The Slippery Slope(s) of KJV-Onlyism
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 кві 2023
- Does truth mountain have two slopes or just one? Is it possible to slide to the right?
Links to two podcast episodes and two articles by Nathaniel Erickson on the level of precision in Greek:
bit.ly/ericksonpodcast1
bit.ly/ericksonpodcast2
www.logos.com/grow/new-testam...
www.logos.com/grow/bsm-inspir...
Henry Ambrose video:
• Is the Textus Receptus...
🎁 Help me end Bible translation tribalism, one plow boy at a time:
✅ / mlward
✅ buymeacoffee.com/mlward
📖 Check out my book, Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible:
amzn.to/2r27Boz
🎥 Watch my Fifty False Friends in the KJV series:
• 50 False Friends in th...
👏 Many, many thanks to the Patreon supporters who make my work possible!
Name, James Duly, Robert Gifford, Lanny M Faulkner, Lucas Key, Dave Thawley, William McAuliff, Razgriz, James Goering, Eric Couture, Martyn Chamberlin, Edward Woods, Thomas Balzamo, Brent M Zenthoefer, Tyler Rolfe, Ruth Lammert, Gregory Nelson Chase, Ron Arduser, Caleb Farris, Dale Buchanan, Jess English, Aaron Spence, Orlando Vergel Jr., John Day, Joshua Bennett, K.Q.E.D., Brent Karding, Kofi Adu-Boahen, Steve McDowell, Kimberly Miller, A.A., James Allman, Steven McDougal, Henry Jordan, Nathan Howard, Rich Weatherly, Joshua Witt, Wade Huber, M.L., Brittany Fisher, Tim Gresham, Lucas Shannon, Easy_Peasy , Caleb Richardson, Jeremy Steinhart, Steve Groom, jac, Todd Bryant, Corey Henley, Jason Sykes, Larry Castle, Luke Burgess, Joel, Joshua Bolch, Kevin Moses, Tyler Harrison, Bryon Self, Angela Ruckman, Nathan N, Gen_Lee_Accepted , Bryan Wilson, David Peterson, Eric Mossman, Jeremiah Mays, Caleb Dugan, Donna Ward, DavidJamie Saxon, Omar Schrock, Philip Morgan, Brad Dixon, James D Leeper, M.A., Nate Patterson, Dennis Kendall, Michelle Lewis, Lewis Kiger, Dustin Burlet, Michael Butera, Reid Ferguson, Josiah R. Dennis, Miguel Lopez, CRB, D.R., Dean C Brown, Kalah Gonzalez, MICHAEL L DUNAVANT, Jonathon Clemens, Travis Manhart, Jess Mainous, Brownfell, Leah Uerkwitz, Joshua Barzon, Benjamin Randolph, Andrew Engelhart, Mark Sarhan, Rachel Schoenberger
Where can I see the chart by Christopher Yetzer?
drops.forwarddesigner.net/i/nuzbNt
@@markwardonwords Thanks!
While I had some issues with your other video on slippery slope of modern translations, I actually agree with most of what you say here. There is a real concern with KJVO and it becoming weirdly dogmatic and anti-intellectual and against education etc. All of these points are valid.
I will say I think it is worth mentioning, if there are two slopes on each side of this mountain, the strong prevailing wind is blowing only in one direction. Society, the flesh, modern media, secular education, many government policies, all push hard in the leftward direction. So when I weigh the two slippery slopes, I find one side far more dangerous. Someone falling down the rightward slippery slope is often doing so in spite of and against incredible social and fleshly pressure. Those falling down the leftward slope are doing so with a tailwind and the approval and applause of modern society, secularism and a person’s own desires.
I would also touch on a point I made in the last video comment. The slippery slope you describe appears to be the slope an individual can fall down in their own life. I tend to imagine the slope on a generational scope and how one generation’s movement along the slope will cause future generations to view the Bible.
While I agree with you that the rightward slide down KJVO isn’t great, I do not think it has near the long term damage to Christianity as a whole that a leftward slides does, simply because so much pressure is pushing left all of the time. It’s quite common for the children of a KJVO household to end up moving leftward in their life. It’s not as common to see someone raised in a liberal leaning church to suddenly find themselves heading over the slope to conservatism and KJVO. (Maybe that’s a personal bias I see in my life)
Again, I will say, I hope you are right, and I am wrong. I admit my view is more pessimistic.
Up until the Trump era, I might have said the same thing you said in your second paragraph. And I'm still not far off-for me, anyway, the bigger danger is the leftward slope (this is not a prediction, just an observation). I think there are plenty of circles in which the rightward slope is the prevailing temptation. What I don't deny is that the great majority of elite culture, of major national institutions, seem headed leftward. It's alarming to me still to see how often sexual deviance is celebrated by companies who don't seem to want my business.
Of course: let's slide neither way! Let's stay in the middle of the road!
@@markwardonwords We agree that to slide down a slippery slope is bad. I don't really agree that 'the Trump era' suddenly pushed a bunch of people to KJVO or down some super christian conservative mountain, but even if I granted you that it did for some, I think it's safe to say there was a fairly large and universal societal backlash to that. Which then goes back to my earlier point. The prevailing wind is left. MAYBE we could point to moments when that wind reverses and areas of the world where it's rightward, but we seem to be on an ever consistent lurch leftward socially and religiously.
UA-cam has been recommending me Bible channels lately. Glad to have found this. People go crazy about this issue.
After I converted as a teenager I was forbidden to go to Church for about half a year. My only source of knowledge was a cheap KJV that I read through several times. Eventually I got to go to Church, and when I first heard modern Bible translations I was a bit scandalized by the differences. The youth leader calmed it by pointing out nothing serious had changed and introduced me to differences in Catholic Bibles and pointed out those didn't change anything substantial.
I was uncomfortable with it, moved to an NKJV, but it wasn't a major doctrinal position. I'd picked up enough to know that the KJV text was a "Textus Receptus" and agreed with the majority of manuscripts from reading different introductions.
When I went to university to study Bible, I had one fellow approach me with "Kenneth, I heard you were a King James onlyist." It was the first time I had ever heard the term "King James onlyist." I told him I was not but trusted the Textus Receptus. He told me "Same thing. I want you to read this." I was a bit offended someone would posit a position to me I had literally never heard of and contradict me on what I thought. Then decide he had authority to demand I study what he wanted.
I, at first, agreed but told him I'd bought about three books for myself I wanted to read first. However the next day he stopped me and asked me, "Have you started reading it?" "No." The next day he did the same thing, and the next day, and the next day. I don't like being told exactly what to do, but I had misunderstood "Do not resist the evil man" and so started trying to avoid him by changing how I traveled. He actively sought out my new routes to find me every day. When I didn't do it fast enough, he started comparing me to the hillbillies in Deliverance, said my mother was a bigot for teaching me wrong beliefs about the Bible, and so on. The pattern was insult then go to polite company. I have rethought my interpretation of "do not resist an evil man" after this, for obvious reasons. This went on for two years.
I wasn't going to read the book for obvious reasons. I did when he left, and it was a profitable book. While he was there I made friends with a few KJV onlyists. They let me speculate, tolerated disagreement, and acted with charity and kindness. I did start reading their literature. One day I printed out a 12 page paper they recommended from the internet and asked him to read that first. He took it to someone else, had that person read it, then came back and told me he had not read it but took it to a professor who said it wasn't good. He said that counted for him reading it. It did not for me, and he would never listen or let me even articulate what I thought. I never adopted a KJV only position, but if he'd been there one more year I might well have.
I know this is a long story, but this stuff drives people crazy. I ended up thinking about this a lot, probably a lot more if I hadn't encountered this guy, and it led me to positions on Bible, inspiration, canon, and Scripture that were incompatible with Evangelicalism. However, it wasn't to the KJV onlyists or the eclectic texts. I simply haven't seen any satisfactory answers on the shape of the text yet.
Have you read Michael Kruger on Canon-Canon Revisited?
www.amazon.com/dp/1433505002?tag=3755-20
@@markwardonwordsthere is also an entire playlist of him teaching a class on the canon that closely follows the book. It's on UA-cam. I'll post the link in a minute.
ua-cam.com/play/PLzytIUBlFDMN62nZiv6cPVBYoBaCPJjQM.html&si=nCFUthKlYNRtiPMp
Btw Kenneth, I'm really sorry you had such an experience. That would leave a bad taste in anyone's mouth! I would encourage you to check out that book or playlist but I certainly won't hound you about it either. Do you have any recommendations of books or videos that advocate your view or talk about the questions you haven't found answers to?
@@4jgarnerI bought the book, but, to my discredit, I haven't read it yet. I got busy then forgot about it on the bookshelf (which I should not have done). I had forgotten so thoroughly that I had the read the comments above to remember. (My apologies to Dr. Ward if he does read this; I'll move it up higher). If you post the video list, I tend to listen to videos, audio Bibles, and lectures while I work and so am not as selective as I am with books. I always have a longer list of books than I will actually read. And buy more than I read, too.
If you're asking about my position on the NT text's shape, I'm generally a Byzantine priority guy now. For the reasons to be a Byzantine priority person, I would recommend Maurice Robinson's "The Case for Byzantine Priority." However, his dealing with versional evidence seemed a bit hand-wavy to me, and so I don't think he has established the original text. It is usually better to retain what is handed on than to be speculative, and I think Dr. Robinson's critique is fatal.
I found the confessional bibliologists like Theodore Letus' "The Ecclesiastical Text" as an interesting way to deal with the issue with an emphasis on preservation, but Dr. Ward's challenge "Which TR?" is fatal there too. When the bar is to the letter, even one variation falsifies it, and it becomes a matter of degrees.
I also question whether we're even capable of analyzing this sort of data. It's incomplete. It comes in the form of problems that, in every field where we can have real world failures at, we fail often and repeatedly in order to get to a viable product. It's usually driven by beliefs about inspiration I cannot follow ("the text is infallible only in the originals but not copies," "the text is infallible in the _apographa_," "this particular translation, and it only, is infallible," "it's not infallible but is human"). We have to work out why we're doing what we do and what the goal is, and if that base is flawed, our speculation has less chances of succeeding, and the entire business has a low chance of success at the start.
With those in mind, I have some books that can explain where I landed, if taken together:
John Walton's "The Lost World of Scripture." The idea of an individual _genius_ (I mean it in the classical, not the English, sense) is pretty modern. Subsequent scribes could, and did, modify books with the authority and name of the original author. Thus I do not make a hard separation between inspiration and preservation. A later addition, if received by the _traditores_ of a text, can be inspired and authoritative. Two examples: Mark's ending, the longer ending is not original, but it is both inspired and authoritative. For all I know it could have come from a later edition by Mark himself, so that the original ending was lost (The idea that the shortest ending is the original strikes me as unworkable).
Another illustrative text, coupled with this is John Behr's "The Mystery of Christ." It outlines that the early Christians received texts, not as propositional outlines, but as direct manifestations of God, and most specifically Christ, to the readers.
Where I have landed, then, is a middle ground between them: The NT was bequeathed to the Churches, which inevitably induced change. The Churches that received them had the ability to stabilize the text, and this stability is found in how they are read in public. The context of Scripture isn't just author, date, culture, audience, genre, and so on. It is also "In what manner and setting was it to be read?" In most cases, this was publicly and often in a worship service, and so the context in which we read it should include that as part of our exegesis.
This is also the context to judge whether a change is accepted. If it finds widespread acceptance, then the change is God-breathing (θεόπνευστος, "inspired"). If it is rejected, it is not. Worse, if it results in a split or justifies a split very early, it is possibly of diabolical origins. The people and worship are the immune system to test variants and speculation.
My jury's still out on the utility of eclectic texts. They have very little doctrinal impact (not none; some changes seem very much to be influenced by doctrine). However they are not things of churches; they are things of the academy and Bible societies. I'm not saying that as a bad thing, because these have both done great good and great harm. They're just new, and I have no idea how it will work out. We have to wait till the west loses prestige so that the unique cultural impetus and prestige disappear and until our creative culture moves into something post-copyright. I have absolutely no idea where this is going.
That's a bit long-winded, but I landed some place that I can't explain by pointing to a single book or video, and I'm a lot less certain about where things are going or even what's happening :/
Since you talk about education and anti-intellectualism, which I understand and am sympathetic to, What is your take on the stats that show people who attend seminary who lose their faith? Would it not be better to have ignorance and faith than understanding and unbelief?
I've never seen such stats, but I just can't imagine-from my long experience in academicky Christian spaces-that conservative evangelical seminaries are *causing* apostasy. I've seen the opposite. Maybe if you include liberal seminaries, you'll see increased apostasy?
@@markwardonwords Have you heard what Dr. Russell Fuller has to say about what is happening at the SBC's seminaries? I would could the SBC as the most conservative evangelical denomination.
ua-cam.com/video/MmtMiTqXInM/v-deo.html
It was in that very same sermon you shared by Terry Anglea that he said “Intellectualism is the enemy of faith”. While he did try to walk back and affirm the value of learning, his statement has a chilling effect on learning on the right side of the slope.
He is clearly on that slope. I've heard some good things about him from people who know him. I'm not saying he's evil; I don't think he is. But he's on that slope, for sure.
Can you share that yetzer chart please
Hoping to do a video on it, but if I fail… drops.forwarddesigner.net/i/V6Gx0Z
@@markwardonwords Thank you very much
I love that you touched on interpretational absolutism. This is one of the stumbling blocks l face as a new Christian. People seem so keen for certain knowledge even on topics where God has clearly not offered it to us. They seem to think that false confidence comforts people, but for me at least, it has the opposite effect.
Right. I think it does comfort some people. And I’m not sure how much I want to judge those people. I just know I’m not one of them. I want to gauge my level of certainty to what God warrants in his word.
I really appreciate how you have 'stuck your neck out' for your brothers and sisters in God's kingdom and I also appreciate your honesty and willingness to be clear about areas that are open and areas that you aren't sure about. Thank you for making these resources, I know how much time it takes and I am thankful for you servant-heartedness. You are gentle when you disagree but bold enough not to back down when you are convinced of something. We need more like you.
Please pray for me! Thank you for your kind words.
Great stuff. I had found/listened to you a couple of times, but just realized I had not follow. You’re a great follow. Good content! Great
Video!
Many thanks-been seeing your comments, and I appreciate your views!
I don’t know how I found this video but man this was fantastic! Incredibly balanced and focused on giving God the glory. Thank you for putting this together!
Many thanks.
Another great video... I too, disagree with (all respect intended) the appointing of female pastors and , yes, homosexuality is indeed a sin. Also I totally agree with you as far as Elders and Pastors. 21:18 Likewise I agree Greek isn't math, and thus, for me, I may not put as much confidence in the Greek "rules" and "laws" that have in recent centuries been "discovered." And, of course, I accept that the use of multiple translations is the best way to go.
As far as ‘tradition,’ yes, but with care. Colossians 2:8, Mark 7:1-12 Might it be that 1 John 5:7 crept in because of tradition and can be caused by ‘logical and/or empirical doctrinal drift’? 0:30 Same with 1 Timothy 3:16 “God was manifest” instead of “He was manifested” ESV and in Acts 20:28 “hath purchased with his own blood” instead of “he obtained with the blood of his own Son” NET (for just a few examples)? And might it be because of tradition (and a priori thinking) that there is varying degrees of reluctance to translate these (and other) scriptures more accurately as certain bible translations have?
Hi Mark, it is good to hear you talk about this subject. When people insist on a specific bible translation such as the King James. They seem to miss the whole point. God has a message for us and the clarity is there. I listen to your videos and I want to learn from you. I am currently studying '7 Reasons to Trust the Bible' and I want to teach the course in my church. Thank you very much.
My pleasure!
My mind and heart are full of the Spirit’s confirmation of your teaching. Thank you, Mark.
Many thanks.
Sound is much better here Mark! 👍
I've really been working to remember to at least use the Final Cut Pro auto-audio-fix tool!
A little off topic but only slightly, my church will be offering both wine and grape juice beginning this next Sunday and I suspect that there will be more issues with that than some might think . Do you have any advice, people are strongly entrenched in their views , much like the KJB people ?
@Gypsyfriend
Thanks for your reply, brother.
We all need to be humble and open to the word of God
Mark, I appreciate your even-handed approach here to the brief conversation we had about this topic yesterday. The idea of being “susceptible to narrow influences” alone made this presentation worth watching. Those cautionary words contain a wealth of wisdom. Perhaps an excellent topic to be expanded upon in a future video?
So many video ideas, so little lifetime!
Proverbs 4:27 "Do not swerve to the right or to the left; turn your foot away from evil." ESV
Right!
Thank you, Brother 🌹🌹🌹🌹
My pleasure!
God bless brother. KEEP GOING ON with the SECT of kjv.
Please pray for me!
Thank you for this. I pray many people will be moved to take its message seriously. I’ve personally seen many people in IFB and adjacent communities mix a perfect Bible with perfect clothing, music, and life styles; it’s simply too easy to declare something perfect or worldly once you’ve added this concept to your repertoire.
I hadn’t thought about such silos limit a pastor’s growth. I’ve refused to stay in such narrow confines for myself because I knew God is big enough to use others. But once out there I discovered the whole idea of an authoritative TR I’d been taught was baloney, so I can see why they fear letting people learn from others.
Would you mind sharing your best preachers podcast list with us? I’ve got a handful I follow but can always use more!
I don't listen to sermons from any particular preachers regularly. I grab them when they rise to the top of the social media pile. But Kevin DeYoung (Life and Books and Everything) and Kirk Miller (The Church Theology Podcast) are two I recommend.
I don’t use the KJV as my primary bible but I trust the KJV, not necessarily to be more accurate than modern translations but as somewhere to compare if I read something that makes me suspicious that something new is being craftily slipped into a modern translation (thankfully so far I haven’t found any such issue which has built my confidence in ESV, CSB etc). The modern gender madness for example were certainly not going to be slipped in unnoticed in 1611 and the KJV has been scrutinised by many, many people and to my understanding has been proven to be a solid translation that won’t lead someone astray, even if newer translations may have done a better job in some areas.
Using them together is a great idea. My wife did so for a while until she gained confidence in the ESV and CSB.
Yes as long as kjv isnt the primary. Its not in ANYBODY'S language and that was the point for William Tyndale to translate the bible into the peoples language. Kjv is a cult for people who refuse to repent and cling to traditions.
Sometimes i like to read the poetry like wording of kjv as well. Certain books have a neat way with words
But it doesnt make people biblically literate in their own language.
What do you mean by "gender madness" in terms of Bible translations? I'm aware there's that whole other topic but, are you referring to gender neutral language? Because, if so, I don't have near as much a problem with it as some people do, it's not a blanket application, and never has been
@@clouds-rb9xt I’m not a bible scholar and I only speak English so the only way I can assess the gendered language is by reading articles or watching videos. With my limited understanding I agree that it’s not as big a deal as many make it into, not because it’s ok to change the meaning of the text but because in the places where gender neutral language is used in the CSB for example, the original text was using language suitable for both genders.
My concern about newer translations is that as societal views change that these modern views may find their way into the bible (yes I am worried about the slippery slope). For example will Paul’s assertion that a woman can never be in authority over a man be changed to avoid offending modern sensibilities or to push a female pastor agenda? Likewise for the homosexual references or any other topic that is not PC enough.
The KJV is old enough not to be affected by these issues which is why I said I like to have it as a bit of a benchmark but I also said that I haven’t found the other translations that I use to be misleading when compared to the KJV so I prefer to read other translations and because they are easier to read I get a lot more from reading them.
Based upon textual and historical evidences best one can be is Kjv and Tr oreferred but not only
I definitely think you've nailed this one! We can fall away from truth in any direction. I definitely remember at least near Ruckmanism (affirming the inspiration of the KJV, but not claiming it improves on the originals), Landmarkism ("if you're not part of the true church as it was handed down in an unbroken line from the Apostles to our narrow group, you're not part of the bride of Christ), and anti-intellectualism ("how dare you read anyone's commentary on the Bible, that's just a bridge to liberalism?!") in the circles I grew up in.
Right. And these aren't victimless crimes. They cause effects.
@@markwardonwords Agreed. They were propagated by some very sincere and godly people who were merely deceived, but I do believe they were quite harmful to me and others.
I also believe the exclusive use of the King James Version aided some leaders in dangling their toes into interpretative absolutism. If I disagreed with their interpretation of Scripture, they could always tell and tell me I was denying the perfectly clear meaning of the text. I could never be 100% sure that I read Jacobean English well enough to hold my ground.
A refinement of you slippery slope might be, we strive to stand on the mountain of scripture, and we can fall off, not just to the right or left, but any direction and slide down the snow covered mount taking others with us. "But, for the grace of God, there go I."
Right!
In regards to those who say all of their interpretations are clear, I heard a quote I liked, I can’t remember where, which said “All shallows are clear”. Implying that issues are often only simple to simple people. Seeing things deeply will often bring out that an issue is more complex than many realize. Like my mentor said, “The more you believe, the harder it is.”
Wow. That’s all too true! Love that analogy.
My pastor just preached moments ago on John 17. The Trinity is an essential-the essential-Christian doctrine. Not interested in debate on this point. And that was not the point of the video.
I would really like to know what the perfect Russian translation, the perfect Chinese translation, the perfect Swahili translation, etc., are. What are the equivalents of the KJV in those languages? Or are English-speakers the only people graced with a perfect translation?
I find that our KJV-Only brothers are very confused on this question, and that they hardly ever address it.
@@markwardonwords Right. I've been a Christian for 25 years, and I was born, raised and lived in Puerto Rico until about 3 years ago (2020). In 22 years of a Christian life and experience almost exclusively in Spanish, only ONCE did I hear a single person tell me the Reina Valera 1960 was The Bible as opposes to the NTV(Nueva Traducción Viviente, which one of my youths at church was using). This lady said "she should read it as it says it here..." Poking her Bible with her finger "this is The Bible"
I said "well, so is this. This is a contemporary Spanish translation of The Bible. The reason she's more comfortable reading that is because she has had no Christian/Biblical exposure up until a few months ago, it's not 1960 and this is not Spain, at least not anymore"
She didn't say anything after that, but she was visibly annoyed.
It's been the only time I've run into this in a non English non KJV context.
Then in 2020 I move to the States and although I already knew about the KJVonly movement through social media, I was so mindblown 🤯 to see how prevalent it is -and as I mentioned in another comment the irony of the movement being so American and so protestant.
I wonder if the KJV-Onlyists (who believe that the English of 1611 is “even more inspired” than the original languages) are planning to come out with a “more inspired, KJV-equivalent” Hebrew and Greek!
@@KateGladstone Yikes! I hope not.
It’s funny I just started learning Hebrew and a Jot and Tittle isn’t even a Greek thing. It’s a Hebrew thing. So it can’t be talking about the textus receptus because Jesus was referring to the Old Testament as written in Hebrew.
Your point of mountains having multiple slopes (right AND left) was worth the price of admission alone (alongside the very apt last two minutes with your b-b gun analogy) - well done my friend 🙂
Many thanks, Dustin!
Thank you, Mark for your dedication to biblical truth in interpretation.
Thank you! Please pray for me!
Dude that was a great video. Good job man
Glad you enjoyed it!
Great video, Mark! I’ve never heard a reverse argument of a slippery slope!
Fallen and finite humans can find lots of ways to err!
Brother, as a Ruckmanite, this may be my favorite video yet. And just the format, the question itself, makes me wonder if these are the things we should be humbly warning each other of, not the doctrinal stand itself. I often find myself, when teaching a doctrinal passage in church, explaining "why this important" or why this seemingly obscure-to-everyday-life doctrine actually should matter to them, beyond head knowledge or interesting info. I wonder if we can say that the "why it matters" part of the sermon is what we should be convincing each other of, instead of the doctrine itself. If you were introducing this subject to a random church, why would you tell them "it matters" to watch out for KJV people?
For example, instead of warning the people not to be KJV only, maybe you're really concerned about divisiveness. So if I listened, and agreed I do not want to ever make it a matter of division, but rather something we teach but will not divide over, would you be less concerned about me being KJV? What if we went through each issue you had with my position, and addressed the practical "why it matters" issue instead of the doctrine? Can I hold to my position if I guard my heart in these areas?
Because I also feel that I could break down my grievances into practical "why it matters" that I disagree with you on your stance on plurality of versions. I am worried of postmodernism creeping into the churches. I am worried that this gives a pastor a chance to set himself us an interpretive layer between the text and the pew. I am worried about the erosion of a final authority, for "everyone reads that which is right in their own eyes."
I know you care for those things, too. If we could get agreement on addressing those issues, I would not divide with you over the version itself. I would just think you are using a less perfect, mostly correct but corrupted in some places, yet inspired word of God.
I will disagree with Mark, here, but in general, no, I think if one argues the English text is perfect, one has already stepped over a line into heresy, (as it implies God didn't inspire the Bible correctly the first time). I would generally warn people to avoid KJO churches, even TRO churches, because usually that is not only an issue in itself, but it is a marker for a church that has other problems in their hermeneutic, and frankly it follows a pharisaical approach to Christian ethics, they espouse an IFB 'tradition of the elders.' I say the same of churches using Bill Gothard's material.
Where I differ from Mark here, is the KJO position is probably closer to the bottom of the slope rather than the top. As C S Lewis noted, heresies and errors come in 2s, there were not only gnostic, but ebiointes in the second century. And that doesn't mean KJO guys aren't saved, some heresies do pull along believers, but ruckmanites should be expelled from associations for the same reasons we expell post-modernists.
Also, the fear of post-modernism in terms of translations shows a misunderstanding of post-modernism. In some senses, Ruckmanites tradition of the elders better conforms to the post-modern epistemology than does someone Mark. That is, it finds meaning not in the text, but in the tradition around the text (at least in IFB KJOs where the tradition appears to be the ultimate foundation of the position).
@@kevinshort2230 I don't think that most KJVOs hold a position that would suggest that the Bible needed to be re-inspired. However, when modern Bible translators are accused of being evil, I think back to a passage from Mark 3.22-30 (which I will provide in both the KJV and the CEB for variety's sake):
And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils. And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan? And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end. No man can enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house. Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: but he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.
The legal experts came down from Jerusalem. Over and over they charged, “He’s possessed by Beelzebul. He throws out demons with the authority of the ruler of demons.” When Jesus called them together he spoke to them in a parable: “How can Satan throw Satan out? A kingdom involved in civil war will collapse. And a house torn apart by divisions will collapse. If Satan rebels against himself and is divided, then he can’t endure. He’s done for. No one gets into the house of a strong person and steals anything without first tying up the strong person. Only then can the house be burglarized. I assure you that human beings will be forgiven for everything, for all sins and insults of every kind. But whoever insults the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven. That person is guilty of a sin with consequences that last forever.” He said this because the legal experts were saying, “He’s possessed by an evil spirit.”
@M.A. Moreno I'm sure they don't realize the ramifications, but the ending of the Revelation, and a few other passages I won't go into now clearly does leave one in a position where the logically must affirm a reinspiration view if they are going to argue the KJV, or any other English version is perfect. One cannot argue from the facts that the KJV is a perfect translation without holding to a Ruckmanite position.
@@kevinshort2230 This is a common misunderstanding of the Ruckmanite position. I think it's because we don't define things the same way, so we talk past each other:
On Inspiration:
You: believe God breathed the words out and the authors put them down, thus the only words of God are the ones God spoke.
We: believe God breathed out some of the words ("thus saith the Lord") but also that men wrote, guided by the Holy Spirit, and that the Spirit indwells the finished product.
Thus you think of inspiration as an event, and we think of it as a state of being. The KJV wasn't breathed out by God, it was breathed INTO by God.
On Perfection:
You: believe that in order for a copy or translation to be perfect, it would have to match the exact shapes of the words in the autograph.
We: believe that to be perfect scriptures, they have to be faithful to the received word (message) before us, and they must, when pressed for meaning, reveal the word (message).
Thus you think the words only degrade over time, the further you get from the original event. We think the words have gotten better over time at expressing the word, occasionally picking up bits and pieces that only improve the clarity of the original message. In short, God can use different shapes of words to represent the word, and when the new words used, after whatever language shift or translation occurs, express the word, they become God's very words for those people, indwelled by the spirit of God and can be called perfect.
This is the Ruckmanite view. I believe if you'll look at it honestly, instead of misrepresenting it, you'll see it is very congruent with how the Bible actually treats and talks about itself.
@Wesley Commons ah so your root problem is you fail to understand the law of identity. This approach is closer to thst of the Catholic views of the magesterium.
Inspiration in orthodox Christianity is the process of writing without error, yes God uses men and their vocabularies, but what you espouse is still heresy.
Of course, I could assert on these grounds the anglo-catholics perverted Tyndale's 1534 edition (a translation I prefer to the KJV), or the Geneva on the same grounds. That is, assigning it to the KJV is a rather arbitrary claim.
"I feel most at home preaching, but with an extra bit of nerdiness thrown in. Often... a linguistically tinged nerdiness." Hahahaha Yup! There's a reason I enjoy your work and friendship so much. :D
Likewise!
So my friend, final thought after interacting with some of your interlocutors. This was well done, though I would submit perhaps that the KJO position is closer to the bottom than to the top of the slope, the tendency of IFB to create Baptist popes and Magisters seems to be the top of the slope and the types of hermeneutics you discussed a few months ago. KJOism seems to protect prooftexts. I remember Dr Bell's analogy, but I came to think he had it backwards, KJO thinking arises as an abductive attempt to justify that tradition. But your work is good, nonetheless.
I hope and will pray that people will listen, and be freed.
Thought-provoking, Kevin! You may be right. I don't think my model is the only possible read.
I learned a lot from my KJVO friends. The point where I had to part with them was when they were so vicious (yes, I had to dig and carefully consider what word would do) so VICIOUS to genuine Christians who translated, or even simply used, translations like the NASB, ESV, or CSB. Advocate the translation you find the 'best' as you may define it, but don't assume for yourself the position of Pope of Bible versions such that you may excommunicate anyone who doesn't hold to your position.
Yes, that is an appropriate adjective for many (not all) KJVOs. Mostly men, I think.
Yes, same!!
@@markwardonwords I agree - not all are so contrary. However, one of my best friends from high school was a student of Ruckman's at Pensacola Bible Institute, so I saw that kind of thing first hand. I've read some of his books, and he laid it on pretty thick.
This is one of my main problems with extreme KJV-Onlyism. The translators of other versions will outright villainized. It's one thing to discuss why one's preference would be for a rendering in the KJV, or why certain manuscripts should be preferred. It's quite another to imply or even outright state that any other way of translating the text had sinister motives behind it.
Lord, please keep me humble when I criticize my brothers in Christ. Give me the wisdom to know when to speak and when to be silent. Above all, Lord, make me stand and not slide into false doctrine. Thank you Lord for the errors that you have shown me in my own life, and given me the strength to adjust so that I am more in line with your commands. May everyone be given the same strength and humility.
Amen.
When I was growing up, I had learned that perfect doctrine was important. We all agreed on every interpretation of the Bible as far as I knew. Anyone who disagreed was little more than a heretic in fact. I wasn't very rebellious, so I didn't understand the counter culture that grew around me including friends of mine. I think in some ways they went to far in their rebellion, but in many places, now, looking back, do I realize they had several good points. I have the same realizations politically. I used to think history was white and black, but looking back I now see where people I wouldn't normally agree with fighting a very good fight. I truly do feel like the scaled have been taken off my eyes, and the KJV issue was a major player in that.
Praise God. God help us all! I join you in that prayer.
I'm a "reformed ruckmanite" , Christianity is alot enjoyable after leaving that doctrine , however out of habit I still read from TR translations , ( king james , millenium bible and MEV ) . Nothing to do with doctrine just I've always read from the kjv so I stick with it .
More power to you, brother. It's Ruckmanism that's the problem, not the TR tradition.
My question to TR-only folks would be -- at what point did the TR become the perfect, inspired text? First off, when Erasmus of Rotterdam compiled the TR from the six Greek texts he had (we now have discovered nearly 6000 manuscripts or fragments), he was missing the last six verses of Revelation. In order to complete the TR, he back-translated these verses from the Latin Vulgate, which introduced 17 textual variants from the earlier Greek manuscripts that would be found later. Also, his first edition did not contain the Comma Johanneum, which he did not believe was inspired. And yet, from pressure by the Pope, he added it into later editions.
There were at least six editions of the TR, some coming after 1611. So, I ask again, which edition of the TR is the inspired version, and how do you account for the missing verses in Revelation?
I don’t know of anybody who believes “the TR” is the first edition of Erasmus.
@@yahrescues8993 That is my question exactly! At what point did the TR become inspired? Second edition? Third edition? Final edition?
@@BatMite19 The first edition wouldn’t be recognised as the TR. In one sense a logical fallacy is the idea of there being more than 1 of “the TR” by definition “the TR” requires one text that is received. I don’t think there is more than 1 TR. I think it is better to differentiate. On the one hand there is Scrivener which I would call “the TR” and on the other hand I would group the Protestant editions of the NT and call them exactly that, Protestant editions of the NT.
I think Christian McShaffrey is the only TR defender after Hills that I've encountered who has really tried to answer the "Which TR?" question. He has a recent video on the Trinitarian Bible Society channel that's taken from an address he gave.
@@yahrescues8993 Wait: so the "received text" was received by retroactively determining the preferred readings of the English translators? At that point, can't we just claim that the true Textus Receptus is _The Greek New Testament: Being the Text Translated in the New English Bible_ (Oxford UP, 1964)?
Surely the received text would have to be a text that someone received before translating it...
A good example of what you’re describing here comes in a recent advertisement from David Cloud for his book “Things hard to be understood.” Cloud, who has an entire book refuting Ruckman, said in the ad, "One unique feature of this volume is that it contains no criticism of the King James Bible. We don’t believe that it has any errors and we do not believe that any correction of it is necessary to solve the alleged contradictions and other difficulties." I can’t see how this is not affirming the perfect translation view of Ruckman.
Right!
I have trouble with Spanish / English translations for the same reasons; languages don't always have a one to one word relationship and those differences can change regionally.
Right!
Outstanding!
Many thanks!
We will be playing cricket not frisbee!
NOO!!!
I'm sure C.T. Stubb already booked the cricket pitch years ago! Cricket is actually a good analogy for the Church and Christian life. I did a talk on it for our Christian Network at work once. If you can do the same for Ultimate Frisbee we'll have a game after the Cricket match has concluded...😂
Oh no, Cricket onlyism. 😅
9:12 - what if you find out that heaven's main recreation is a choice between disc golf, or pickle ball? 🧐
Hear! Hear! Well spoken! I especially agree: 31:25 on relativizing Paul. 🙏🙂📖
Right!
Dr Ward I just received a copy of Authorized and tore through it in one sitting. Very well written and useful! I have never been in a KJVO environment but have some friends who have gotten into Ruckmanism and I have been learning about this mindset even though it always seemed odd to me. At any rate I've learned a lot from your channel and now your book and I have also taken seriously your suggestion to not be a version tribalist. Thanks for your ministry.
Thank you for the kind words! I'm honored! If you care to leave a review at Amazon or Goodreads or Christian Book, that helps get the word out!
Forgive me if I choose not to play Ultimate Frisbee in heaven.
"Infernus aeterna company picnic est." - Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part IV
Te absolvo.
Slippery slope? 5:34 this is what it sounds like at the bottom of the cliff.
Slightly off topic but relevant to your channel in general. Is there a reason why the KJV translators seem to mix up translating the Greek words for Son and Children? They consistently seem to get them wrong. Just a curiosity I noted as reading.
Examples?
@@markwardonwords
Sure,
1 John 3:2; John 1:12; Gal 3:26
I may be wrong or unaware of some nuance.
@@ejwoods2457 William Tyndale translated _τέκνα_ as "sons" in 1 John 3.1-2 (though not in verse 10, strangely enough). Perhaps he was influenced by the older translation by John Wycliffe, which had used "sons" as a gloss for the Vulgate's _filli._ It's the same in John 1.12, where Tyndale glossed _τέκνα_ as "sons" just as Wycliffe had glossed _filios_ as "sons." Coverdale tried to change these glosses to "children" in his 1535 edition, but he reverted to "sons" in the 1539 Great Bible.
In Galatians 3.26, we find Wycliffe using "children" for _filli,_ while Tyndale uses "sons" for _υἱοὶ._ With Coverdale's 1535 and 1539 Bibles, we see a reversion to "children," and it's this term that the Bishops' Bible and KJV retain. Thus, the KJV is consistent with Wycliffe's translation from Latin in each of these cases. Why the Wycliffe Bible made the choices it did is less clear.
@@MAMoreno
Thanks brother.
Excellent answer.
@@MAMoreno
The NKJV seems to clean it up. Of course, ASV cleans these discrepancies up. I wish someone would publish a nice edition of the ASV again. Perhaps, Schuyler?
Most translations are nice
Yup!
@11:38 Jesus is most likely quoting Deut 8:3 in the Septuagint. There, God in the Greek is used instead of LORD in the Hebrew. Over 2/3 of OT quotes in the NT are closer, if not exact, to the Septuagint than the Hebrew.
I agree, Jesus most likely quoted from the septuagint, but all of the discovered fragments of the LXX from the time of Jesus and older show that the divine name was still written in the LXX text. It's a good possibility Jesus used it, actually saying his Father's name. John 17:26
Good comment.
@@markwardonwords Thanks. Always one for digging deeper. :)
Let the Holy Spirit lead!
I will read any translation that I feel Holy Spirit led to read.
I always like to point out how ironic the fact that KJVonlyism is so American and so protestant is.
If you get why this is so ironic, my respect to you. 😄
I've heard King James onlyists literally tell me my non English speaking family and friends, are following a false gospel and a false Christ because they're not using the KJV.
I don't think (at least I would like to think) this is something an actually learned person in the KJVonly side would say. Without offense, I think comments like these come from ignorance and Biblical illiteracy on various points (not just theology), which to me at least, massively highlights one of the biggest issues of King James totalitarianism, as far as the avarage King James onlyist is concerned. I think this is one of those slopes of extremism many unfortunately fall into.
May God continue to bless you and your ministry. Keep the videos coming! 👏🙏
Yeah, I've found KJV-Onlyism to be a primarily American thing. I have yet to hear tell of a British KJV-Onlyist (most likely because the KJV isn't in the public domain in the UK, making the arguments for it less valid there).
Ask those KJV-only pals of yours (who believe that anyone who doesn’t speak English is reading a false Bible because the KJV is in English): “How are you different from the many Muslims who think that the Qur’an can only be properly read and understood in Arabic?”
All of the promises for preservation of the scriptures apply only towards the originals and to the Hebrew and Greek texts
Agreed.
I live in the United States - born and raised here - so please don’t infer from my illustration that I think of myself as conservative but my favorite way of illustrating the danger described here is that of driving a vehicle on the right side of a graded gravel road and staying to the right of the center of the road - especially when there is oncoming traffic. The road service may LOOK the same all the way to the edge of any gavel a driver may see but be soft enough a foot from the edge of that gravel that letting the right-side wheels get that close to the edge may result in the wheels sinking into the gravel enough to cause the vehicle to “pull to the right”. Depending on the speed of the vehicle, how soft the gravel is nearest to the ditch and the experience of the driver, there is a tendency to “overcorrect” - which can put the vehicle in the path of oncoming vehicles or even into the ditch on the other side of the road.
We are not saved by our theology but theology can help us to avoid making “mistakes”, especially when trying to explain our understanding of the gospel to others.
When my dad was a boy, his mother was a papist. She enrolled him in catechism classes and I think he was as diligent a catechumen as ever was. Dad’s father (my grandfather), however, was Lutheran. Dad said his parents never argued about religion but his dad read the Bible aloud to the whole family every day. My dad’s religious education also included quite a lot of what he learned from observing the practices of the Hebrews in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. My grandfather was the caretaker of the Hebrew cemetery. He was paid mere pennies for his work of digging graves and caring for the lawns but his “benefits” included a three-room house on the cemetery grounds and enough room for a large vegetable garden.
Before Dad was thirty, he, his two brothers and their mother each probably had their own reasons but Dad later said his primary reason to stop calling himself “Catholic” was that he could not continue to subscribe to the doctrine that laity needed the clergy to interpret the Bible for them. By the time I was a boy myself (in the 1940s and 50s), Dad had studied the Bible enough to become convinced that the reason members of the Sanhedrin had demanded that Pilate have Jesus crucified was because they were relying primarily on centuries of rabbinical interpretation of the Hebrew Bible instead of making the Bible itself the primary focus of their study.
Even in the twenty-first century, many Lutherans differ from papists about which traditions to observe but tend to rely on Lutheran traditions more than on scripture. About 2006, one such Lutheran told me, “No doctrine is important unless Luther (the sixteenth century reformer) taught it.”
There is much to admire about the New England puritans of the seventeenth century. A person could live in one of their settlements for years without hearing an oath, seeing a drunkard or meeting a beggar. According to the UA-cam video, “Puritans (The Killjoys of History)”, the seventeenth century puritans banned:
Swearing,
Drinking,
Dancing,
Theater,
Christmas,
Confession (to a priest),
The sale of indulgences,
Pilgrimages (as a means of obtaining merit or favor with God),
Prayers directed to “saints” (people who had died and had been beatified),
Clerical vestments,
Kneeling to receive the bread of the Lord’s supper,
and, at least in some circumstances, making the sign of the cross.
It would have been appropriate for the puritans to discipline members who failed to live by that list of prohibitions, i.e. it would have been appropriate to not allow such “heretics” to vote or hold office in a puritan congregation. If someone persisted in doing the things that were forbidden, it would have been appropriate for the puritans to remove that person’s name from the membership roles.
The puritans didn’t stop at that, however. Instead, a person (presumably only the men) could be fined for failure to bring a gun to Sunday services, incineration, the pillory, the stocks and public whippings were employed to deal with other offenses. Banishment from the puritan colonies was reserved for people who persisted in teaching anything the majority disapproved. That happened in at least two documented cases.
A few years ago, a lady in New England was so impressed with my knowledge of the Bible that she suggested to me privately that “we” should prohibit merchants from opening their stores on Sundays and prohibit professional sporting events on Sundays. In the United States, most people would consider that lady to be “conservative”.
In the modern political state of Israel, however, someone making that same suggestion would not be considered conservative AT ALL!
Most of the people who profess Christianity in southern Europe would not consider the puritans prohibition of the celebration of Christmas to be “conservative”.
So if we wish to avoid the slippery slope (on almost any topic) and avoid the ditches on BOTH sides of the road, may I suggest one way to do that is to avoid all forms of coercion. Avoid legislating morality. Avoid imposing civil penalties on people with whom we disagree about lifestyle issues. Avoid calling for boycotts. AND take those precautions regardless of where we stand on any particular issue. The worship of the universe or Mother Earth or the goddess of Reason are as surely religions as monotheistic religions ever were. The “ethics” of those religions should be subject to the same limitations as our Constitution imposes on theists. No legislation. No boycotts. And no urging civil government entities or agencies to enforce our prohibitions.
(I should note my biases up front: I'm coming at this topic as a Baptist. Traditions with differing views on the presence of a state church will likely disagree.)
There is certainly some danger in trying to politicize Christianity. (Of course, "Everything is political," but not everything has to be conflated with American partisan politics.) It's hard to parse for certain how much of the decline in Christianity among Millennials and Gen Z is the result of a culture forsaking its traditional morals and how much is the result of political conservatives trying to wield the state's power to enforce those traditional morals. It's too reductive to blame it all on certain evangelical pastors of the last 40 to 50 years, but it's irresponsible to overlook certain flagrant violations of the Establishment Clause.
The question that American evangelicalism has had to ask itself is this: would sympathy toward LGBT people in America be so strong if red states had not tried to pass reactionary marriage acts to block civil rights that were obviously (if implicitly) guaranteed by the Constitution? Or would the nation's attitude have remained apathetic otherwise: "Don't ask; don't tell"? Kids who grew up using "gay" as a slur during the Clinton administration found themselves turning into young adult "gay allies" once the passive discrimination became active discrimination. The tide shifted much faster in response to these marriage bans than it had in response to the initial adoption of same-sex marriages in Massachusetts.
However, corporate boycotts are a different matter. That's a grassroots reaction rather than an abuse of state power. If you choose to avoid drinking a Bud Light in response to the recent controversy, you're not oppressing anyone. You're simply expressing your sincere convictions (though one may wonder how many cheap domestic beers you can pound down before you have to relent casting the first stone). So too, it's one thing for a congregation to call for a ban on trans rights in the legal sphere, but it's another for the congregation to say that certain Bible-based ethics must be upheld by its members to remain in good standing.
The separation of church and state--a core principal of my Baptist heritage, which was born of the English Separatists--must always go both ways. The church must have the right to hold to its own beliefs within its own doors, no matter how unpopular those beliefs may be. But it must also recognize where the Free Exercise Clause allows for, well, free exercise of beliefs.(It's manifestly true that Fred Phelps was a worse Christian than Jerry Falwell, but one might dare to argue that he was in some ways a better Baptist! Shameful public demonstrations are still more separatist in spirit than political lobbying, and an obnoxious personal opinion might be considered less problematic than a systemic discriminatory effort.)
Nota Bene: The issue is more complex in regards to a topic such as abortion. When the opposing sides can't even agree on who is or isn't a proper human being with the basic right to live, the state will inevitably be involved. No matter how you feel about the topic, you should have no trouble recognizing why it hasn't been brushed off as a simple dispute over personal ethics. (I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that the Southern Baptist Convention initially agreed with Roe v. Wade's view on the matter, but the separatist argument was eventually deemed inadequate to deal with the implications of widespread abortion on demand.)
@@MAMoreno You captured the essence of my position when you wrote, “.....it's one thing for a congregation to call for a ban on trans rights in the legal sphere, but it's another for the congregation to say that certain Bible-based ethics must be upheld by its members to remain in good standing.”
May I guess that you may be living (or your ancestors lived) in states that were once Anglican colonies where baptists were persecuted? The reason I wonder about that is because I’ve conversed with baptists in states farther west (Michigan and Utah) who were strongly opposed to the concept of “separation of church and state”.
The establishment clause means very different things to different people. Some people insist that it means ONLY that no civil government can create a state or national “church” organization funded by people’s taxes.
You are free to differ with me on this next point if you wish. It is only a theory. I have no way of “proving” it to anyone’s satisfaction. But I think the great clamor for the government to define “marriage” as the union of two people regardless of their sex would either not have occurred at all or would have occurred several decades later than it did if it hadn’t been for traditionalists’ effort to give married hetrosexyal couples legal/financial advantages that didn’t apply to same sex partners until the government redefined “marriage”.
If I have a favorite adult beverage (I don’t - I’m a teetotaler), and if I decide to not drink that brand anymore because I disagree with the brewer’s religious or political views, I wouldn’t call that a boycott, no matter how many other people do the same thing. I only think of such a thing as a boycott when someone begins urging other people to stop buying the product.
This afternoon, I had an interesting conversation with a clergyman who thinks of himself as conservative, both theologically and politically and who makes no effort to disguise the fact that he preaches a political gospel. He is the pastor of the building across the parking lot from where my wife and I live. He and I have worked together to provide music and inspiration for the elderly residents of an assisted living center.
He told me he was thinking of going, next week, to the state capital to participate in a show of opposition against a bill that would reduce abortion restrictions in our state. (I’m sorry for using multiple negatives in one sentence but I’m not sure how else to explain it.)
He and I agree that not one dime of taxpayer money should ever be used to pay for abortions - not here or in any other state in the nation - but he has been operating on the premise that life begins at conception because he is aware of some Bible texts that he considers as supporting that premise. He said, before today, he had never even considered any evidence that a) the premise that life begins at conception has not always been a doctrine of of the Roman Church and b) observant Hebrews, as recently as a half century ago, actually taught that, under some circumstances, a woman was obligated to seek an abortion.
Personally, I’m philosophically opposed to elective abortion. I’ve never recommended that a woman have an abortion and I can’t imagine any circumstance under which I would recommend that. It is not, however, because I believe it is a biblical doctrine that life begins at conception.
I’m opposed to imposing strict prohibitions against abortion (or almost anything else) when the proponents of such prohibitions argue from a) ecclesiastical “authority” or b) whatever scriptures are considered sacred by the advocates of a prohibition.
@@rogermetzger7335 I don't live in one of the thirteen colonies, though I'm aware of the history of Rhode Island. 😉I know the "No True Scotsman" argument is a faulty one, but I do feel that anyone who supports the integration of church and state is on very shaky ground as a Baptist. They're still congregationalist credobaptists who practice immersion, but the same could be said of your typical Disciples of Christ or their instrument-resisting church of Christ counterparts, two groups with no historical ties to the Separatists in Jacobean England, but rather to the theological free-for-all of the American frontier during the Second Great Awakening.
As an aside, I've yet to see anyone comment on the irony that King James Only Baptists rely on a translation that bears the name of the man who stuck the co-founder of the Baptist movement in prison to die. To be fair, some of them trace Baptist history back to the radical Anabaptists . . . who were censured in the 1571 Anglican Articles of Religion for being dirty proto-Commies. The other co-founder did go off and join the Anabaptists eventually, but this view is challenged by the earliest Particular Baptist confession from 1644, which explicitly says that Baptists "are commonly (though falsly) called ANABAPTISTS."
The revised 1646 edition of that same confession had this to say on the matter of church and state:
*The supreme magistracy of this kingdom we acknowledge to be the king and parliament (now established) freely chosen by the kingdom, and that we are to maintain and defend all civil laws and civil officers made by them, which are for the good of the commonwealth. And we acknowledge with thankfulness, that God hath made this present king and parliament honorable in throwing down the prelatical hierarchy, because of their tyranny and oppression over us, under which this kingdom long groaned, for which we are ever engaged to bless God, and honor them for the same. And concerning the worship of God; there is but one lawgiver, which is able to save and destroy, James 4:12; which is Jesus Christ, who hath given laws and rules sufficient in His word for His worship; and for any to make more, were to charge Christ with want of wisdom, or faithfulness, or both, in not making laws enough, or not good enough for His house: Surely it is our wisdom, duty, and privilege, to observe Christ's laws only, Ps 2:6,9,10,12.*
*So it is the magistrates duty to tender the liberty of mens' consciences, Eccles. 8:8 (which is the tenderest thing unto all conscientious men, and most dear unto them, and without which all other liberties will not be worth the naming, much less enjoying) and to protect all under them from all wrong, injury, oppression and molestation; so it is our duty not to be wanting in nothing which is for their honor and comfort, and whatsoever is for the wellbeing of the commonwealth wherein we live; it is our duty to do, and we believe it to be our express duty, especially in matters of religion, to be fully persuaded in our minds of the lawfulness of what we do, as knowing whatsoever is not of faith is sin. And as we cannot do anything contrary to our understandings and consciences, so neither can we forebear the doing of that which our understandings and consciences bind us to do. And if the magistrate should require us to do otherwise, we are to yield our persons in a passive way to their power, as the saints of old have done, James 5:4. And thrice happy shall he be, that shall lose his life for witnessing (though but for the least tittle) of the truth of the Lord Jesus Christ, 1 Pet. 5; Gal. 5.*
In short, "We will obey your laws until you try to force us to stop being Baptists. Then we'll accept being persecuted if need be."
@@MAMoreno Many historians (probably most) refer to the protestant reformation as having occurred in the sixteenth century.
I don’t object to people thinking or speaking of the protestant reformation as having BEGUN in the sixteenth century but, to me, to be truly protestant is to be open to the adoption of new reforms, especially in the sixteenth century and onward - including the present. I don’t particularly think of myself as a “reformer” because I don’t pretend to know what new reforms should be adopted by twenty-first century Christians but I’m a “radical” protestant in the sense of being opposed to the ways creedalism and traditionalism stifle true exploration of scripture.
Desiring “religious liberty” (defined as freedom from coercion with regard to religious beliefs and religious practice) for oneself is different from desiring religious liberty for everyone. The puritans in seventeenth century New England wanted religious liberty for themselves but Roger Williams wanted it for everyone. Williams was a protestant by my preferred definition.
Our parents encouraged my siblings and me to admire various historical figures, perhaps few more than Roger Williams. Because our parents never (to my knowledge) defined the protestant reformation as having occurred in the sixteenth century, I “always” considered Williams to be among the most important of the protestant reformers. I was aware that, for a time at least, Williams considered himself baptist, so I was astonished in 2006 when I discovered that one of my co-workers considered herself baptist but not protestant.
About a decade ago, I discovered that the baptists in a town in Michigan had a small orchestra that accompanied their congregational singing. I thought I needed the practice, so I managed to get myself invited to attend their orchestra rehearsals. After a month or so - and although I’ve never considered myself baptist - I started playing my violin during the baptist worship services. I discovered that the pastor of that congregation wasn’t as manipulative and wasn’t as dogmatic as many of the baptists I had known previously, which meant that it was easier for me to think of that pastor as being “more protestant”. I continued to attend baptist services about twice a month - and play in the orchestra - until 2006 when we moved to Maine.
So far, I’ve only attended the worship services of a few baptist congregations in Maine but most of the baptist pastors here seem both manipulative and dogmatic enough that I wouldn’t be inclined to invite anyone to hear them preach.
I was thinking of researching where exactly in what is now Rhode Island Roger Williams was instrumental in organizing a baptist congregation, whether that congregation has existed from then until now or whether, if not, there might be a baptist congregation in that town today. You seem more knowledgeable about baptist history than most people of my acquaintance. Do you happen to know?
@@rogermetzger7335 First Baptist Church in America (Providence, RI) is still very much around. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it is more progressive in its perspective than many of the Baptist churches that followed it here. It is currently affiliated with the American Baptist Churches USA, formerly known as the Northern Baptist Convention.
The current pastor, Jamie Washam, is strongly opposed to Christian nationalism: www.providencejournal.com/story/opinion/2020/10/08/opinionwasham-confronting-perils-of-christian-nationalism/114246626/
(Naturally, many members of her former denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, would take issue with her being a pastor of any church, but some of them at least would be inclined to agree with her on the separation of church and state.)
For anyone with more conservative leanings, there's also the United Baptist Church in Newport, RI, which is the second-oldest Baptist church in the United States.
Wow, you're fired on all cylinders. 🚗
24:02 “susceptible to narrow influences” - that struck me as very insightful!
I thought so, too. Learned in odd circumstances, but a good lesson.
Certainty is the destroyer of faith trust and hope. Forget about certainty and follow christ because he loves you.❤
I am certain Christ loves me! But I don't have equal certainty about every doctrinal postulate, because the Bible doesn't warrant it.
@Mark Ward I love that you are certain of Christ love for you ❤️
I pray that you continue not to be ideologically possessed hallelujah.
Pastor Norris Belcher of Church of the Open Door in Maryland often makes a mockery of Greek and Hebrew. Look up his famous sermon: “Shut up, you don't speak Greek!" He had everyone raise their hand that had taken Greek. He then asked if any of them could say, "I'm going to McDonald's to buy a hamburger." He then made fun of them for not being able to say it in Greek (of course he didn't tell you that the words "McDonalds" and"hamburger" never existed in Koine Greek). He tried to mock preachers that "go to the Greek," because "the KJV has a built-in dictionary." The example he gave of a built-in dictionary made no sense. He said that Strong's dictionary is wrong in about 80% of what it says. In other sermons, he equates the ESV and NIV with “gay bibles” and calls them perversions. I’ve heard members of his church call the NIV the “Non-Inspired-Version" or (and this is disgusting) "the HIV.” They call the ESV “extra stupid version” etc.
A couple more interesting tidbits:
- Belcher’s latest rhetorical device is “there are 400 versions of the Bible, but only one can be the true version.” Of course this is the same rhetoric of some Catholics: if there is only one true church why is there 40,000 Protestant denominations?
- Belcher will state that dropping KJO leads to men “not wearing suits and ties, and ladies not wearing skirts.” I wasn’t aware modern-day suits, ties and skirts were mentioned in the KJV. Pretty sure 1950s American fashions did not exist in 33-100 AD.
- Belcher will also link leaving KJO to contemporary music: “That’s when they bring electric guitars in.” Yet his church uses pianos, which like electric guitars, were musical instruments not yet invented in biblical times and thus unmentioned in the KJV. His church also uses acoustic guitars which they place near microphones. I’m no physics major but amplified sound is amplified sound.
- I wonder how much of above is just typical cult strategy: the more ridiculous the illogical contradictions, the more effective the gaslighting, the more power to the leadership.
Yes, this is egregious. I've heard that message. =(
It’s very ironic that Belcher says dropping that KJV will lead to “men not wearing suits and ties, and ladies not wearing skirts”: when you consider that the KJV was commissioned by, and is named after, a man who not only wore nothing we would recognize today as a men’s suit or tie, but who very probably DID wear (at least on occasion.) what very many people nowadays would call a “skirt.” (Remember that King James was a Scot!)
It is interesting that the scripture used by Jesus, the apostles, and the first Christians was the LXX. It is my understanding that they did not use or understand Hebrew at that time. The language of the land was Aramaic and Greek. If the NT authors was ok with using LXX even if it did not match the Masoretic text in every jot and tilda, how can we justify elevating a specific version?! God’s message comes through.
(1 Corinthians 2:11 KJV) For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
(1 Corinthians 2:12 KJV) Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
(1 Corinthians 2:13 KJV) Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
(1 Corinthians 2:14 KJV) But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1 Cor. 2.11-14 MEV:
*For what man knows the things of a man, except the spirit of man which is in him? Likewise, no one knows the things of God, except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God, so that we might know the things that are freely given to us by God. These things also we proclaim, not in the words which man’s wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.*
1 Cor. 2.11-14 NKJV:
*For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.*
1 Cor. 2.11-14 Webster's Bible:
*For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God; that we may know the things that are freely given to us by God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Spirit teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness to him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.*
Personally, I use LSB and LEB. But I read the Bible in its original languages.
How can I learn those languages?
@clouds There are courses that teach you those languages.
See:
Hebrewpod 101.
Greekpod101.
Duolingo.
Daily dose of Aramaic
Daily dose of Greek.
Daily dose of Hebrew.
Rosetta Stone.
I 100% lean very heavily almost to the far right(which I believe in our modern times is the true Christian position). And i use multiple translations. Kjv, nkjv, nasb, esv, niv, nlt. I bounce between them and compare them.
What ditches do you see on the right side of the road, Micah?
Micah Watz- I am with you Brother, more than just the lesser of evils, the radical Left has taken their side of Christendom down a very dark and destructive path. I fear God, and fail to understand why those that hate Him perpetrate the fraud of being one of His children.
@@markwardonwords many negative aspects of the right wing. Im sure you know them. We all do. But when the pendulum swings so far to the left, we must go right. But not embrace the very aspects were are upset with on the left. Racism, murder, ruthlessness, devalued human life, ect. Im talking about embracing the Godly, good aspects of the right wing. And being firm in them. God, Society, family. But if we were in a society where the right was too heavy handed, i would lean left. There are virtues of leftism, theyre very caring, concerned with justice, those are fine, both sides have positive and negative aspects. But as of the moment, Its firm Conservatism. Sorry i kind of got off track from the theme of the video lol.
Greek is not math! Amen, brother!
This what you find out once you finish learning NT Greek grammar and go into syntax!
Right!
They can only get to kjvo by assuming thst the tr is the only and best greek text but which tr and which kjv edition 1611 176p 1873?
I wonder if there were Geneva-only people back when the KJV came out.🤔 Don't turn a personal preference into an article of faith, there's nothing inherently holy about using outdated language that most people don't understand.
There in fact we’re. It took years for the KJV to gain standing among the Puritans because it was the Bible of the monarchy. The Geneva had notes that were very anti-monarchy.
Read the KJV preface and you will see that the spirit of KJV-Onlyism existed in 1611.
@@chadwilham3942 indeed, and before that the Catholics were saying that only the Latin Vulgate was authorized. They viewed anyone who translated the Bible into a common language as a heretic!
You know I love and appreciate you Mark even though we disagree on things and I am not a Calvinist .
However I believe and trust in your ministry, I will however say this.. the denomination of the church I go to does affirm women pastors yet we do not affirm homosexuality nor will we and if it ever got to that point I will leave.. I do not believe that this is a salvation issue though..
The women pastor thing..
I have been accused before just for being Wesleyan Arminian that I must affirm homosexuality.. which is unfortunately a fake news narrative that the United Methodist Church has popularized and made seem to be the common mindset of all who are Wesleyan Methodist..
However I would definitely rather have fellowship with the calvinist who believes in biblical marriage over any Wesleyan who is a progressive Christianity affirming person..
Right. And that's an important thing to say at the end there, brother.
We're staying with friends, and for the moment are attending their (de facto) KJV only church, and today encountered a "false friend", albeit one whose real definition is fairly discernible in the context of the entire passage. It's in Mat 19:23: "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, "Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven." In today's vernacular, being able to "hardly" enter would mean that it would be impossible to enter; in the passage of course, "hardly" means "with difficulty", or, something that would be "hard" to do.
Good catch! I like that!
I am into the greek and hebrew texts and nas esv but would lije to see a revised Kjv using Schrievers 1894 greek text as its textual basis and updated to modern phrasing
I find it absurd to think that a translation done by a group of men appointed by the king of England in the 17TH CENTURY into a language that an extremely small percentage of people has ever spoken - and in an archaic form - to be THE ONLY translation. By the time the KJV was done, Shakespeare had written Hamlet, Galileo had discovered the moons of Jupiter, the first English colony was established on American soil as well as the French colony in Quebec. Germany was already printing a newspaper. ALL of this BEFORE the KJV. KJV-onlyism is a myopic, distorted understanding of scripture and how God has preserved and sent out His Word to the world.
Yes. And yet many otherwise good people believe the doctrines of KJV-Onlyism. How do we reach them? By building on common ground, I think: by appealing to our mutual desire to understand God's word.
@@markwardonwords Yes, I believe you're right. You know what's ironic? I pretty much only use the KJV so as to avoid this pitfall. I think even a cursory view of biblical history ... even in the 2nd Temple Period is helpful.
In defense of at least the KJV-only people I know, while they reject other translations, very few of them are truly that committed to their position when pressed with facts like those I listed above....
@@indigatorveritatis8891 Yes, I'm grateful for their inconsistency. Sometimes when they treat me with courtesy despite having told me they believe I'm like Satan in the garden ("Yea, hath God said…?), I think their hearts know better than their heads.
@@markwardonwords I know the feeling. But in straight up debates, they wouldn't really make a point. Their beliefs are circular, they assume what they believe
Perhaps you’re aware of this already but there are some Baptist brethren who do believe we can interpret all things in the Bible with absolute certainty. They take 1 John 2:20 as their proof text.
I had not heard this. :(
Ah reckon for them to reverse course slippin' down the right side of that there slope, these KJV Only men need to remove the ruckman sack off their backsides and then start headin' up the hill again, where they could meet their mark center mass and ward off any of them high-velocity head winds that might be a-havin' them topplin' off the peak of scriptural inerrancy, glow-ry glow-ry hallelujah, His truth be a-marchin' on.
I use multiple different versions ESV kjv csb and niv and also nasb mainly the ESV and the csb and sometimes nlt
Excellent!
New versionism is a slippery slope
RV>ASV>NIV>ESV>
Passion translation> what’s next?
I have been highly critical of The Passion Translation. ua-cam.com/video/RXl_IljyRYo/v-deo.html
Honestly, who goes from the ESV to TPT? If you had said NIV>NLT>TPT, I would still think that's a bit unfair, but I could see where you were coming from. But if you're going RV>ASV, you're most likely going to land on the RSV or NASB next, and from there, you're probably going to move to the NRSV, ESV, or LSB. We could talk about the slippery slopes that might be associated with any of those translations, but it's probably not going to be the slippery slope to the New Apostolic Reformation in any of those cases. (If anything, KJV>TPT makes more sense simply because the KJV remains popular with many Pentecostal groups.)
@@MAMoreno the point that I’m making, is that over time, the “versions” have got worse and worse. The further we go, the further away from the truth they will get.
This has been predicted since the beginning of RV translation.
@@travisshaffer552 Joseph Smith's Inspired Version predates the Revised Version by 14 years. The Revised Version is not worse than the Inspired Version, nor are any of the major "Standard Versions" that followed its lineage. There will always be fringe translations that truly mess with the text, whether by the Latter Day Saints (IV), the Watch Tower Society (New World Translation), the Seventh-Day Adventists (Clear Word), or the New Apostolic Reformation (TPT).
@@MAMoreno Curious, and I see why some people would claim the Watch Tower Society's New World Translation a 'fringe translation' yet more and more of the recent evangelical versions have been lining themselves up closer to the NWT. While it could be understandable that some might view the NWT as 'fringe' it still has indeed help break the mold of translators patterning their bible translations from the KJV and may have even gotten some modern translators to think twice on how to translate certain passages.
I keep hearing the term "Ruckmanism" as a descriptive with a negative tone; however as yet have I not heard or read any scriptural refutation of a noted Ruckmanism.
Me thinks not, only KJV
Ha! About 20 people sent me that video!
Took me a second to realize what you did there ;)
The slippery slope that has been stood on for 400 years is not very slippery.
It seems like the mental gymnastics that it takes to make it OK to read other modern translations it’s just not something I’m willing to do. I find the argument that oldest is best when it comes to the original text(which, by the way is a fallacious) but for the translation, that’s not the case. At the time of writing, the epistles, the apostle Paul warned us about the false, gospels and prophets, if we found a text from that time of his writing, that would be the earliest that we have and if it’s one of the false Gospels, according to this logic, you would consider it closer to the nuances of what was actually said even if it was from a false gospel dated from that time. Again, it’s also fallacious to say the KJV is the best translation because of its antiquity. I myself am a TR man. I have no problems with reading other translations that’s not KJV but only if it comes from the TR. and as I’m sure your motives are pure, it is just very unfortunate timing to decide to wage a crusade against KJV onlyism when we have liberals trying to make changes to our public schools and to society. Sorry friend but, you’re getting lumped into that side. We don’t need new, we need God. And you sure spend a lot of time talking about a situation that you admit has no gospel relevance. And there’s not even considered a salvation issue by you. So why spend so much time talking about it? Why do you have the sincere commitment of a militant atheist about it? You know what I’m talking about, there’s no one more dedicated than a militant atheist. I’m sorry to say, even I fall short of the devotion that a militant atheist has. I do not mean to imply you’re atheist I just mean you’ve got that drive though man. I’m sure you’ve debated them and you have also been impressed by their devotion to their “no God stance”. But I guess you can only find out who you are by who you are not and you are at that age where you’re trying to find yourself or have just found yourself and you’re testing it against other positions. i’ll be praying that you get past this non-salvation issue, that way you can spend your media discussing sincere issues that are salvation issues. Praying for you and yours to. Have a blessed day.
When certain KJVO pastors insist that a person cannot be brought to true saving faith with a modern version, it is a salvation issue. When other pastors insist that a person cannot be properly sanctified with a modern version, it is still a salvation issue. Having begun in the Spirit, are we now made perfect by English literary tradition?
@Shannon Dann
Having formerly been in a KJV only circle, I disagree with your point of view. KJV onlyism causes problems and divisions. God hates those who sow discord. According to you, that's unimportant. Mark has not told people to throw away their KJV, but he is calling on KJV onlyists to stop demonizing other Christians and translations (let's face it, on either side of this we are merely taking someone's word on it, because the Bible doesn't give us a specific way to look at this issue). I think it is you that misunderstands the issue, though I agree with your stance against permissiveness. And the comments about this man (I don't know him) that he is just trying to find himself, as if he doesn't approach this as a matter of conviction, is unnecessary and unfortunate. Perhaps you are just trying to draw attention to yourself with your comments, I don't know (I can make assumptions too), but I think your understanding of this issue is lacking, and that your approach is uncharitable. Not that I've never needed to hear that too. I have.
Ergo Geneva 1599 predating the 1611 is a superior translation being older.
@@MAMorenoWhen the KJV gradually becomes as unintelligible (to future generations) as Hebrew or Greek, will the KJV-only pastors CONTINUE to say that salvation comes only through the KJV? Then, they will be indistinguishable from the Muslims (who believe that the Qur’an can only TRULY be believed and understood if it’s read in Arabic)
If there’s any “slippery slope“ that the KJB-only folks need to worry about, it is the slippery slope of the gradually ever-growing gap, from year to year, and century to century, between the KJV English and the English that we actually know and use. The KJV was once understood by all its readers and hearers. Then, by the 18th century, some notes had to be added, and some spellings had to be changed. (a verse in Job had “pransing” in 1611, where 200 years ago and at present it has “prancing”) - even the type fund had to be changed, once people people were no longer accustomed to read anything like the font that had originally been selected). Then more marginal notes were needed, then more and still more in each generation., to explain more and more words and idioms and phrases that have fallen away from our language at the present. Soon (I would estimate within 20 years), there will be a KJV-only church that finds it has to offer language lessons in KJV English, just as synagogues offer lessons in Hebrew & Hindu temples offer lessons and Sanskrit: so that the congregants can understand (if they wish) what they are reading! If the KJB only people want to talk about a slippery slope, let them talk about the one that they have long been snowballing down.
💣
Ha! Thank you!
18:05-22:39 - Not offering this as a correction, only as a confirmation: Steven Anderson of the New IFB believes in the existence of the Local Church, and denies the Universal Church; and I personally know of one church plant in northwest Iowa that teaches that as well. It is definitely proliferate, more so than it ought to be for us "Biblicists!"
It's a common belief with Landmark Baptists. It also contradicts the Nicene Creed, which is generally a bad thing to do if you want to be considered a real Christian...
(To be fair, this is probably the least-essential part of the Creed, but it also makes Paul's point in Ephesians 5.25-27 incoherent. Jesus didn't die thousands of times to cleanse every single local church! There is a sense in which the whole of the elect make up a universal church.)
@@MAMoreno The common argument against creeds is that they aren't Scripture. And this is technically true. However, the information that the creeds state (at least the ones that I use) are taken from Scripture, so if one rejects the creeds, then they also reject the Scriptures that the creeds were based on.
I like your channel, but I am tired of hearing about the KJV debate.
Point taken! Tell me what you'd like to hear more about!
@@markwardonwords Please continue in KJV debate. That's your "thing" and you do it well. Perhaps throw in a little something different on occasion for 'variety' or change of pace, favorite translation, least favorite and why or why not. I'm willing to most respectfully and enjoyably discuss and learn with/from you on certain translations, not necessarily recording a video but swap what we know in friendly banter.
@@markwardonwords the problems with IFB “soulwinning” … going door to door with 1-2-3-bless-me sinners prayer (a prayer not in the Bible, including KJV) and deluding thousands of people in local community they are automatically once-saved-always-saved because an annoying person at their door pressured them into reciting magic words.
@@RyM45 This is absolutely a problem. But I also think-and hope-it's not an accurate description of all soulwinning in those circles. I don't remember it being that way in my church in high school. But that was 30 years ago.
@@markwardonwords I can only share the experience in my local community / on my doorstep
👍
Thanks for watching!
Something I find entertaining is that by definition KJVO not only rejects "modern" English translations but all English translations that proceded the 1611. It would also seem to call into question translations into any other language.
One can have preference for one set of manuscripts or another but the absolutism of KJVO seems naive and illogical.
I rarely hear them deal in any detail with the phenomenon of translations in other languages, yes.
One little trick I have up my sleeve is to actually see if a so-called KJV-Onlyist accepts pre-KJV translations, and if the person actually does, then I'll take readings from modern Bible translations that differ from the KJV from whatever list or chart the person in question has been posting, and show where it was actually a return to a reading from the Tyndale Bible or something similar, as such readings do exist.
I chose years ago to return to the King James Bible, following a trek into the NAS, Living Bible, Good News, NIV, etc. Not to belittle others who do not. But there is a difference. Christian since 1976.
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
@@hesavedawretchlikeme6902 Not trying to insult you, friend. But my 70+ examples in the Fifty False Friends in the KJV series rather suggest that the KJV cannot be "easily understood if one studies Elizabethan English." I thought I understood these words; I did not-because of language change.
And look at the interpretive history of Psalm 12:6-7; almost no one in the history of the church is interpreting those verses the way KJV defenders do.
Spot on, Mark. Now, shed that darn Calvinism. ;)
Too late!
@@markwardonwords I will take that to mean you've done it already and continue to pray for you, brother. :) I love your videos, keep fighting the good fight!
I knight thee prop giving worthy!
Ah, thank you!
Me again 😂
Romans 16:18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
So, if you find a manuscript older than 100 A.D. you'll switch to that one right? That's a slippery slope and no foundation.
Matthew 7:29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.
Jesus Christ had a final authority as the WORD OF GOD.
Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
Shall not! Is this the word of God or is it not? I can't predict what your crooked serpent tongue will put forth next, but the King James Bible is a solid Rock and not sand. It has stood the test of time and the hymn "The Bible Stands" tells it all.
1 Corinthians 4:19 But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power.
1 Corinthians 13:4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
1 Corinthians 8:1 Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.
I wonder if majority of KJVonlyist have read carefully the KJ Translator's Preface to the readers the claim that their translation is "the verbally inerrant and inspired translation"therefore a perfect copy compared to the previously translation before the King James Version 1611 and later revisions including the 1769 edition.I remember a story about a Bible student who asked his professor what he thinks is the reason why the original Hebrew and Greek from which the KJV and previously was translations was based he said it is possible if these are preserved until today man may build a shrine just like what happened to the bronze serpent that King Hezekiah destroyed in 2 Kings 18:4.
@@steveschwenke3444 Obviously you're a KJV onlyist.I used to be one and what it did do to me I became proud a holier than thou Christian and labeling readers of modern versions as aiding in the building the one world church will later totally support the antichrist and all these modern versions are obviously for profit of the publishers which is not true.I'm finished with KJVonlyism period.
@Steve Schwenke
What's irrelevant is your comparison of this issue with God calling Moses despite the fact he considered himself inadequate. That's not worth a refutation.
Honestly I do not understand the “KJV only”
crowd and here’s why: The majority of the world’s Christians do not speak English. The most popular language for Christians is Spanish followed by Portuguese. English is a distant third.
As a recovering Fundamentalist, I can attest to extremist drift of the KJVO crowd. While it flourished and grew massive in the 60s and 70s, the pride and arrogance drove the Fundies into a self-eating monster. I am a staunch Conservative and despise the liberal destruction of the Church. There are serious issues with the legalistic leaders that place tradition above the Word of God. Heaven help us to repair the breech in the body of Christ! 🙏🏼
Right. God help our brothers on the rightward slope!
Really Cringe...
Watching your videos made me remember a girl I used to date about 12 years ago...we got along great and hardly argued ❤...then I met her parents especially her mom 😬... started rambling about KJV and how I didn't believe the KJV was the only Bible. Thankful, I didn't pursue that relationship beyond that point. 🙏🙏
I've seen marriages and families harmed (and the latter broken) over KJV-Onlyism. =(
I love how everyone who is commenting on this video tries to use careful language, as if they are the creator of the video or his lyrical equal. Sometimes, some things are easier said plainly rather than fancily. My problem with the new 'translations' aren't necessarily the translations by themselves but the texts they are derived from. Why is it that NO ONE does a revise of the KJV from a purely Textus Receptus and Masoretic text source instead they ALL have to be inspired by the Novum Testamentum Graece and the Biblia Stuttgartensia which somehow are older even though they weren't 'found' or translated until the late 18th century which is quite a few years later than the original KJV texts. It's almost like no one knows about Tischendorf the closet catholic or Westcott and Hort, the other closet Catholics who were also semi closet secret society members. No one finds it odd that we were protestants for a reason but somehow we're none of that anymore? All the major churches and modern bible translations are holding hands with the catholic church. Did we all forget why that was supposed to be a bad thing? When the Jehovah's witness bible came out it had 120 textual changes and the people of that time, in America at least, had a fit over that but now the NIV had 900 differences which oppose the KJV and the NKJV has 1200. The people who did the NKJV even say that the majority text is much better, which means the modern translation textual criticisms so what does that tell you? You're talking about leftism vs conservatism like it's even close to the same thing. When it comes to the Word anything other than conservativism is going the wrong way period and that's not debatable. If it's by the bible it cannot be wrong period. If you think modern men have figured out something God has not then I think you're fighting for the wrong cause. The slippery slope on the right as you would say, idk what the 'right' is because I only know what it means to be biblically conservative in it's truest form and anything progressing away from that is exactly why America is in this position it's in right now. Slippery slopes? I'm not so sure most of Christendom is even on elevated land anymore. Most of it seems like it's in a valley or at the very least on a slope with such a decline on it that the only way to get back up is to hit the bottom and start over again. If modern Christianity's majority could, they would have the bible reduced to about 3 pages maybe less. They would take their favorite verses that they point to and say "grace" "love" "rapture" "heaven" "holy spirit on me" and they'd toss the rest. The law? That's a sin to even say outloud. The old testament? Those are just stories about Israel for the Jews. We're to a point where we aren't even arguing about meaningful things anymore and everyone believes the holy spirit is carrying them to the point that they can't be too wrong about anything so why even try to hard? Can't be too wrong because I'm full of the Spirit and the Spirit would never let me fail. I feel like I'm reading a completely different bible than most people, I'm sure it's just me.
"When the Jehovah's witness bible came out it had 120 textual changes and the people of that time, in America at least, had a fit over that.." Now most Evangelical translations of today line up in many ways closer to the Jehovah's Witness bible.
@Gypsyfriend You are correct. And it's worth considering that the KJV translators did not stick to one edition of the Greek text as they were working. The Bishops' Bible had used an edition by Robert Estienne, but the 1611 committee opted to update some of the readings to follow the editions of Theodore Beza. At the same time, they did not change the text according to Beza in every instance. So they were open to the idea that no one edition of the Greek New Testament is correct in all instances.
And it goes even further than that. Luke 17.36 does not show up in some of these early Greek editions, including the 1550 Estienne text. It was included in some early English Bibles and left out of others. The KJV includes it but gives the following note in the margin: "This 36. verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies." The translators wanted the readers to know that they recognized the possibility that the verse didn't belong in the Bible. They couldn't insist on complete certainty about the texts they used. (Most modern printings of the KJV leave out the translators' notes, unfortunately.)
All of this is to say that even though the scholars of the NKJV generally favored the Majority Text over the Textus Receptus (despite using the latter for their translation), they were no different in that respect than the KJV translators themselves, who weren't married to just one text and who likely disagreed at points over these issues. And it must be noted that the differences between the MT and the TR are mostly minor: Erasmus and his successors based their work primarily on the Greek texts that serve as the basis for the MT, only rarely depending on other readings instead.
The KJV textus receptus only stance includes cults and isms like Joseph Smith quote ,”Inspired” version.
JANUARY 4TH, 2003: JESUS (GOD) SAID:"IT IS TIME. Satan (allah) emulated Jesus voice and satan said SAD AND DELICIOUS. YOU REALLY DONT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GOD AND SATAN.
Please call those who, so adamantly, call anyone who doesn't prescribe to the "King James only as "Onlyists" and start referring them as "King James cultists" because that's what they've become.
Some are indeed cultic. My appeals for balance and fairness went unheeded to the KJVO’s.
The fringe is cultic. Most are not, I think.
@@markwardonwords indeed. As the clip in the video shows. It's not the Textus Receptus that they hold as "the pure word" for if it were so, they might accept Young's Literal Translation, which also has the TR as its foundation
There are currently 5600 Catholic bishops active and retired, and over 220 Cardinals. The Pope, although vested with more duties and ability to sway the direction of the church, is much less powerful than Protestants line to suggest. It is not an authoritarian structure but more an Epistocracy. The last time the Pope spoke ex Cathedra (infallible) was 1950 and prior to that 1854 on issues like Mary’s assumption and the immaculate conception.
I certainly don’t deny any of this. Why doesn’t the pope exert more power, do you think? Because of the authorities you mention?
The Protestants aren't the only ones who need convincing. Eastern Orthodox bishops too remain skeptical about the peculiar power invested in the Bishop of Rome.
This is largely true, but the pope's speaking ex cathedra can't be demonstrated to have not happened since 1950, since the concept is so ill-defined. One never knows when a claim is ex-cathedra and when it is not.
M.A. Moreno: I trust that the papal powers were usurped, and not invested- at least by God. I suppose that the institution invested the authority. I invite your response.
@@kevinshort2230 That’s not actually true. It is very clear when they do so. For instance here is part of the wording of the 1950 instance “for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.” Other parts of the announcement speak directly to infallibility, so it is very clear when infallible dogma is declared ex cathedra. That said, it was a consensus building process that took over 100 years before the Pope declared it.
The KJV is still the most accurate translation
The accuracy of any translation will vary from one place to another. The KJV is very accurate in some places, adequately accurate in others, and somewhat deficient in a few places, much like the translations that preceded and followed it. The KJV made some improvements over the work of Tyndale, Coverdale, and the men behind the Geneva and Bishops' Bibles. In other places, its "improvements" were a step backward. It may still be the best overall from that era, but the Geneva Bible is certainly comparable in quality.
But even if the KJV is the best Reformation-era translation, and even if it still holds its own in many places against its modern successors, it is still dated and needlessly obscure for a translation of the Bible into modern English. The Elizabethan turns of phrase are sometimes useful--for instance, the older distinction between thou and you will benefit the reader in a handful of passages--and they are often quite beautiful. However, they're unhelpful more often than they are helpful, and some of the KJV's vocabulary and grammar convey the exact opposite message to that which the Jacobean translators intended.
So too, certain places in the King James Version are too literal to be very helpful (cf. the enigmatic Hebrew phrase "cover his feet" in 1 Sam. 24.3 with the far more coherent English idiom "relieve himself" in the MEV). Other places are not literal enough (cf. the archaic English idiom "cast the same in his teeth" in Matt. 27.44 with the far more literal "insulted Him [ὠνείδιζον αὐτῷ]" in the MEV). And in many places, it borrows a Latin word that obscures the meaning of the Greek word (cf. the Latin word for skull, "Calvary," in Luke 23.33 with the direct English equivalent "The Skull" in the MEV).
So yes, the KJV can offer some things that other popular translations can't. But it can also be unclear or misleading at times. The best thing to do is not to abandon it, but to use it alongside other translations that balance out its quirks and deficiencies. The same is true of any good translation of the Bible, ancient or modern.
@@MAMoreno The KJV does use the Textus Receptus tho
@@NilsWeber-mb5hg As does the MEV, which is why I used it as a counterexample. (The NKJV also uses the Textus Receptus, but it does some of the very same things I criticized the KJV for doing.) And while it follows the Nestle-Aland text for the most part, the LSB (so too the older NASB 1977/1995 editions) retains a number of verses from the TR that don't appear in other modern versions such as the ESV.
The KJV was only English Bible for 3 centuries.
And doesn’t have copy right laws & yet what is the love of money said of in the Bible!!
Brother, it wasn't. The Geneva Bible and the Webster Bible and many others existed. And the KJV is copyrighted.
Here's my video on that: ua-cam.com/video/yfFWShlyy9Q/v-deo.html
The KJV is copyrighted to the crown in the UK (where I live). It is clear as day in the front of my UK printed copy. It absolutely baffles me when I hear the US centric copyright argument.
Another objective objection:
People who are against KJVO often present the newer versions as superior to the KJV. The same people also make presentations which accentuate the similarities and diminish the differences. Which is it? If the KJV is so much worse, why is it so similar? If it is really so similar why do we need new versions?
I refer to Mark's video on the TR and CT side-by-side. In said video he was not dealing with English translations as much as he was dealing with the texts from which they were translated. Having said that, the principle remains unanswered. If so different: why so similar? If so similar: why is KJV so bad?
To a neutral 3rd party this looks like a stacked deck against the KVJ and strains credulity that this is really simply about a besom.
Simple answer: the modern versions are saying today the same thing the KJV was saying in 1611. The reason it is “inferior” for current use in pulpits is language change.
@@markwardonwords Thanks. Respectfully I disagree that language change is sufficient a reason to assign inferiority to KJV. Just so you know that I play fair, neither do I assign superiority to the KJV based on language change. Language change to me in biblical conversations is analogous to climate change in political conversations: either side can use it for their own purposes.
@@ThomasThiemeJr That’s an interesting analogy. But I don’t think it obtains. Climate change is an incredibly complex topic requiring the processing of immense amounts of data. Language change requires looking at well established Hebrew and Greek word senses, well established English senses in contemporary dictionaries, and authoritative word histories in the OED. No serious person I’ve ever met has denied that English has changed over time (and I know you’re not). Hypotheses are validated by the making of successful predictions. Mine are: my survey, results of which are coming out soon, shows that KJV-Only pastors are misunderstanding the KJV in just the ways my model predicts.
@@markwardonwords You are correct that I do not deny language change. I also do not deny climate change. And the two are indeed analagous in the sense that one side recognizes that responsible stewardship is required while the other side overreacts and creates a crisis where none exists. You are also correct that these two issues are not an equal 1:1 comparison (as one is more complex than the other).
I also do not deny that there are KJVO pastors who get things wrong and do not recognize "false friends"*. This is unfortunate. I have been finding them and understanding them for years. I think that there are many faithful bible preachers/teachers who can and do understand what God's Word says even when words change in meaning over time. I also think there are a large number of preachers/teachers who use newer "more readable" versions and may not be fooled by "false friends" but still get things wrong.
*Your "False Friends" study gets an A-plus although I take issue with the name. The name bears a negative connotation that can harm a reader's willingness to trust the translation. There is a real term for "false friends" It is called semantic shifting and no serious bible believer would deny that it is real or that these words need to be understood in today's language. In my estimation (and I recognize my lack of authority) semantic shifting is not cause to hit the panic button, ditch the translation or pass a new $999 trillion bill.
I get this response every so often: KJV defenders tell me that no one denies the existence of false friends, that KJV readers already know these things. But this is disproved every day in the comments on my channel. Never once has a KJV-Onlyist said to me, "Wow-I confess I did not know this false friend until you taught it to me. Thank you!" Most KJV defenders who comment here do most definitely deny that any given false friend is a false friend at all. And the only study that's ever been done on these false friends found that, indeed, KJV-Only pastors were not understanding them. I haven't released those results yet (working on it this very week!), but at that point I think the burden will lie on KJV-defenders' shoulders to show that my sample was off somehow.
wow, snarky intellectualism is not a good christian fit.
Saints have always agreed there is one God, One faith, one baptism, one creator, one Holy Spirit... why not one Holy Bible?
Yes: the Scriptures explicitly say that we have "one Lord, one faith, one baptism"-but you equivocate with the word "Bible," my friend. We're discussing *translations* of the Bible here. Yes, there is one Holy Bible. But there is no statement in Scripture telling us to expect only one translation of it into any given language. I can't submit to man-made strictures; it would be wrong. And having and using multiple translations has helped me over and over in Bible study.
@@markwardonwords I know these are offensive claims. There is only one religion, All others are false, there is only one gospel. All others or false. There is only one savior. All others are false. There’s only one holy scripture, all others or false. There’s an enemy of God that would like to change this. He’s a master of deception, he’s good at what he does.
1. There exist no autograph for a reason.
2. The enemy has been hard at work to destroy the Scriptures from the get-go.
3. If God can’t keep his word, pure. Then how is he going to keep the book straight in heaven?
4. The modern translations all stem back codex a and b, which I would use as 🧻 toilet paper. Tindendorf is a Catholic tool and wescott and Hort are clearly ungodly puppets.
5. God made it clear to the simple people like myself that one Bible stood head and shoulders over the rest. The simple contradiction in John 3:16/ex 4:22 and the stupidity of 2 Sam 21:19 in most of the modern versions are clear. Luke 4:4, John 5:4, mark 9:29, 1 Tim 3:16 all point to somebody tampering with the Scriptures.
5. modern textual critics have mistakenly chosen to go for the shorter versus every time. They think that’s harder to fake than adding. That’s stupidity at its highest.
6. I have never seen an opponent of a one true Bible argue, anything except against the king James Bible. Tells me a lot about you, from your enemies.
7. I share with a lot of Jehovah witnesses. They are absolutely crushed when I use the king James Bible. The power in the authority is too much.
8. God did not need the original authorize papers to prove that his word was powerful. He didn’t need an old outdated Hebrew language to prove that his word is powerful. He didn’t need an old outdated Greek language to prove his word is powerful today. He showed me all he needed was the modern language of the king James Bible to crush Cults in change lives.
9. Intellectualism in scholarship can only take you so far. Revelation and a humble heart goes farther than all that.
10. I don’t think there should be a separation from those that haven’t come to the conclusion that there is only one holy Bible, but I don’t think it should be a separation from those that go to a Baptist church or a Pentecostal church or evangelical free church or a Methodist church. I believe there’s one church of God, hidden in the midst of all this. A people that will stand and help others stand that will hold the weak and nurture the feeble. We all grow at different rates, and the ones that grow fast need to help the ones that are growing slower.
I understand and respect your position on the Scriptures. I just think you’re totally wrong.
There’s people that think the Earth is millions of years old and that other people existed on it before us. I think you’re totally wrong, but I respect your position.
My prayer might be we all need more revelation from the Lord. And I believe it comes when we need it the most.
I’m not asking you to abandon your position. But I would ask you to honestly ask God for a even deeper Revelation to help me go past your present understanding please.
Thanks in advance, Dan
@@dantombs5697 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.
@@markwardonwords anything but the king James say hey. MEV has the wrong guy killing Goliath. But you recommend it. I’m not a Bible translation scholar, but I guarantee you that there’s gonna be more Bibles produced. And they’re all gonna tell you drop your king James this one’s gonna be better.
I consider you a wise brother, I hope you continue looking into this field, on both sides. As well, I.
@@dantombs5697 Let's engage on this one point, 2 Sam 21:19. Why did the original KJV have "the brother of" in Roman type?
www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/2-Samuel-Chapter-21_Original-1611-KJV/
I am a spanish speaking christian. To hear English speaking christians debate what is the best Bible translation seems to me a mockery of the real message of the Gospel which has no language barriers. God’s message, although can be distorted, it won’t be because of translation BUT INTERPRETATION. How many here are KJV only and cannot agree on doctrines!?!? That is why Christ left a LIVING AUTHORITY, who through their Tradition gave us a written authority but that can only be interpreted by a MAGISTERIUM authority. Yes, a three legged stool not a one legged stool.
I think you know how far I stayed with you throughout this quote.
So what happens when the living authority disagrees with other living authorities, and dead ones? And what happens when he disagrees with the Bible?
English-speaking Catholics argue over which translation to use, too. So it's not just a Protestant thing. The American bishops prefer the NABRE, and the hyper-traditionalists still cling to Challoner's revision of the Douay-Rheims (the Catholic equivalent of the KJV in English), but a significant percentage of lay Catholics argue for one of the three modified Protestant "Standard Versions" (the RSVCE, NRSVCE, and ESVCE). British Catholics may prefer the Jerusalem Bible or its pair of revisions. A minority prefer the New Catholic Bible, which feels like a slightly conservative alternative to the NAB (offering less skeptical notes).