of Christians know this and still refer to the bible as 'word of God' for fear of repercussions. We are not to be transformed into the image of our peers but into the image of Christ. Better to use the term "the scriptures" as Jesus Christ himself did. A collection of 'a canon' is a clever deception of satan - you cannot prove to me that the books of Esther or Jude are inspired for example. Furthermore some people are foolish enough to believe that every wording and word in the bible is from God. 'The bible' was neither written by God's finger, angels nor were the man of God typewriting holy spirit slaves. The bible clearly indicates when God is cited or Jesus is delivering God's words. That being said: I am german and recently got myself a decent Cambridge KJV. I find myself reading it more and more, it is relatively beautifully written. Highly recommend getting a Cambridge Concord! -- More importantly: Are you led by the Holy Spirit, do you hear from God yourself? (Rom 8:14, John 10:27) It is not possible to follow Jesus without it or to please God by chosing how to serve him with your own mind. That's what LORD means! Hopefully you don't feel attacked. God bless you
I am not attempting to be critical or rude, but I must ask why it is that every single younger preacher that go’s down this road inevitably ends up becoming a Calvinist. It seems to be trendiest thing to do now days . But, go back 25 years and you were hard pressed to find a reformed guy walking around. Now if u want to be somebody it’s as if u must believe that God has chosen to send people arbitrarily to hell. Very sad. If that is where following after modern versions and big well known pastors is going to take me, then I want nothing to do with it. I believe that the missions taught in the Bible is one that includes the entire world with all having an equal opportunity to come to Christ.
I know many Calvinists who believe exactly what IFB folks believe about the KJV. They promote only the KJV and discredit all modern versions. I know many non-Calvinists who use all kinds of modern versions. There is no necessary connection between Calvinism and the KJV issue, either way.
I do have to thank you both for this video and I want to let you know that after listening to you both that I have to concluded that the KJV translators got their translation into English, with what they had, done right. Thank you for showing just how good God is when during a past time of troubles that God keeps his promises to make sure that his words can be known in the language of the people that needed it. Your work in assessing your own position when it comes to translation may line up with mine in that translation is necessary into other languages to show that we truly love our neighbors. I do want to thank both of you for re-affirming my belief that the KJV is the inerrant and infallible word of God in the English language to date. One thing I do know is true that the first person one lies to is self.
My friend, please interact with the arguments we made in the video. We didn't say the KJV translators did poor work! We think they did excellent work! They just translated into an English no one alive speaks or writes natively.
@@markwardonwords Sorry, I did mean to make an argument I was making a personal claim that I found benefit in your video presentation. If you re-read my initial text I thanked God which is me giving glory to God and not man. From an atheist point of view would be a God of the gaps fallacy but as Christians we should not have any problem giving glory to God. I do want to apologize for any potential presentation of insensitivity, I the soul do forget to check my flesh when I type.
King James Bible only necessarily is an English primacy view (that is, that there is no longer a need for Greek). It is Textus Receptus onlyism rather that would be teaching Greek while primarily using a King James Bible. Since the field of "Greek" is today dominated by non-KJB and anti-KJB sentiments, it therefore is a slippery slope to be a Hellenophile. So then, it is not surprising at all that a "King James Bible user who promoted Greek is not in KJBOism". Obviously we also differ entirely on which direction the Lord leads.
The leaders of the predominant form of KJV-Onlyism in the US, as best I can tell, insist that they are TR-Only, not KJV-Only. At the popular level, that distinction tends to get lost. And there are those who take your view, too.
The problem I have seen from people that piously tell me they are not KJV-Only but TR Only, so I ask them what version other than the KJV that uses the TR do you recommend (Like the MEV)...... usually they only recommend one version.... the KJV..... and denigrate all the other versions that are based on the TR as they find "some" problem with them.
@@markwardonwordsof course he won’t do it. In Spanish we have this saying, “me tapó un ojo me tapo el otro y nada que ver” It means I cover my eye, I cover my other eye, nothing to see here. KJVO does nonsense but with their ears. They don’t truly wrestle with the arguments.
How are modern translations erroneous? No doctrine is changed. The deity of Christ is very very clear. That salvation is found in no one else but the Lord Jesus Christ. Very very clear that the name of Jesus is the name above all names. The deity of the Holy Spirit is very clear. That all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Same as taught in the KJV Are these doctrines erroneous? If so the KJV is erroneous as well. Personally I prefer a modern translation in English I can understand. Rather than one in archaic English where so many words have changed meaning like the KJV. That is why God has blessed us with more accurate modern translations.
@@henrylaurel1188 Modern translations come from the erroneous Alexandrian of Egypt manuscripts. The Alexandrians were anti-Christians. They leave 6000 words out and the have over 15000 differences to the True Greek Manuscripts. If you use a modern translation, you would know how erroneous they are.
Gee, how many here know James Strong worked with Westcott and Hort's revision committee and helped write the American Standard bible? Strong took his corrupted definitions from the revision committee and the revised version of the bible.
Not only did Strong take his definitions from the RV, he also included classical Greek words in his concordance ( which we all agree God never intended since the NT was written common (koine`) Greek). A neophyte with no knowledge of Greek is unknowingly influenced by Greek philosophy via the classical Greek words. Strong and Vines and others are hazardous materials in my opinion.
Excellent interview! My story is the same as Brent's in that I taught Greek at a KJVO institution, but ultimately "saw the light." I appreciate the gracious spirit in addressing this issue.
Same can be said of you, Michael. I appreciate your gracious spirit.
Can't say enough good things about Mark and his channel. Excellent interview, would like to hear more down the road.
Thank you, sir!
Great interview! I have been studying for quite a while and often check the UA-cam landscape to hear arguments for and against various topics (Calvinism, KJV-onlyism, etc) and this was a great introduction - God bless you both, and I'll be picking up Authorized to read.
It's really awesome Brent had what I would call a 'gentle' crowd of godly KJV believers (I'll chalk it up to Canadians being nicer in general) -- in my Southern upbringing, KJV-onlyism could be taught with force and it can cause great division.
1 Cor 13 should be required reading before any debate or discussion on Bible translations :)
Amen to 1 Cor 13!
Romans 14 should be taught as well. No line of scripture affirms KJV, so even if it was the "inspired english translation," I would be in error to state that such a claim is supported explicitly by scripture.
Romans 14 gives freedom to ALL of us to read the translation our conscience allows...and to restrain ourselves from forcing others to read a translation their conscience does NOT allow.
We need to teach unity and freedom.
Mark just wanted to stop by again and say your book Authorized was outstanding (devoured it until 12:30 am --a work night no less-- completing it today after work) I didn't expect to enjoy it as much as I did -- it approaches the level of engagement as Gladwell's "Outliers", which is high praise indeed, and the graceful but firm and clear argument style Lewis uses in Mere Christianity. Well-done indeed, and I'll be suggesting it to others. Thanks and God bless!
Very kind! Thank you!
Wow great interview of a Greek teacher from the KJVonly group and open to using modern versions in his study and preaching.I am reminded to visit the KJV Parallel Bible site.This video has been helpful to one plowboy again.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Thank you, Mark, for a great interview. Brent, I've heard much about you and hope to meet you one of these days.
You guys absolutely need to connect! Two godly, knowledgeable, and gracious Canadian brothers!
That would be great! I just saw you have a website; I'll send you a contact message.
Your channel has been such a help bringing me out of the KJV only mindset. Thank you Mark!
Praise God. Now use your liberty to know him better!
I'm from Jamaica and in my country we new nothing of the KJV only vs Modern Translation debate until wide scale availability of the internet (one of the ills of the internet I guess). I just saw a Bible and read it. As far as most of us are and were concerned was that the Bible, whichever one, was the word of God and if we read it and obeyed it we'd be alright. Then came UA-cam and the internet and this debate and still, as far as I can tell, we just read the Bible. Many of us have been exposed to other translations because of Bible apps like Youversion, and most people read their bibles. Because of the Gideons, the NKJV was the most read Bible translation in Jamaica from the 80s onwords because they went into the schools and gave everyone their little New Testament Bible, my first Bible and we read that and found God and faith. As technology has advanced, many people are reading the other translations on their phones or tablets. The other very popular translation is the NIV. It is alluded to or used more often than any other in churches here. Even preachers who used the KJV, always say, it says this in the NIV for clarity. So my question was why don't just read the NIV then. These are the three major translations sold on the island, I've searched but haven't been able to find any of the others. The one question I'd love to ask is "if persons read anything but the KJV are they saved?" If the answer is yes, then this debate is pointless. If no then all the apostles and saints before 1611 are also lost because they didn't read the KJV Bible. I find this debate to be ridiculous and of no value to the body of Christ. Whatever translation you feel comfortable with, that brings the knowledge of Christ to you and points you to him, read that. Everyone will have their preferred translations, but that don't mean the other ls are no good. I've been reading the NKJV for years for the reason I gave above and have loved it. I started to read the ESV and I love it and want to add it as a second translation which could eventually become my main translation. But it doesn't mean I won't ever the NKJV again. I also understand that there are difference in manuscripts for these but I can't see from what I've read so far any glaring contradictions, in fact, they seem to complement each other. Thank you Mark for highlighting these things.
Very interesting to learn about Jamaica in this way.
@@markwardonwords There is saying we have here in our local dialect which goes "every ting easy man, no worry yuh self, every ting juss cool, juss work wid it, God wi tek care a di ress." This translates to... "Everything's allright, no need to worry, it's all good, let's do what we can and God will take care of everything else." We apply this to much of our lives including our faith walk with God and our approach to Scripture. There aren't many scholars here that I can readily speak of but we love the Lord. As far as I know there's only one seminary in country and not much people attend it. We have this feeling that the Holy Spirit is the best teacher there is. Many people frown upon the seminary preacher, saying they have head knowledge but not much of the Holy Spirit. That attitude however has changed and more and more people are studying to show themselves approved and this has opened up new opportunities for many of our pastors and preachers and has transformed much of our churches and have lead many to reading the other translations of the Bible. UA-cam and channels like yours have fed us with knowledge we otherwise didn't have.
@@edwardgraham9443 THANK YOU SIR FOR YOUR STATEMETS I 100,000% AGREE AND I WOULD SUGGEST FOR ALL THOSE THAT READ THIS COMMENT IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR IMO THE BEST BIBLES FOR DEEP STUDY--THEY WOULD BE THESE: 1. THE DAKE KJV STUDY BIBLE, 2. THE 2020 NASV HEBREW GREEK KEY WORD STUDY BIBLE--BEST FOR DEEP WORD STUDY---AND 3. THE NET BIBLE.
@@Jitta9 Thank you. While watching UA-cam I heard of the 2020 NASB update. I found it on the Youversion Bible app and started to read it. I had just read the CSB in 90 days and wanted to see what the NASB 2020 was like. I had read the 1995 NASB before. Like I said, we don't have access to many of the Bible translations and you wouldn't be able to get an NASB here whether the 1995 or the 2020. From what I have read of the 2020 do far, I like it. I prefer it to the CSB, but since I've not read it all I'll see if that remains the same at the end. The ESV is the one is use the most. I've read through it more than once and I really enjoy translation. I was fortunate enough to have gotten a physical copy of the ESV and now I'd like to have a copy of the NASB 2020 Wide Margin Reference Bible, but I do not know how I would get that.
The Bible is very important to me and reading it is my life. I have no time to worry about translations, I just want the word of God to read and understand so that I can live it.
@@edwardgraham9443 I WANT TO SHARE 1 MORE THING BROTHER. I KNOW YOU SAID YOU LIKE THE NKJV AND SO DO CHECK OUT THE NKJV WORD OF PROMISE AUDIO BIBLE ONLINE--IT IS CERTAINLY THE MOST PROFESSIONALLY DONE PRISTINE AUDIO BIBLE I'VE EVER HEARD WITHOUT A DOUBT AND THE PSALMS OF DAVID ARE AWESOME TO HEAR.
Thank you Mark and Brent. God bless your work.
Our pleasure!
Great interview!
Thank you, sir.
I use so many translations that this would be at first meaningless. But I understand that it is greatly meaning to some. The King James Only people. I still do not know how to school you on the lack of knowledge that you have. And in fact that some reject! I simply cannot help that.
Yes, the KJV-Only movement is large and passionate!
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. 1John 2:19
I’m asking very seriously: are you saying Brent is an unbeliever?
@@markwardonwords Why would you assume that? i know no one's heart nor were any any names mentioned.
The only concrete example that can be given is Bart Ehrman. Began as an evangelical believing in the verbal, plenary inerrant inspiration of the scriptures. Studied the critical text under unregenerate Bruce Metzger. Lost his faith and now is an agnostic.
Those who study versions derived from the critical text, and many don't study, are lead only to doubt (or Catholicism since it is primarily the codex Vaticanus), due in large part to the faith destroying notes. And doubt held long enough leads inevitably to a loss of faith. Was Bart ever a believer? If so he is he will return.
It is thought that Greek Scholar Philip Schaff had a conversion before his death. Prior to that he was not a believer, just an ecumenical theologian. One of the founders of the New Age Movement and the World's Parliament of Religions. But before his death he destroyed the faith of many Christians with his American Standard Version the critical text of 1901.
can you post a link here for that website you are talking about?
You mean KJVParallelBible.org?
@@markwardonwords "u da man!"
@@TLBasham2, dont' forget the many volunteers who helped me with that huge project!
I’m reading “One Bible Only” right now.
Written by some respected friends of mine at Central!
KJV onlyest have been the number one most aggressive people I've ran into on my channel. Doing bible reviews brings in all believers and even religions that I completely disagree with . Yet I've only been attacked and out right harassed by KJV onlyest .
Being an ex kjv only guy I know their passion but that belief system has a problem within their fellowship. I do not see love of others because they do not see you as a fellow Christian.
I have no problem with someone who believes it's the best translation or that they prefer the TR. It's that there are many who judge your spiritual understanding and salvation ...I see that level as cultish.
I don't play around with it anymore.
I know a couple KJV onlyest and one is not that way, he is a very awesome brother and fellow reviewer who sees me as a brother in Christ.
The other brother says that he sees me as a fellow Christian but "I'm deceived and not hearing the Holy Spirits voice" ...
These beliefs cause a break in fellowship which is contrary to scripture and contradicts us being related.
I do see a lot of aggression among them, though certainly not all. I’m glad you know some, like I do, who are not that way.
@@markwardonwords that is because they have demonic spirits. They are religious legalists.
Mark, you stated that you get some royalty income that flows to you from your book. Some might have a problem with that so I would like to comment and say that it is a comfort to me to know that some of the money that I spend on this book will go to you. You put in the "blood, sweat, and tears" and you should receive some compensation for that. You are a Godly man doing the Lord's work. You are not living a life of excess.
Thank you! Yes, I’m grateful that after four years, I’m still getting some royalty income from the book. The laborer is worthy of his hire.
I think it also actually shows that he *isn't* in it for the money. That may seem counterintuitive but if he was he wouldn't have gone through the book on UA-cam in free videos. He would make people who want the information pay for it.
There never was any
So called standard and only translation held by any until arising of the Kjvo
Thanx, Gentlemen 🌹🌹🌹🌹
Our pleasure!
As an MK, I have observed that Ruckmanite missionaries have done a great disservice to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ in southeast Asia and the Pacific rim. They have sown seeds of division amongst the Bride of Christ and taught preference over doctrinal Truth. God's Word is being translated into every tongue from the original languages. The KJV is pretty good, however it is not the most accurate translation into English.
False doctrine is divisive.
I know Mark hates textual criticism, but no one has ever explained to me how it is that Jesus lies to his brothers in the bibles that are based on the critical text. Even in Mark's parallel project, John 7:8-10 in modern English it is clearly stated that Jesus lied.
If you believe the modern versions are you just pucking and choosing which verses you are going to believe?
I don't hate textual criticism, my friend. I just don't think it's necessary to talk about it here. If you prefer the TR, I can see good reasons for doing so. More power to you. Just make or use a translation of the TR into fully intelligible contemporary English as 1 Cor 14 suggests you should do.
@@markwardonwords I would love to, but I cannot find one that has not been influenced by the CT or modern versions. The NKJV did not use just the TR, otherwise it would not have so many footnotes from the CT. The MEV takes verses like Philippians 2:8 from modern versions, not from the TR or from the CT as your work on the KJV parallel shows.
@@timlemmon2332 Tim, have you watched my recent videos defending the NKJV? The NKJV's footnotes do NOT indicate that it used the CT. And I don't know what you're referring to with regard to Phil 2:8. The TR phrase at the beginning, the one that's not in the CT, is right there in the MEV. What am I missing, brother?
@@markwardonwords the NU references are critical text notes.
My apologies for hitting the wrong verse number in Philippians. I was referring to 2:6 not 2:8.
@@timlemmon2332 According to Arthur Farstad, the editor the New King James version (NKJV), the critical text is on every page. “On every page of the NKJV New Testament the studious reader will find three different textual views represented…2 “NU” in the NKJV notes, stands for the critical text, based on Westcott and Hort,…” “The New King James Version in the Great Tradition” - Arthur L. Farstad (executive editor of the NKJV) page 111
Easy there not the word of God in the Latin Bulgate and Geneva bible did not the Kjv translators accept even Catholic Rheims as being such?
Hi. So I would like to know why translation scholars of the Greek language for biblical studies are not translating the Greek properly into English. An example is Mathew 28:1 every English translation I’ve looked into does not translate it properly. Why?
"Ὀψὲ δὲ σαββάτων τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς μίαν σαββάτων ἦλθεν Μαριὰμ ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ καὶ ἡ ἄλλη Μαρία θεωρῆσαι τὸν τάφον." (Matthew 28:1 THGNT)
How is it supposed to be translated?
@@markwardonwords
Well first of all it’s talking about sabbath’s in the plural. One being the Passover and second one being the Saturday Shabbat. It never mentions a Sunday referring to the first day of the week. It’s amazing to me. And that’s only one example!
@@markwardonwords
Also your Greek shows the two sabbath’s spelled out. like I said plural, but it doesn’t recognize it in the English text .
they aren't really translating from Greek. They are copying and pasting from prior versions and making some changes in order to obtain a derivative copyright, which requires them to be 25% different from the "exemplar". Example: The National Council of Churches owns the copyright to the NRSV and by proxy the ESV. Crossway Publications through an agreement with NCC may use the NRSV as the basis for the ESV. The ESV is nothing more than a resurrected RV(1881),ASV(1901),RSV(1952),NRSV(1989), contrary to the preface to the ESV.
@@barryjtaft
I am beginning to believe that you are correct.
Which Ljcmv edition 1611 1769 1873 1900 right and perfect one? WHICH Tr is the correct one first 2 editions that did not include 1 john 5:7?
Praise God he left the cult of KJV onlyism
I’m grateful to the Lord.
I don’t think most of KJV-Onlyism is cultish. I think Ruckmanism is a cult. It is an extreme form of the doctrine. And to answer your question, a cult is an extreme, heterodox group whose doctrines inspire radical adherence. That is, no quarter, not even graciousness, can be shown to the perfidious enemies on the outside. This is the way Rickman led his acolytes to be.
@@christopheryetzer, I don't make the claim-except regarding a few extremists. Here's NOAD on "cult": "A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister." I believe Ruckman's views are both strange and sinister. He taught that the KJV is advanced revelation beyond the Hebrew and Greek. He constantly demonstrated that he viewed Christian people who disagreed with him as dupes or devils. He openly believed in aliens with ray guns. He described their skin color. He promoted other conspiracy theories. And his views are absolutely still influential among extremist versions of KJV-Onlyism. That part of KJV-Onlyism is cultic, because it is strange and sinister.
The vast majority of KJV-Only brothers that I have known are not cultish. They are Christians whom I love and respect who are wrong about certain biblical teachings and matters of history.
I totally agree.
@@markwardonwords I agree. Ruckmanism is cultish, but the KJV-Onlyism I left was not.
The Bible is the Bible and after using so many translations over the years, I personally have settled back into the "TR ONLY" belief . If the TR is telling the truth of doctrine, to me it is the Word of God since this nation was developed on it's hinges long before the other manuscripts/texts were ever introduced
My friend, the New King James Version and the Modern English Version both use the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts as the King James. And they translate those texts into fully intelligible contemporary English, which means they meet the principle of 1 Corinthians 14, edification requires intelligibility. I recommend the NKJV and MEV to you.
Because of KJV-onlyism I feel guilt when I read any version but the KJV(I have NKJV and NRSV)
You should not violate your conscience, but you should be willing to educate your conscience by the Bible. And the Bible teaches that edification requires intelligibility. It also does NOT teach that there will be one reliable Bible translation and no others in any given language. Christ has set us free from what the KJV translators call "moldy traditions."
I wouldn't view guilt as a bad thing. Read the beginning of John 8:1-12 then John 16:7-11.
Don't but into these sissy teachings that reading the bible should make you feel good about yourself. It's to make people holy.
More attacks in the KJV.. nice.
Not on the KJV. On KJV-Onlyism.
@@markwardonwords and you think this is beneficial for Christianity …? To divide us even more.
Which Bible does not cater to human nature?
I've read many evangelical English (and Spanish) translations. None of them caters to human nature, my friend. They all tell me not to lust, not to be proud, to love God and neighbor in ways that my flesh is not inclined to do.
I have had the exact opposite thing happen in my life. Where i was given an F on a seminary paper for simply citing the NKJV. And was later told by my professor that you cannot use the KJV, NKJV or any version of the King James for serious scholarly work. That was so divisive that I left that place not long after that for another issue coupled with this one and it is what led me to be predominately King James.
The KJV is an excellent translation-but if you're going to read it exclusively, you need to understand that it was translated into a form of English no one quite speaks or writes anymore. So there are going to be some places where you think you understand but, because of language change, you're going to miss the intent of the KJV translators. For help discerning when this is the case, I encourage you to check out my "Fifty False Friends in the KJV" series on UA-cam for help reading the KJV! ua-cam.com/play/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc.html
@@markwardonwords I get what you’re saying for instance “quit you like men” is no longer the way we speak, but that wasn’t my point. I don’t disagree there are some places it could be hard to understand. I’m not disputing that.
My point was I have found in my own life that those Christians who have been the most divisive with me over the King James have been rabid anti KJV crowd rather than the meme tier IFBers who make the rounds on the internet saying you can correct the Greek by the King James - which is clearly a joke of a statement. Yet those people like my seminary professor are never rebuked the way the KJV onlyists are rebuked. Again this individual I mentioned was so anti King James he even hated the NKJV from which I was citing. I literally failed a paper only because I cited the New King James Version - a translation in which a member of the faculty itself was on the translation committee for by the way.
@@michaelclark2458 I have had quite the opposite experience! But I don't deny your experience.
@@markwardonwords The executive editor of the ESV is on record as saying that when he came to America from Norway as a 10 year old boy, he immediately began having daily devotions in the King James Bible and that he never had any trouble understanding it. He doesn't agree that the TR is a better text but neither does he agree that the KJV is heard to understand. Are there things that are hard to be understood? 2 Peter 3:16 "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."
The wisdom of man is foolishness to God. Rejecting the KJV with its historical successes, and the best candidate for God's perfect Word (which He promised) is the height of folly.
He did not promise a perfect translation, my friend. And the KJV translators explicitly denied that their work was perfect. See their brilliant preface. The KJV translators were not KJV-Only.
@@markwardonwords Those are not actual arguments. The translators' opinion of their own work was humble. That is how it is supposed to be. If the Words of God are not perfect, that violates Prov. 30:5-6. So which is it? "Perfect only in the originals"? That is an argument devoid of belief in the verse I just gave you. Nice try.
And yet the vast majority of people who believe the gospel and the inerrancy of Scripture hold my view-and that of the KJV translators. Perhaps more humility is called for on your part, my friend.
@@markwardonwords so I’m arrogant now for believing that God did what He promised in His Word? Maybe just maybe the “vast majority” are mistaken? It happens all the time. The vast majority of the world are unsaved and incorrect. The tyranny of the majority is no argument. Perhaps it is you who should revisit attacking the KJV. After all what harm has it done you or anyone ? None
@@OpenTheirEyes
My friend, a couple things.
Causing divisions over bible translations is a work of the flesh and grieves Christ's desire, prayer and command for unity in his body.
Concerning proverbs 30:
Technically the KJV translaters did add words albeit in italics.
To me this passage seems to be dealing with prophecy to not add your own words to it - just my opinion.
Calling the bible "the word of God" is incorrect. Jesus Christ is the word of God, he himself is the double edged sword as your bible teaches.
(Rev 19:11-13, Hebrews 4:12,13).
A lot of Christians know this and still refer to the bible as 'word of God' for fear of repercussions.
We are not to be transformed into the image of our peers but into the image of Christ.
Better to use the term "the scriptures" as Jesus Christ himself did.
A collection of 'a canon' is a clever deception of satan - you cannot prove to me that the books of Esther or Jude are inspired for example.
Furthermore some people are foolish enough to believe that every wording and word in the bible is from God.
'The bible' was neither written by God's finger, angels nor were the man of God typewriting holy spirit slaves.
The bible clearly indicates when God is cited or Jesus is delivering God's words.
That being said: I am german and recently got myself a decent Cambridge KJV.
I find myself reading it more and more, it is relatively beautifully written. Highly recommend getting a Cambridge Concord!
--
More importantly:
Are you led by the Holy Spirit, do you hear from God yourself? (Rom 8:14, John 10:27)
It is not possible to follow Jesus without it or to please God by chosing how to serve him with your own mind.
That's what LORD means!
Hopefully you don't feel attacked.
God bless you
I am not attempting to be critical or rude, but I must ask why it is that every single younger preacher that go’s down this road inevitably ends up becoming a Calvinist. It seems to be trendiest thing to do now days . But, go back 25 years and you were hard pressed to find a reformed guy walking around. Now if u want to be somebody it’s as if u must believe that God has chosen to send people arbitrarily to hell. Very sad. If that is where following after modern versions and big well known pastors is going to take me, then I want nothing to do with it. I believe that the missions taught in the Bible is one that includes the entire world with all having an equal opportunity to come to Christ.
I know many Calvinists who believe exactly what IFB folks believe about the KJV. They promote only the KJV and discredit all modern versions.
I know many non-Calvinists who use all kinds of modern versions.
There is no necessary connection between Calvinism and the KJV issue, either way.
I do have to thank you both for this video and I want to let you know that after listening to you both that I have to concluded that the KJV translators got their translation into English, with what they had, done right. Thank you for showing just how good God is when during a past time of troubles that God keeps his promises to make sure that his words can be known in the language of the people that needed it. Your work in assessing your own position when it comes to translation may line up with mine in that translation is necessary into other languages to show that we truly love our neighbors. I do want to thank both of you for re-affirming my belief that the KJV is the inerrant and infallible word of God in the English language to date. One thing I do know is true that the first person one lies to is self.
My friend, please interact with the arguments we made in the video. We didn't say the KJV translators did poor work! We think they did excellent work! They just translated into an English no one alive speaks or writes natively.
@@markwardonwords Sorry, I did mean to make an argument I was making a personal claim that I found benefit in your video presentation. If you re-read my initial text I thanked God which is me giving glory to God and not man. From an atheist point of view would be a God of the gaps fallacy but as Christians we should not have any problem giving glory to God. I do want to apologize for any potential presentation of insensitivity, I the soul do forget to check my flesh when I type.
King James Bible only necessarily is an English primacy view (that is, that there is no longer a need for Greek). It is Textus Receptus onlyism rather that would be teaching Greek while primarily using a King James Bible. Since the field of "Greek" is today dominated by non-KJB and anti-KJB sentiments, it therefore is a slippery slope to be a Hellenophile. So then, it is not surprising at all that a "King James Bible user who promoted Greek is not in KJBOism". Obviously we also differ entirely on which direction the Lord leads.
The leaders of the predominant form of KJV-Onlyism in the US, as best I can tell, insist that they are TR-Only, not KJV-Only. At the popular level, that distinction tends to get lost. And there are those who take your view, too.
The problem I have seen from people that piously tell me they are not KJV-Only but TR Only, so I ask them what version other than the KJV that uses the TR do you recommend (Like the MEV)...... usually they only recommend one version.... the KJV..... and denigrate all the other versions that are based on the TR as they find "some" problem with them.
Why would any minister use the erroneous modern translations.
Please interact with the arguments made in the video.
@@markwardonwordsof course he won’t do it.
In Spanish we have this saying, “me tapó un ojo me tapo el otro y nada que ver”
It means I cover my eye, I cover my other eye, nothing to see here.
KJVO does nonsense but with their ears. They don’t truly wrestle with the arguments.
How are modern translations erroneous? No doctrine is changed. The deity of Christ is very very clear. That salvation is found in no one else but the Lord Jesus Christ. Very very clear that the name of Jesus is the name above all names. The deity of the Holy Spirit is very clear. That all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Same as taught in the KJV Are these doctrines erroneous? If so the KJV is erroneous as well. Personally I prefer a modern translation in English I can understand. Rather than one in archaic English where so many words have changed meaning like the KJV. That is why God has blessed us with more accurate modern translations.
@@henrylaurel1188 Modern translations come from the erroneous Alexandrian of Egypt manuscripts. The Alexandrians were anti-Christians. They leave 6000 words out and the have over 15000 differences to the True Greek Manuscripts.
If you use a modern translation, you would know how erroneous they are.
@@alanhales1123 Out of interest would you read a modern translation of the Masoretic text?
Gee, how many here know James Strong worked with Westcott and Hort's revision committee and helped write the American Standard bible?
Strong took his corrupted definitions from the revision committee and the revised version of the bible.
I have a whole video on this topic: ua-cam.com/video/dtnbby3LqB8/v-deo.html
Not only did Strong take his definitions from the RV, he also included classical Greek words in his concordance ( which we all agree God never intended since the NT was written common (koine`) Greek). A neophyte with no knowledge of Greek is unknowingly influenced by Greek philosophy via the classical Greek words. Strong and Vines and others are hazardous materials in my opinion.