Mark and Scott, thank you both for your gracious treatment of one another! May this conversation stand as an example to other believers on how to address differences and disagreement within the Church. As another TR guy who preaches from the NKJV, I have seen too much division over this issue and it refreshing to see that we as believers can disagree AND be gracious in our treatment of others. Thank you again!
Wow! I'm not sure if I would have been as gracious as both you and brother Scott were in this video. I personally haven't settled solidly on one side or the other of the textual debate, not only because I don't feel like I have enough data to make an informed decision on the topic but also because I'm convinced that it is better to hold these types of viewpoints on things unrevealed with great humility and caution. That being said, I agree with both of you on the importance of believers being able to trust the translation they hold. For that reason, I'm saddened by brother Scott's comment about translations based on the critical text as being akin to "storybook Bibles." Every translation of God's Word is itself to be considered as God's Word insofar as it is faithful to the originals, and if God has left debatable a minuscule percentage of what is in the originals, we would do well to hold our opinions lightly as to whether those debated passages are original or not. But praise the Lord that the minuscule does not define our faith; I actually find that the debate over the minuscule strengthens my trust in the overwhelming majority. One thousand soldiers who share 95% of the same vision and focus are a much stronger military force than a mere one hundred who agree on absolutely everything.
I’ve done a deep dive into the textual critical debate, and there’s so much information that can argue both sides. One man’s channel that I came across last month is so great, his name is Robert Paul Weiland. He’s with the Lord now, but his videos from years ago are so helpful.
Very well said. I too dislike it when Mr. Ingram makes uncharitable remarks about the critical text, even though he means no offense, such comments add nothing to the conversation save for the possibility of strife between brothers and sisters of the same faith.
Wouldn’t it be cool if the: Calvinists & Arminians Covenantalists & Dispensationalists Complimentarians & Egalitarians Old earthers & Young earthers etc. who have legitimate real differences could at least learn to treat their Christian counterparts as you gentlemen have done in this video? This is how Christians SHOULD treat each other. Thank you both.
I've seen some of Scott Ingram's translation videos as well, and I found his position fair and considerate even when I disagreed. As you've talked about TR-Only pastors being de facto KJV-Only pastors, Scott has repeatedly come to mind as a major exception to that generalization. (I've known a few pastors in person who have held similar beliefs about the TR, and they too were marked by a graciousness that was often not there in the KJVO sphere that I knew in my youth.)
That's very much true. The people who claim to be a TR-only proponent are more often than not a KJVO with a tolerance to the NKJV. When you meet a genuine TR proponent, it's often a shock.
I have always been at churches up until the last couple years that are more staunch in the King James position, and I myself have only read the King James. With that said, through the years, there was always guilt when reading an NIV or a new King James version or something else. So, I always surmised since the king James is so much in my memory, just to continue with that. I subscribe to both Pastor Ingram and Mark Ward UA-cam channels. Actually, Pastor Ingraham opened my mind up to the new King James version before Mark Ward did, as I was subscribed to his channel 1st ….then came along Mark Ward, and I would say that I learned and gleed very much, and as much that I feel comfortable in my heart and in my mind to read other versions without feeling that I’m reading the devil‘s Bible or a perversion, etc. all this to say, I was elated to find that both of these brothers could have a talk together, and I have just got done, listening and feel that it’s a great thing to have shared common ground, even opening up our eyes in a good way, thank you both, for your faithfulness.
I think you need to worry about bad theology and bad churches more than a specific bible translation. The top ten bible translations are used by all kinds of deviant people and congregations, all arguing that they have the perfect truth but not living it. I'm sure plenty of woke people that are transing their kids still read KJV, plenty of guys cheating on their wives, plenty of pedo pastors, etcetera.... the world is rotten.
I appreciate the fact that both of you approached this topic in the spirit of grace, and neither of you had an attitude of pride or arrogance. If all believers had more humility, as both of you have shown, we would be much more pleasing to the Lord Jesus. God bless both of you. BTW, I have two Bibles on my desk that I use more often than any others, the ESV and the NKJV. I love them both!
Would that all such encouters were conducted with such mutual love and respect! “By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."” (John 13:35, NKJV) Excellent presentation! May the Lord bless both of you!
@@markwardonwords Actually, I have viewed both of your channels from time to time. Looking forward to purchasing a consolidation of all of your false friends efforts!
What a great learning experience! I started out a majority guy (ignorance), then got some good information and agree with the critical text (education). But last night I had the first class of the school year with my teens and we were trying to memorize 2 Tm 3:16-17, and it turned into the tower of babel because I had four kids using 3 different translations. So I think there is a practical ministry argument for needing to use one translation that doesn't fluctuate every few years so we can communicate and minister to each other on a practical level. Use the version you want at home, but let's use one understandable version in church and only change it when its unavoidable and hopefully not more than every fifty years so we can have continuity.
I'm with you. There are practical reasons for having a standard within a given church. You can't always take the time to explain the differences among versions; and you can't expect most AWANA leaders, for example, to do that kind of work.
@@markwardonwords I agree as well, but there have been times when I have found teaching moments when a group would have different translations. I particularly think of moments as the leader of a group of youth at church camp each summer. Each student would come from a different church, and we might have as many translations as we had students. One aspect of church camp is Bible verse memorization. You might think that the differences in translations would confuse these students. There were certainly some that would initially say that another student wasn't reading the verse correctly. Instead of being confusing though, these instances became teaching moments so that the students could understand more thoroughly the meaning of the verses as we discussed the different words used in different translations. Yes, it did take extra effort and time, but in the end, these students did more than just recite, they had a better comprehension of God's word.
I have been a fan of both your channels. I am a Byzantine priority guy myself, which means that I would agree more, perhaps, with Scott. I preach from the NKJV and use it for my personal Bible reading most of the time. When asked about my preference for the KNJV, I explain my view, remind them that there is ultimately not a great deal of difference, and encourage them to follow their own consciences in the matter. So, although some in my congregation use the NKJV, as I do, there are also those who use the NASB, LSB, ESV, and even a couple who use the NIV. When differences arise in the text (usually due to translation rather than textual issues), I simply explain why they are there and how they rarely make any real difference. I have found that this approach, over the past 30 years, has actually led them to greater confidence in their Bible.
Amen! I love this! The existence of people such as yourself and Scott insistently raises the question as to whether a lot of TR defense is just KJV defense.
@@markwardonwords I couldn't agree more. Although I grew up with the KJV, and I went to a KJV-only high school my freshman through junior years, I have never been a KJV-only person myself. When in Bible college and seminary, I began to read about textual criticism and found myself preferring a Majority Text approach, although now I would more specifically say Byzantine priority (à la Robinson), but I have never been particularly dogmatic about it. And, of course, my view is not a TR view, since the Majority or Byzantine texts actually disagree at a number of points with the TR (most notably the Comma Johanneum). Anyway, I use the NKJV because there is no good translation of my preferred text, and the NKJV, together with its footnotes, is a good substitute.
@@dwashington1333 I use the World English Bible regularly. One of the things I like about this translation is that it shares (in footnotes) differences found between the Majority Text, the Textus Receptus, and the Nestle-Aland/United Bible Societies critical text Greek New Testament. Lacking the original manuscripts from the original writers, being able to compare these texts helps in my study of God’s word.
Mark: You are doing excellent work. In October I am teaching a block class in Kenya to pastors taking their first section of their Systematic Theology requirement (Independent Baptist College of Ministry in Nairobi). Your channel is one of the Helpful Resources I list in the Bibliology section.
This was a great discussion. Thanks very much. In regard to the Thomas Nelson publisher, I believe that interview was on Tim Frisch’s The Frisch Perspective channel. They said no plans to change the NKJV text, updates to the footnotes not currently in the works but possible in the future at some point.
I have consistently “pushed back” against KJV-only doctrine when attempts have been made to introduce it in my congregation (although this has not happened for a number of years now). In my view, it is willful ignorance, which is bad enough, but it is also incredibly divisive and, often, mean-spirited. Thankfully, I have seen a few of them move away from this view. Sadly, however, I have too often had to cite Romans 16:17 in warning my fellow believers about many of them.
Personally, I prefer the King James. It's what I grew up on and I really have no issues understanding it. That being said, I have read several other translations, and I probably have at least one copy of most of them. I agree with Pastor Inghram about the NKJV's stability. A stable text matters, and the constant updates of the new ones are why I don't use them more often. I also agree with you Mark, that language has changed over the years, but it has not changed so much in the last fifty years that some of these versions need four or five revisions within just a few years. It's important to understand what you read, and I believe that people should read what they can understand and will use. Most translations will do this just fine, and there is nothing that prevents anyone from reading multiple versions if they choose to.
1) Two brothers in the Lord, of great integrity. I have learned a lot from both. 2) MARK: Scott also has UA-cam videos of his Sunday sermons. He is a great preacher! I hope the application of Scripture in PREACHING will come up in a video you both do together.
It was a treat to see this interview pop up in my recommendations. I have watxhed several of pastor Ingram’s videos, and the thought had crossed my mind “I wonder if Mark Ward knows about this guy, because he’s one of the very few TR-only guys who aren’t KJVO.”
I once asked this pastor friend of mine what he thought about the differences between the KJV and the NIV. He said that he didn't believe that there was enough difference between the two of them that either of them would ever lead somebody wrong.
I always held this view but didnt really know anyone else did till i found pastor scott ingram channel. He is well informed and charitable. I agree with the missing verses especially. Thanks for this great discussion!
" I agree with the missing verses especially. " They are only missing if they were there in the first place (the autographs), which is exactly the question. So, determining "missing" verse by the TR is circular reasoning.
@@jwatson181 I would push back against the idea that modern versions are "better" than the KJV. Rather, the issue is that the KJV's quality can't really be measured except against other translations of its era. If a committee in 1598 had produced something that functioned like the CSB--finding a similar balance between literalness and idiomatic Early Modern English--then we could properly compare that hypothetical Ye Olde CSB to the KJV. But because they're divided by four centuries, they don't lend themselves to comparison.
Mark, apologies if I'm overlooking it in your list, but you mentioned the Lord/Master change with the NKJV and that reminded me that 'master' can also be a false friend when it's used in the older sense of a teacher (i.e. 'headmaster'). I've had KJV-onlyists try to claim that using the word 'teacher' instead of 'master' in the Gospel dialogues between Christ and His disciples is 'denying the lordship of Christ'!
I mean "master" can still mean someone that's good at something, but using the word that way to refer to Jesus is just going to result in misunderstanding.
@@maxxiongYes, the idea is of someone who has mastered a subject well enough to be able to teach it to others, but I don't think anyone would ordinarily presume that's how the word was being used in scripture. We tend to immediately think of a master-servant relationship.
The book farstad wrote about the NKJV was a big part of getting past my apprehensions about it. And the response by Dr Price to DA Waites criticims of the NKJV OT. Price showed that DA Waites grasp of Hebrew is very subpar and his criticism of the NKJV was NOT based on in departing from the Hebrew but in choosing to translate/interpreting the Heb different than the KJV
I recently tried to watch a video from Pastor Ingram on the KJV vs other translations and i just couldn't do it. so this really highlights you as an example to me if the kindness and patience I have yet to develop.
@@markwardonwords I even use modern translations. I always study from KJV, NKJV,ESV,NIV, & NLT. I even quoted a verse in my sermon last week from the NLT. I’ve been called a heretic from people in my own camp ( almost always by a KJVO).
The question should be "Should ANY version be your ONLY version?". What about if someone is a CSB/ESV onlyist, an NIV Onlyist, an NLT Onlyist, or Douay Rheims Onlyist? should ANY version be a go-to version if kjv lovers shouldnt have a go-to? So ONE VERSION ONLYISTS should be the real topic. I personally am not a KJV Onlyist. I just like the KJV the most (not "only"). 1611 KJV is still my most favorite. My second favorite is the 1995 NASB, and my third is the RSVCE/RSV2CE, and my fouth is the Orthodox Study Bible. But that mainly because i am formal text type of person. However, i use NIV & ESV for a more dynamic approach in dialogue. I have a: 1537 Matthew's Bible 1560 Geneva Bible 1611 KJV 1966 RSVCE Xxxx NRSVCE (forgot the year) 1995 NASB 1977 NIV 2001 ESV 2008 Orthodox Study Bible 1996-2011 Artscroll Tanach & a 2016 Complete Jewish Study Bible (Along with other bibles) The Tanach & CJB are for my linguistic studies. And I keep the pocket-sized rsvce to have smaller version of my 1611 (which the acception of it still being a different translation) But you should definitely keep a 1611 KJB for cross reference if you have any modern versions. I suggest others get a Parallel Bible (KJV/NASB/NIV/AMP). Seeing that i already have a 1611, I still want to check out the CSB to check for consistency. I also want the Didache Bible, Douay Rheims, Knox Bible, New Revised Jerusalem Bible, an NLT, and an Interlinear Bible (Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic). I think the Geneva Bible and the Interlinear Bible are the only others that come close the KJB as far as formal text (as well as the NASB/NABRE). I love my kjv the most but I'm always collecting/reading different version. I also forgot to mention my interest in collecting a Berean Standard Bible. Based on the reviews, it may have the potential to surpass the csb/esv, and bring dynamic and formal readers to a common ground.
I teach everyone I know to use 3 translations: 1) KJV/NKJV to have access to the TR tradition. 2) one of: ESV, NASB, or LSB, to have a literal Critical Text version as your normal place for study. 3) one of CSB, NET, NIV 84, NLT for a more dynamic translation as a "recreational" reader and for use when theological language or original idiom is difficult, so you can flip to a thought for thought and ensure you have the gist of the translation. This is also good for teaching because having 3 distinct translations from 3 traditions, even as a Greek reader, allows me to spot places where interpreters disagree. And this is useful for highlighting in the lesson.
@ayetizzo "So ONE VERSION ONLYISTS should be the real topic." That might be true, if there were any such thing. But I have never heard of any significant group of people who adamantly insist on only using one version the way the KJVOs do. I suppose you might find an odd person here or there who is stuck on one translation, but such people do not have any effect on the Church at large. The KJVOs *_DO_* have an effect on the Church at large, and it's a very BAD effect.
@@Packhorse-bh8qnI'd argue that hardcore calvinists oftentimes are NASB 95 onlyists, but without the Ruckmanite fervor. They won't say they're NASB 95 only, but they won't say they'll repeat anything John MacArthur says verbatim, but the phenomena exists.
@@nobodyspecial1852 "'d argue that hardcore calvinists oftentimes are NASB 95 onlyists, but without the Ruckmanite fervor. " That's completely wrong. You might find a very few people like that, but very, very few. And since I know people who attend Grace Community, and others who have regular connections there, I can tell you that you'll find very few of these people even in John MacAurther's own church.
@@Packhorse-bh8qn say what you will, I encounter JMac worshippers in small town Missouri semi frequently. The internet was full of them when Julie Roys kicked the hornets nest, also anytime the SBC has controversy the last decade. I go to bible studies at random Baptist churches occasionally, over 50% of the time it'll be run by hardcore 5 pointers that repeat the latest JMac sermons, because it's taking over the SBC. Maybe that's not everywhere but the SBC has addressed it officially recently, along with female pastors and CRT, so it's in the institutional instruction pipeline somewhere. Anytime I encounter any of it, it's a room full of people on NASB 95.
I loved this conversation. I really wish more KJV-Only people had the demeanour, gentleness and respect that Scott had here, in spite of the differences you two have on this issue. God bless you both. 🙏
David Guzik of Enduring Word, a Calvary Chapel pastor, holds the same position as Pastor Scott. He's not very vocal about it, but he has talked about it on his q&a sessions on youtube. He uses the NKJV in both his commentary and preaching, and believes like Scott that the "traditional text" is better both pastoraly and critically.
Churches that use the NKJV that used to use the KJV. Many of the IFCA International churches, specifically Cicero Bible Church . Pioneer Baptist church in Wasilla AK. These are ones that I know of.
A great talk and helpful I like those MacArthur commentaries on Scott's shelf John gives good notes on the Mark 16:15 and John 7:53 -8:11 in the MacArthur study Bible. Also Warren Wiersbe's Study Bible
I too appreciate and am very grateful for the civility. I must note also that there's common an extremely little addressing of the actual words, both ancient texts and the English, that are different between the Bible versions. The focus must be on the ancient texts which are the basis for the English. The fact is that EVERY version translated by fallible men is a fallible translation. What we have in our culture today is a "microwave" approach and the difficulty of learning the ancient languages gives rise to the common sentiment that we don't "need" to learn the ancient languages, since we have the English. That thought is totally in error, as the Creator chose the ancient languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Hence, HE chose the specific words from which the English is translated. They are absolutely critical to the discussion of the text issue, but I often find them almost totally lacking in any discussion of textual criticism, almost to the point of not paying attention to the issue anymore. I do MUCH better to go directly to the ancient texts to study them with my excellent Bibleworks software.
I'm happy using a NKJV when meeting with brothers and sisters (and brethren) who using predominately NIV or KJV as it follows both well enough and says why when it differs due to a textual variant. Last week when I was meeting with people using NIVs I came across the ending of Jude and the NIV had more words than the NKJV! We were asked to read it together and I had to keep looking at the footnotes for the missing words! I'd love to see what the textual support is for each version of v25 and possible reasons for the differences in Greek but don't have any software to help. The NKJV and KJV omit that 'Jesus Christ is Lord' and other words but I shan't write them off on that basis! I just want to understand why the text collators/editors of the Greek selected the readings they have and how the differences could have come about in the first place.
Yes, this is an interesting variant. Not only do the oldest manuscripts of Jude contain "through Jesus Christ our Lord", but even Jerome's Latin Vulgate has it too. Perhaps this could be a case where the later Greek Byzantine manuscripts (from which the KJV comes from) accidentally omitted it through the copying process.
I found this video chat intriguing and rather disturbing at the same time. The English language with its national, regional and local accents and even variations of written words just proves we need to be informed as to the meaning and intentions of the originals currently available. I'd actually love to see you chat with Daniel B Wallace about the textual issues that have caused challenges for new and established Christians. Thank you for another interesting UA-cam
This was a great video. I appreciate Scott's charity against the side he opposes and the ability to hold his own side accountable to the truth. We can know that you are both Christians because of the love you have for one another.
We need to stop shooting at our own warriors..... There is nothing wrong with seeing things differently....we don't need to be nasty toward those who see things differently.....there is nothing wrong with holding to what you believe and standing for it, but we need to be kind toward those who have a different frame of reference. I have had people say to me, "I can't believe you don't believe God preserved His word and didn't give us His word!" Which is the farthest thing from the truth. If that's what you believe, fine believe that but don't call me anathema because I don't agree with you.
It was very refreshing to come across a video with two christians that have a huge difference in their texrual views and able to have a conversation in civility. I personally agree with a lot of what Scott had to say, however i thought it was a bit of a shame to call the NA28 Bibles "storybook bibles," it tars them a bit despite the incredible work that good christians have done to translate the word of God. I myself have made peace leaving a KJV-only group and restong with a Majority text position; alas i havent found a bible that i thoroughly enjoy that uses a TR or a Majority text. So this is where i may seem like a walking contradiction - While i started with the NKJV, and enjoy it... there are places where I will admit i still stumble, so i use the Berean Standard Bible as my primary, and ive made peace with this decision because they have good footnotes. The other reason being is my new church uses the NIV, and thats not a hill I need to die on. In my ideal world I'd have Majority text or a TR NIV-style translation, but that doesnt exist, and ive lost confidence in the publishers of the MEV. So for now I use bibles that are. Based on the NA28, and hope that Biblehub will print their Majority Standard Bible in the near future.
I love you guys but listening to him say “he reads the original text” makes me sick. When I heard that I responded out loud “ so your reading the Hebrew?” I pray (and I actually will ) that the creator opens their eyes
You forgot powdered wigs and tights (not yoga pants). Elijah wore a thick leather belt and a camel hair tunic.... with a powdered wig and tights. John the Baptist too.
Thanks, but I was never KJVO. I have always said that the KJV is more exact to the traditional text, while the NKJV translation of the traditional text is more instantly understandable…. But I would still take a cup of coffee. ;)
The problem I have with UBS 5/NA28, which I see creeping into translation revisions presently, and I say this as a CT proponent, is this: The CT has veered strongly into Internal Criteria for text validity, which is subjective. And away from objective, external criteria. Changes are made to the text (not simply confidence grading) in the latest CT where no new external data has been presented. Only subjective opinions on which is more difficult. I find that unacceptable. Verging on a postmodern text critical methodology.
And yet every approach that is actually on offer is limited (except in rare cases, cases translators can evaluate individually) to readings that are actually extant in the manuscript tradition. There's a major control, then, a set of guardrails, on all NT text-critical work.
@markwardonwords I agree that has been the case in the past. But reading sections from the text commentary on the last revisions, I'm not convinced this was done with sufficient caution. Especially given how confidence in the 4th Edition was generally high. I'm not saying I'm going TR. But I am disinclined to move from 4/27 to 5/28.
@@shawngillogly6873 Someone with your level of ability in understanding the issues-demonstrated solely by these comments-will be able to use any edition of the GNT judiciously. At least when it comes to major evangelical English translations, all the translators will have those skills as well.
@@markwardonwords I don't disagree in the near term. But drift happens over time, so we have to be diligent. Especially since we don't take a simple solution like KJVOnly preservationism. Also, thank you for the time and compliment. I have always appreciated the spirit you conduct these discussions in.
If I understand you two correctly: people editing the text to align with perceived doctrinal rhetoric within, initiates the question of who is weighing these matters and with what level of confidence can we trust them to not reinforce their own suppositions Like 1 John 5:7 oftentimes being celebrated/reviled due to trinitarian doctrine instead of evidence it was known/missing for the first four centuries AD? People red-faced arguing about what ALMA meant or unique versus begotten versus only.... engineering their textual updates to "fit the truth".
Great discussion, I plan on watching more of Pastor Scott's videos. REAL QUESTION related to your discussion of the Triquetra. Do you think there is actual power in symbols? As in should Christians not knowingly wear or use symbols related to demonic or false gods? I know this is more of a Haunted Cosmos question but I haven't posed it to them yet. Thank you.
I think symbols have a combination of conventional and intrinsic meaning-but that most of the meaning is conventional. If someone unselfconsciously uses a symbol to mean something and most people of good will who want to understand in fact do understand, then that's what that symbol means. The OK symbol isn't a racist dogwhistle for 99.9% of the people who use it, only for the tiny community of people who like to play with that racist meaning.
@@markwardonwords Thank you for replying. That has been my traditional view on the subject, but it has been on my mind a lot in the last year and so wanted another opinion.
It probably is-but I wouldn't worry about it as long as it's not causing division or strife between you and other believers. Read the NKJV and understand! That's the important thing.
Mark: how about that NASB 2020? I just started reading that, after almost a year with NASB, IMO (thus far) it's the same but less boring. All I can find about it online is people bashing it for not being 95, but they're oftentimes NASB-95onlyists.
True NASB enthusiasts should also bash the ‘95 for not being the ‘77 :P I mostly read the NKJV, but I did get a NASB 95 a few weeks ago, and like it a lot more than I expected. I always hear it’s “wooden,” but so far that has not been my experience. For every passage in the NASB that I think might be more wooden than the NKJV, I can find a different passage where I think the NASB reads better than the NKJV.
@@kaltech04 I thought "lovingkindness" all through the old testament was obnoxious, most of the time it felt like a more direct and less nuanced NKJV. I didn't find the amazing depth and "I'm better than you because my bible is more literal-er than yours" feeling either.... I wanted to figure out why those people gravitate to that translation 🤷♂️ (because JMac worship requires it?). It was a solid translation, but I prefer NKJV to it for (anything Paul) nuanced rhetoric, and (again IMO) ESV (2016, specified because I don't know what's gonna happen with the new one) dominates it by a wide margin. Currently ESV is like Ronnie Coleman screaming "lite-weight baby" and NASB 95 is some guy on the Mr Olympia stage, that deserves to be there even, but isn't really a contender for the title.
I haven’t run into “lovingkindness” too much, but I’ve mostly used it to compare passages to the NKJV and KJV, and have mostly been in psalms and the prophetic books. If I decide to read it all the way through I may find more issues with it than I have so far. I do wonder if some of those who choose the NASB for being the most literal translation fail to see how dynamic it often is, and has to be to remain legible.
@@kaltech04 I think that whole dynamic equivalence argument is flawed, the premise exists but the continuum charts.... 🤦♂️ Early genesis, we're told that human language (perhaps comprehension) is scrambled so bad that corporate enterprise is hampered enough to prevent us from ever achieving whatever feats were capable by humanity during the building of the tower of babel (interdimensional travel, scrying, nephilim production, making a rhebus?). If any language (or comprehension) was capable of delivering and receiving truth 100%, it's not now, and that applies to the whole of the bible and any language it's translated into, and that's not even static because language changes continuously. We can read the testimonies and parables within and learn from them enough to develope critical thinking and jurisprudence that can allow us to grow towards Christ and interpret what's been preserved, Christ being the crescendo of the biblical narrative. The point being us attempting to grow into people welcome in Zion, not bible scholars that can quote everything word for word (words are integers for thoughts, not of value beyond delivery of conceptual messages, noise and scribbles otherwise). Whatever iteration helps me grow, I'm using it, the life and security of my household depend on it.
Part of what I still struggle with about NT scholars is that many of them want Italics or footnote Mark 16 or John 8 etc... Claiming they were add later, whether true or not, we can debate another day. Assuming for a second they were added later, does that make them any less scripture? Most credit Moses with writing the first 5 books, but clearly he didn't write Deut 34. It was written by someone much later, likely during the monarchy era (v10). But that doesn't make it any less valuable. OT scholars are not grammatically segregating OT chapters from the rest of a book and making them de facto 2nd class scripture. We either do to both or we do it with none. I don't care much for the KJV verbiage, but at least it leaves the fonts and texts alone.
@@curtthegamer934how many people amended the chronology we now know as genesis? Generations of people and language drift during and after the curse of the tower of babel, we know that was a trying time. Re-populating the world after the flood and not only having trouble but outright failing to keep the faith and culture intact... those texts that survived were edited bullet points. Still legit.
Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, who did all those signs and wonders the Lord sent him to do in Egypt-to Pharaoh and to all his officials and to his whole land. For no one has ever shown the mighty power or performed the awesome deeds that Moses did in the sight of all Israel. -deut 34:10-12 Those verses seem to imply a much larger time skip that just Joshua. They writer likely had the prophet from Deut 18:15 in mind when he wrote those words. Not realizing that it would be centuries more still until Jesus shows up.
@@suiko2fan2 There didn't need to be a large amount of time. A prophet of God could have already known that there would never be another prophet like Moses.
One of the criteria for a book to be included in the new testament is for it to be apostolic, so it would be problematic if Mark 16 or John 8 was added in, say, 150AD.
I am mildly familiar with Pastor Ingram, I've commented on a couple of his videos. No, I'm not surprised you two are talking at all. Reasonable people can diagree and be civil. Civility is what matters, not agreement.
Interesting to take part in. And nice to see a good and pleasant dialogue despite different positions. One negative thing: Scott speaks of the "arrogance" (28:46) of those who work from the critical text and who have removed certain texts. Unfortunately, Mark accepted that word choice (30:29) which was not so good. Of course, it is not in the slightest about "arrogance", but about an objective analysis made on a scientific basis which led to certain texts not being included in the critical text. But as a whole, good! And thank you.
The "arrogance" could be in relying purely on rationalistic conclusions without factoring in a more practical and theological component: namely, the readings that were widely used throughout the centuries were the readings that God permitted to be widely used. (Note: I'm not necessarily agreeing with that assessment of the scholars' approach.)
I don't think hard opinions can be delivered gently. Arrogance, vehemence, whatever, I'm glad it's direct and honest. How both parties handle that discussion after the opening salvo is what makes progress possible. I was rattled by the comment about CT bibles being like children's bibles - but he seemed to actually believe that. I'd argue the question: "what theology follows either source", but they didn't take that path. The worst thing about the KJVonlyists crowd is that they have virtually no unifying theology, they're all over the continuum in many issues, usually the most radical and contradictory positions too. CT guys aren't exempt but there are identifiable camps.
The criteria used to determine the readings using textual criticism is not scientific nor objective. There is still very much a subjective aspect to it. Even if there is scientific data, that data still needs to be interpreted and the way they interpret the data is not scientific. Textual criticism is not like chemistry or mathematics, and we really cannot test some of the ways that textual criticism uses to determine genuine readings when variants are present.
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.
Imagine you had a question, and you wanted to get multiple perspectives on it, so you asked different members of your family. The KJV is like your great grandpa, the RSV is like your grandpa, the NASB is your dad, and the CSB is your brother. All different perspectives, trying their honest best to help you. They all try to convey the original meaning as best they can, but their different translation philosophies and the cultures they come from will inevitably be reflected in the text. I think every translation that comes out should also release a parallel KJV Bible. Because the KJV is so old, the thinking of its translators is likely to vary from that of modern translators. By comparing the two, you can sort of distribute the error a little.
One is the Divine Council in the Old Testament and Deuteronomy 32 the Mas.text says Israel and the oldest Old Testament that we have says sons of God the LXX says sons of God just something to throw out there
@@markwardonwords he really is. I'm more on the side on the Critical Text in terms of this specific issue, but I've enjoyed a lot of Scott's sermons. This was a great discussion and I look forward to more! Hopefully we can get more from TR/KJV only/preferred camp to have more civil discussions on the channel in the future!
I hope the goal of all sides is always to achieve the most accurate representation of the original manuscripts, unfortunately we only have copies of copies, so even the “earliest” is not the original. Since we don’t have the original and most passages are in the majority text and many were referenced by church fathers before the earliest manuscripts, it creates a construction zone type caution for me, with a realization the removing of historical passages if/when an even older manuscript are found may someday find a reversal and these verses need added back. I primarily read two versions. The NKJV being one and I also like to read the Gideon’s ESV translation which has the additional verses included in the majority text. All things in balance, but my preference and research leads me to error on the side of caution and stay with the majority text or a CT text like the ESV which has the Gideon’s version that includes those majority text passages without brackets.
I'd take a different approach than Mark and say that the best argument against KJVO is the fact that the Spirit of God clearly works through churches that are not KJVO. As Peter says in Acts 11.17, "If then God gave them the same gift that he gave us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could hinder God?"
The fact that the church existed 1,600 years without the KJV is a strong argument against KJV-Onlyism, when it says that it's the only translation that has the Word of God.
@@eclipsesonic Some of the dispensationalist KJVOs will justify their position by insisting that the Rapture is nearly upon us, which explains why we now have a perfect, purified Bible. (As to why this perfect Bible is in Jacobean English rather than contemporary English, that's because our current "Laodicean" church can't be expected to produce a good one.) If that's the case, I suppose Kirk Cameron, Nicolas Cage, and the rest of the Left Behind crew had better bone up on the English of Shakespeare's time once the Baptist Bride is taken away.
I love John Frame. www.amazon.com/dp/0875522645?tag=3755-20 Kevin DeYoung is a good place to start for a beginner (if you're asking for someone else!): www.amazon.com/dp/B00IFG0EPM?tag=3755-20
Excellent Christian dialog between two brothers. But the "storybook" line about anything other than the KJV or NKJV was off-putting. Nevertheless, considering today's climate on the issue, a much appreciated video.
I wonder what Scott meant by that line, because he has read through modern versions. He and I have another conversation coming up on his channel (a conversation we haven't had yet); I met get a chance to ask him privately or publicly.
@markwardonwords Mark, didn't I hear you say in a recent video that the NKJV translators _recently_ said that they had indeed used other TRs in addition to the one used by the KJV translators and in one instance didn't use the TR at all? Not that it matters to me, but for TR/KJVonliests, isn't that all they need to say, "see, we told you so," they have been covering up/lying all these years?
@@markwardonwords well, if you want to discuss this a little bit more, my church is somewhat close to where you live and our pastor is leaving in May, and you came to mind for me for a potential replacement for him
@@markwardonwordsI pray not. It was a great interview but that comment was harsh and belittling to all the people that worked on all the Bible’s out there… and to Christians that read CT bibles.
I've heard this statement from him in the past, and the thing to keep in mind about his use of the term "storybook Bibles" is that he's not necessarily talking about how literal or non-literal they are, but how they omit information that he considers canonical. Perhaps the better comparison would be to the Reader's Digest Bible, which is truly a Bible to the degree that it contains the text of the RSV, despite condensing the text significantly enough that it can't be considered The Bible proper.
Mark, I've watched most of your video in the past on Ruckmanism. There is a member of my home church who went to Pensacola Bible Institute (Ruckman's college) and is a clear believer of the saving work of Christ, but is clearly on the Ruckmanite side of the translation debate. As you have dealt graciously with people you have disagreed with, I am wondering how to clearly defend my position that I've come to believe (very similar to your views on modern translations) while also addressing a big area that this brother has brought up, as I don't know if you've covered it on your channel before: - Modern versions come from Alexandria, Egypt (where "Israel was in bondage" and where we shouldn't get our translations from), and we should use translations (or, more specifically, the KJV) from Antioch, where believers were first called Christians.
Great question. Common situation. On the one hand, that argument is utterly foolish, because it's a massive oversimplification of some big complexities. On the other hand, I just don't see how people who accept such reasoning are going to be argued out of it. My consistent answer to this kind of silliness has been to say this: "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." If he's a close enough friend that you can reason with him, I might point out that "Alexandrian text" is a conventional designation but that the actual manuscripts we use for critical text readings aren't from Alexandria. And the manuscripts used for the KJV (in those places where they differ from modern versions) are most associated with Byzantium/Constantinople/Istanbul. I just doubt you'll get anywhere with direct attacks on his viewpoint.
I can think of a couple of objections. From the Biblical perspective, if we should view things from Egypt with skepticism, then why did Jesus’s family flee to Egypt when he was young? From a practical perspective, you could ask them if they think there were faithful early Christians in Alexandria that tried to preserve and pass down the scriptures.
Similar to what RealCrawfish said, you could appeal to the text. - Apollos was from Alexandria. - Paul was sent from Antioch. - Paul criticized those who say, "I am of Paul, and I of Apollos." - Christ is not divided. Neither should we be.
In the millennial kingdom; Assyria, Egypt and Israel will be as one. When "that canaanite guy" (abram) got segregated to make his family line a particular race, the growth period happened with his grandkids and great grandkids raising in Egypt and for awhile being part of the ruling apparatus, married and bred with the upper echelon even (Joseph's line is specified as such, his children got a double portion and "2 tribes blessing" whilehe was also de facto ruling Egypt), Joseph having intact bones brought from Egypt and into the outlawed land after 400* years, Jesus "I called my son from Egypt" after a 400* year prophetic hiatus, Jesus being the passover lamb (more intact bones references) and destroyer of the exodus (destroyer of Ezekiel, Zechariah and Revelation too). I'm sure Egypt being a staging ground for Christianity was God's plan, but if not were supposed to trust the Jewish and Roman sources that persecuted Christ directly and after his death persecuted the early church?
Why some have problems with Reasoned eclecticism. I John 5:7 is found in a majority of the Latin, but not the Greek so out it goes. Good will towards men Doxology in Matthew Without cause God manifest in the flesh Are a majority in the Greek but not in the Latin, so out they go The PA and Mark 16:9-20 are a majority in both the Greek and Latin so out they go. Even the “not yet” found in the two of the earliest(P66.P75) in John 7:8 some throw out. If as an orthodox Christian you don't see a problem, what would you see as a problem?
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 To pretend that differences between the Traditional church texts and CT texts don't matter is just the Post-Modern fallacy of no meta narratives. May the dialog continue. Blessings.
@@jamessheffield4173I believe they matter. I believe they matter little compared to the matter the Bible actually addresses, namely translation: edification requires intelligibility.
@@markwardonwords While there are scribal errors and politics, there is no way anyone could have changed the majority of church texts without being noticed. The first documented recension of the Greek Church texts was the 1904 A.D. Patriarchal text. Peace.
If we're accepting 1 John 5.7 despite its absence from the Greek manuscripts, should we accept the other Latin readings that are absent from the Greek? Or do we just consider the ones that Erasmus and Stephanus decided to include, ignoring the ones that they decided to "leave out" of the TR?
These Critical Text men are ignorant or they have what people call Cognitive Dissodense. Compare Luke 2:22 in your ESV to the KJV, does Jesus need purification? Compare Luke 2:33 Is Joseph Jesus' father? I have more verses, these two verses are enough for me to realize the CT is corrupt.
No scribe, not even a heretical one, would have any reason to make these arbitrary changes to Luke 2: they make for very poor proof texts for a heretical view of Christ in light of the larger narrative context, and they're too easy to explain away from an orthodox perspective. Surely the heretics instead revise something significant, as Marcion did by cutting out the nativity narrative from his version of Luke's Gospel. On the other hand, a well-intentioned scribe would have every reason to revise the text in the direction of the TR readings for the very reasons you mentioned: doing so removes any room for misconstruing Christ as something less than fully divine. (Of course, the "Jesus doesn't need purification" argument doesn't hold water when you remember that he chose to receive John's baptism despite having no sins that needed forgiving.) The Critical Text readings in these two verses are almost certainly the original readings.
@@MAMoreno if these 2 verses in the Critical Text are original than the Bible is a fraud and God is a liar, I will take the TR the text of the Reformation which has borne much fruit and gives me confidence in the word of God especially in the Geneva and King James Bibles.
@@dwashington1333 Melodramatic much? In the case of "her purification," it's not supported by the majority of Greek manuscripts, let alone the most ancient. William Tyndale's New Testament reads "their," in line with the evidence.
@@MAMoreno You are acting like these are the only two discrepancies in the CT. Explain Mark chapter 1? Why does the CT say that a prophecy that is in Hosea is in Isaiah? Mark quotes the prophets Isaiah and Hosea not just Isaiah, another reason to reject the CT.
I agree with your words, if not your intent. The KJV is THE HOLY BIBLE for English speaking people. The NKJV is also THE HOLY BIBLE for English speaking people. The NASB is also THE HOLY BIBLE for English speaking people. And so on. The Spirit of God is not limited to Jacobean English, nor is God limited to one translation's set of English glosses for the Hebrew and Greek words, whether that translation be the Geneva Bible or the English Standard Version. Christ's gospel is in fact not trapped exclusively in one precise manuscript tradition, if 2,000 years of salvation history across the world--regardless of versional and textual variants--have taught us anything. So even if there is an overall best version of THE HOLY BIBLE for English speaking people in any given century (the 14th, the 17th, or the 21st), the power of God unto salvation speaks in all generations, even in "the meanest translation."
On one hand I'm delighted with the display of civility, but on the other hand I'm distressed that it is so rare.
Solid point. 😑
Totally agree!!
This is how in-house debates between Christian brothers should be. God bless you both.
AMEN!
@@Matthew-307 thanks
Mark and Scott, thank you both for your gracious treatment of one another! May this conversation stand as an example to other believers on how to address differences and disagreement within the Church.
As another TR guy who preaches from the NKJV, I have seen too much division over this issue and it refreshing to see that we as believers can disagree AND be gracious in our treatment of others. Thank you again!
Thanks for your kind words!
Wow! I'm not sure if I would have been as gracious as both you and brother Scott were in this video. I personally haven't settled solidly on one side or the other of the textual debate, not only because I don't feel like I have enough data to make an informed decision on the topic but also because I'm convinced that it is better to hold these types of viewpoints on things unrevealed with great humility and caution. That being said, I agree with both of you on the importance of believers being able to trust the translation they hold. For that reason, I'm saddened by brother Scott's comment about translations based on the critical text as being akin to "storybook Bibles." Every translation of God's Word is itself to be considered as God's Word insofar as it is faithful to the originals, and if God has left debatable a minuscule percentage of what is in the originals, we would do well to hold our opinions lightly as to whether those debated passages are original or not. But praise the Lord that the minuscule does not define our faith; I actually find that the debate over the minuscule strengthens my trust in the overwhelming majority. One thousand soldiers who share 95% of the same vision and focus are a much stronger military force than a mere one hundred who agree on absolutely everything.
Interesting, Josiah. I didn’t realize quite where you were on NTTC. I appreciate your practical upshot greatly, as you know.
I’ve done a deep dive into the textual critical debate, and there’s so much information that can argue both sides. One man’s channel that I came across last month is so great, his name is Robert Paul Weiland. He’s with the Lord now, but his videos from years ago are so helpful.
Brilliantly said. Brilliant.
Very well said. I too dislike it when Mr. Ingram makes uncharitable remarks about the critical text, even though he means no offense, such comments add nothing to the conversation save for the possibility of strife between brothers and sisters of the same faith.
TR preferred, preach from the NKJV. Good to see you guys having a conversation. Both have awesome channels.
Thanks! Glad to see so many sharing their TR conviction here.
Wonderful, enlightening,warm conversation. Thank you, Brothers.🌹🔥🌞🔥🌹
Our pleasure!
Wouldn’t it be cool if the:
Calvinists & Arminians
Covenantalists & Dispensationalists
Complimentarians & Egalitarians
Old earthers & Young earthers etc. who have legitimate real differences could at least learn to treat their Christian counterparts as you gentlemen have done in this video? This is how Christians SHOULD treat each other. Thank you both.
God bless you! Thanks
I've seen some of Scott Ingram's translation videos as well, and I found his position fair and considerate even when I disagreed. As you've talked about TR-Only pastors being de facto KJV-Only pastors, Scott has repeatedly come to mind as a major exception to that generalization. (I've known a few pastors in person who have held similar beliefs about the TR, and they too were marked by a graciousness that was often not there in the KJVO sphere that I knew in my youth.)
A good word.
That's very much true. The people who claim to be a TR-only proponent are more often than not a KJVO with a tolerance to the NKJV.
When you meet a genuine TR proponent, it's often a shock.
I have always been at churches up until the last couple years that are more staunch in the King James position, and I myself have only read the King James. With that said, through the years, there was always guilt when reading an NIV or a new King James version or something else. So, I always surmised since the king James is so much in my memory, just to continue with that.
I subscribe to both Pastor Ingram and Mark Ward UA-cam channels. Actually, Pastor Ingraham opened my mind up to the new King James version before Mark Ward did, as I was subscribed to his channel 1st ….then came along Mark Ward, and I would say that I learned and gleed very much, and as much that I feel comfortable in my heart and in my mind to read other versions without feeling that I’m reading the devil‘s Bible or a perversion, etc. all this to say, I was elated to find that both of these brothers could have a talk together, and I have just got done, listening and feel that it’s a great thing to have shared common ground, even opening up our eyes in a good way, thank you both, for your faithfulness.
I think you need to worry about bad theology and bad churches more than a specific bible translation. The top ten bible translations are used by all kinds of deviant people and congregations, all arguing that they have the perfect truth but not living it. I'm sure plenty of woke people that are transing their kids still read KJV, plenty of guys cheating on their wives, plenty of pedo pastors, etcetera.... the world is rotten.
I appreciate the fact that both of you approached this topic in the spirit of grace, and neither of you had an attitude of pride or arrogance. If all believers had more humility, as both of you have shown, we would be much more pleasing to the Lord Jesus. God bless both of you. BTW, I have two Bibles on my desk that I use more often than any others, the ESV and the NKJV. I love them both!
Would that all such encouters were conducted with such mutual love and respect! “By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."” (John 13:35, NKJV) Excellent presentation! May the Lord bless both of you!
Scott and I have very serious disagreements, but we have very serious agreements, too, that are more important than the disagreements!
@@markwardonwords Actually, I have viewed both of your channels from time to time. Looking forward to purchasing a consolidation of all of your false friends efforts!
What a great learning experience! I started out a majority guy (ignorance), then got some good information and agree with the critical text (education). But last night I had the first class of the school year with my teens and we were trying to memorize 2 Tm 3:16-17, and it turned into the tower of babel because I had four kids using 3 different translations. So I think there is a practical ministry argument for needing to use one translation that doesn't fluctuate every few years so we can communicate and minister to each other on a practical level. Use the version you want at home, but let's use one understandable version in church and only change it when its unavoidable and hopefully not more than every fifty years so we can have continuity.
I'm with you. There are practical reasons for having a standard within a given church. You can't always take the time to explain the differences among versions; and you can't expect most AWANA leaders, for example, to do that kind of work.
@@markwardonwords I agree as well, but there have been times when I have found teaching moments when a group would have different translations. I particularly think of moments as the leader of a group of youth at church camp each summer. Each student would come from a different church, and we might have as many translations as we had students. One aspect of church camp is Bible verse memorization. You might think that the differences in translations would confuse these students. There were certainly some that would initially say that another student wasn't reading the verse correctly. Instead of being confusing though, these instances became teaching moments so that the students could understand more thoroughly the meaning of the verses as we discussed the different words used in different translations. Yes, it did take extra effort and time, but in the end, these students did more than just recite, they had a better comprehension of God's word.
I have been a fan of both your channels. I am a Byzantine priority guy myself, which means that I would agree more, perhaps, with Scott. I preach from the NKJV and use it for my personal Bible reading most of the time. When asked about my preference for the KNJV, I explain my view, remind them that there is ultimately not a great deal of difference, and encourage them to follow their own consciences in the matter. So, although some in my congregation use the NKJV, as I do, there are also those who use the NASB, LSB, ESV, and even a couple who use the NIV. When differences arise in the text (usually due to translation rather than textual issues), I simply explain why they are there and how they rarely make any real difference. I have found that this approach, over the past 30 years, has actually led them to greater confidence in their Bible.
Amen! I love this! The existence of people such as yourself and Scott insistently raises the question as to whether a lot of TR defense is just KJV defense.
@@markwardonwords I couldn't agree more. Although I grew up with the KJV, and I went to a KJV-only high school my freshman through junior years, I have never been a KJV-only person myself. When in Bible college and seminary, I began to read about textual criticism and found myself preferring a Majority Text approach, although now I would more specifically say Byzantine priority (à la Robinson), but I have never been particularly dogmatic about it. And, of course, my view is not a TR view, since the Majority or Byzantine texts actually disagree at a number of points with the TR (most notably the Comma Johanneum). Anyway, I use the NKJV because there is no good translation of my preferred text, and the NKJV, together with its footnotes, is a good substitute.
Try the World English Bible which is a Majority Text Bible@@PastorKThroop
@@dwashington1333 I use the World English Bible regularly. One of the things I like about this translation is that it shares (in footnotes) differences found between the Majority Text, the Textus Receptus, and the Nestle-Aland/United Bible Societies critical text Greek New Testament. Lacking the original manuscripts from the original writers, being able to compare these texts helps in my study of God’s word.
What a wonderful, blessed and edifying conversation. Thank you.
Mark: You are doing excellent work. In October I am teaching a block class in Kenya to pastors taking their first section of their Systematic Theology requirement (Independent Baptist College of Ministry in Nairobi). Your channel is one of the Helpful Resources I list in the Bibliology section.
This was a great discussion. Thanks very much. In regard to the Thomas Nelson publisher, I believe that interview was on Tim Frisch’s The Frisch Perspective channel. They said no plans to change the NKJV text, updates to the footnotes not currently in the works but possible in the future at some point.
Right! That was Philip Nation. Sharp guy.
I have consistently “pushed back” against KJV-only doctrine when attempts have been made to introduce it in my congregation (although this has not happened for a number of years now). In my view, it is willful ignorance, which is bad enough, but it is also incredibly divisive and, often, mean-spirited. Thankfully, I have seen a few of them move away from this view. Sadly, however, I have too often had to cite Romans 16:17 in warning my fellow believers about many of them.
"In my view, it is willful ignorance,"
Amen! And that mindset shows itself in other ways that are detrimental to themselves and those around then.
I am a former KJVO and preach from the NKJV and LOVE it!
Amen brother!
We got another one! I think I'm up to like 8?
Absolutely excellent! I was at Tennessee Temple from 1977 to 1981 when Dr Price was teaching there!
That’s awesome! I bet that was a fantastic class!
Personally, I prefer the King James. It's what I grew up on and I really have no issues understanding it. That being said, I have read several other translations, and I probably have at least one copy of most of them. I agree with Pastor Inghram about the NKJV's stability. A stable text matters, and the constant updates of the new ones are why I don't use them more often. I also agree with you Mark, that language has changed over the years, but it has not changed so much in the last fifty years that some of these versions need four or five revisions within just a few years. It's important to understand what you read, and I believe that people should read what they can understand and will use. Most translations will do this just fine, and there is nothing that prevents anyone from reading multiple versions if they choose to.
Great points.
1) Two brothers in the Lord, of great integrity. I have learned a lot from both.
2) MARK: Scott also has UA-cam videos of his Sunday sermons. He is a great preacher! I hope the application of Scripture in PREACHING will come up in a video you both do together.
I'll have to catch one of his regular sermons; I've only heard portions that were relevant to the KJV debate.
It was a treat to see this interview pop up in my recommendations. I have watxhed several of pastor Ingram’s videos, and the thought had crossed my mind “I wonder if Mark Ward knows about this guy, because he’s one of the very few TR-only guys who aren’t KJVO.”
Right!
I am glad this was a blessing for you. I really enjoyed doing it.
I once asked this pastor friend of mine what he thought about the differences between the KJV and the NIV. He said that he didn't believe that there was enough difference between the two of them that either of them would ever lead somebody wrong.
If you could be "led astray" by the NKJ version of the Bible, then how could you possibly handle one day of living in this world?
A respectful, Biblical conversation, and a POTENT challenge. Thanks so much for your diligent research on this topic!
I actually love Scott Ingram. He's really great!
I always held this view but didnt really know anyone else did till i found pastor scott ingram channel. He is well informed and charitable. I agree with the missing verses especially. Thanks for this great discussion!
" I agree with the missing verses especially. "
They are only missing if they were there in the first place (the autographs), which is exactly the question. So, determining "missing" verse by the TR is circular reasoning.
NKJV for the win! This was a great conversation. I'll be sure to take a look at his video on the triquetra.
CSB and ESV are much better than the NKJV. With that said, pretty much any modern Bible is better than the KJV.
Thanks Dwayne! I enjoy your videos too!
@@PastorScottIngram Thanks Scott!
@@jwatson181 I would push back against the idea that modern versions are "better" than the KJV. Rather, the issue is that the KJV's quality can't really be measured except against other translations of its era. If a committee in 1598 had produced something that functioned like the CSB--finding a similar balance between literalness and idiomatic Early Modern English--then we could properly compare that hypothetical Ye Olde CSB to the KJV. But because they're divided by four centuries, they don't lend themselves to comparison.
@@jwatson181your argument is not sound. The nkjv is more stable and more reliable than any translations today
Mark, apologies if I'm overlooking it in your list, but you mentioned the Lord/Master change with the NKJV and that reminded me that 'master' can also be a false friend when it's used in the older sense of a teacher (i.e. 'headmaster'). I've had KJV-onlyists try to claim that using the word 'teacher' instead of 'master' in the Gospel dialogues between Christ and His disciples is 'denying the lordship of Christ'!
You’re right!!
I mean "master" can still mean someone that's good at something, but using the word that way to refer to Jesus is just going to result in misunderstanding.
@@maxxiongYes, the idea is of someone who has mastered a subject well enough to be able to teach it to others, but I don't think anyone would ordinarily presume that's how the word was being used in scripture. We tend to immediately think of a master-servant relationship.
The book farstad wrote about the NKJV was a big part of getting past my apprehensions about it.
And the response by Dr Price to DA Waites criticims of the NKJV OT. Price showed that DA Waites grasp of Hebrew is very subpar and his criticism of the NKJV was NOT based on in departing from the Hebrew but in choosing to translate/interpreting the Heb different than the KJV
I recently tried to watch a video from Pastor Ingram on the KJV vs other translations and i just couldn't do it. so this really highlights you as an example to me if the kindness and patience I have yet to develop.
Mark. I prefer the TR and preach from the NKJV. I pastor a small church, and I’m not famous, but you can count me into TR preferred and using NKJV.
Yay! I've got another one! I'm still at less than ten.
@@markwardonwords I even use modern translations. I always study from KJV, NKJV,ESV,NIV, & NLT. I even quoted a verse in my sermon last week from the NLT. I’ve been called a heretic from people in my own camp ( almost always by a KJVO).
I knew there were more of us out there! :)
@@PastorScottIngram Yes! Love this! NKJV-TR proponents unite! The KJV-Onlyists are dominating what ought to be your airwaves!
@@markwardonwords amen brother!
The question should be "Should ANY version be your ONLY version?". What about if someone is a CSB/ESV onlyist, an NIV Onlyist, an NLT Onlyist, or Douay Rheims Onlyist? should ANY version be a go-to version if kjv lovers shouldnt have a go-to? So ONE VERSION ONLYISTS should be the real topic.
I personally am not a KJV Onlyist. I just like the KJV the most (not "only"). 1611 KJV is still my most favorite. My second favorite is the 1995 NASB, and my third is the RSVCE/RSV2CE, and my fouth is the Orthodox Study Bible. But that mainly because i am formal text type of person. However, i use NIV & ESV for a more dynamic approach in dialogue. I have a:
1537 Matthew's Bible
1560 Geneva Bible
1611 KJV
1966 RSVCE
Xxxx NRSVCE (forgot the year)
1995 NASB
1977 NIV
2001 ESV
2008 Orthodox Study Bible
1996-2011 Artscroll Tanach
& a 2016 Complete Jewish Study Bible
(Along with other bibles)
The Tanach & CJB are for my linguistic studies. And I keep the pocket-sized rsvce to have smaller version of my 1611 (which the acception of it still being a different translation) But you should definitely keep a 1611 KJB for cross reference if you have any modern versions. I suggest others get a Parallel Bible (KJV/NASB/NIV/AMP).
Seeing that i already have a 1611, I still want to check out the CSB to check for consistency. I also want the Didache Bible, Douay Rheims, Knox Bible, New Revised Jerusalem Bible, an NLT, and an Interlinear Bible (Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic). I think the Geneva Bible and the Interlinear Bible are the only others that come close the KJB as far as formal text (as well as the NASB/NABRE). I love my kjv the most but I'm always collecting/reading different version.
I also forgot to mention my interest in collecting a Berean Standard Bible. Based on the reviews, it may have the potential to surpass the csb/esv, and bring dynamic and formal readers to a common ground.
I teach everyone I know to use 3 translations:
1) KJV/NKJV to have access to the TR tradition.
2) one of: ESV, NASB, or LSB, to have a literal Critical Text version as your normal place for study.
3) one of CSB, NET, NIV 84, NLT for a more dynamic translation as a "recreational" reader and for use when theological language or original idiom is difficult, so you can flip to a thought for thought and ensure you have the gist of the translation.
This is also good for teaching because having 3 distinct translations from 3 traditions, even as a Greek reader, allows me to spot places where interpreters disagree. And this is useful for highlighting in the lesson.
@ayetizzo "So ONE VERSION ONLYISTS should be the real topic."
That might be true, if there were any such thing. But I have never heard of any significant group of people who adamantly insist on only using one version the way the KJVOs do. I suppose you might find an odd person here or there who is stuck on one translation, but such people do not have any effect on the Church at large.
The KJVOs *_DO_* have an effect on the Church at large, and it's a very BAD effect.
@@Packhorse-bh8qnI'd argue that hardcore calvinists oftentimes are NASB 95 onlyists, but without the Ruckmanite fervor. They won't say they're NASB 95 only, but they won't say they'll repeat anything John MacArthur says verbatim, but the phenomena exists.
@@nobodyspecial1852 "'d argue that hardcore calvinists oftentimes are NASB 95 onlyists, but without the Ruckmanite fervor. "
That's completely wrong. You might find a very few people like that, but very, very few.
And since I know people who attend Grace Community, and others who have regular connections there, I can tell you that you'll find very few of these people even in John MacAurther's own church.
@@Packhorse-bh8qn say what you will, I encounter JMac worshippers in small town Missouri semi frequently. The internet was full of them when Julie Roys kicked the hornets nest, also anytime the SBC has controversy the last decade. I go to bible studies at random Baptist churches occasionally, over 50% of the time it'll be run by hardcore 5 pointers that repeat the latest JMac sermons, because it's taking over the SBC. Maybe that's not everywhere but the SBC has addressed it officially recently, along with female pastors and CRT, so it's in the institutional instruction pipeline somewhere. Anytime I encounter any of it, it's a room full of people on NASB 95.
It's always good to be able to agree on the evidential facts and disagree respectfully on matters of scientific interpretation of the facts.
Great Stuff! Gives me hope!
Thank you so much for the Christian love you each show in your demeanor and word. My prayers go out to you both.
Many thanks!
I loved this conversation. I really wish more KJV-Only people had the demeanour, gentleness and respect that Scott had here, in spite of the differences you two have on this issue. God bless you both. 🙏
Awesome discussion! I love both channels.
Thanks!
David Guzik of Enduring Word, a Calvary Chapel pastor, holds the same position as Pastor Scott. He's not very vocal about it, but he has talked about it on his q&a sessions on youtube. He uses the NKJV in both his commentary and preaching, and believes like Scott that the "traditional text" is better both pastoraly and critically.
Thanks. I will have to check him out.
Churches that use the NKJV that used to use the KJV. Many of the IFCA International churches, specifically Cicero Bible Church . Pioneer Baptist church in Wasilla AK. These are ones that I know of.
Thank you for doing this. I follow both of you and have learned much from you both. Keep up the good work.
God bless you! You’re welcome!
The kind of conversation I've been waiting for all this time thank you both so much
Our pleasure!
You’re welcome
Gentlemen, well done! ✝
A great talk and helpful I like those MacArthur commentaries on Scott's shelf John gives good notes on the Mark 16:15 and John 7:53 -8:11 in the MacArthur study Bible. Also Warren Wiersbe's Study Bible
I have read those notes. I don’t agree with them, if course, but I have read and tried to understand his point of view.
John Mac refused to preach the ending of Mark-saying it was not Scripture.
Not a famous pastor here but I’m TR-preferred and also preach from the NKJV. Add me on that list, brother Mark.
Yay! They’re coming out of the woodwork!
Glad to see another brother with my conviction. :)
Absolutely loved this conversation. Well done!
Glad you enjoyed it!
I too appreciate and am very grateful for the civility. I must note also that there's common an extremely little addressing of the actual words, both ancient texts and the English, that are different between the Bible versions. The focus must be on the ancient texts which are the basis for the English. The fact is that EVERY version translated by fallible men is a fallible translation. What we have in our culture today is a "microwave" approach and the difficulty of learning the ancient languages gives rise to the common sentiment that we don't "need" to learn the ancient languages, since we have the English. That thought is totally in error, as the Creator chose the ancient languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Hence, HE chose the specific words from which the English is translated. They are absolutely critical to the discussion of the text issue, but I often find them almost totally lacking in any discussion of textual criticism, almost to the point of not paying attention to the issue anymore. I do MUCH better to go directly to the ancient texts to study them with my excellent Bibleworks software.
I'm happy using a NKJV when meeting with brothers and sisters (and brethren) who using predominately NIV or KJV as it follows both well enough and says why when it differs due to a textual variant. Last week when I was meeting with people using NIVs I came across the ending of Jude and the NIV had more words than the NKJV! We were asked to read it together and I had to keep looking at the footnotes for the missing words! I'd love to see what the textual support is for each version of v25 and possible reasons for the differences in Greek but don't have any software to help. The NKJV and KJV omit that 'Jesus Christ is Lord' and other words but I shan't write them off on that basis! I just want to understand why the text collators/editors of the Greek selected the readings they have and how the differences could have come about in the first place.
Yes, this is an interesting variant. Not only do the oldest manuscripts of Jude contain "through Jesus Christ our Lord", but even Jerome's Latin Vulgate has it too. Perhaps this could be a case where the later Greek Byzantine manuscripts (from which the KJV comes from) accidentally omitted it through the copying process.
I found this video chat intriguing and rather disturbing at the same time. The English language with its national, regional and local accents and even variations of written words just proves we need to be informed as to the meaning and intentions of the originals currently available.
I'd actually love to see you chat with Daniel B Wallace about the textual issues that have caused challenges for new and established Christians.
Thank you for another interesting UA-cam
❤❤❤ I watch and am subscribed to both of your channels. I respect both of you immensely.
Thanks! It’s an honor.
I’ve enjoyed listening to Scott for years.
Good episode.
This was a great video. I appreciate Scott's charity against the side he opposes and the ability to hold his own side accountable to the truth.
We can know that you are both Christians because of the love you have for one another.
We need to stop shooting at our own warriors..... There is nothing wrong with seeing things differently....we don't need to be nasty toward those who see things differently.....there is nothing wrong with holding to what you believe and standing for it, but we need to be kind toward those who have a different frame of reference. I have had people say to me, "I can't believe you don't believe God preserved His word and didn't give us His word!" Which is the farthest thing from the truth. If that's what you believe, fine believe that but don't call me anathema because I don't agree with you.
It was very refreshing to come across a video with two christians that have a huge difference in their texrual views and able to have a conversation in civility.
I personally agree with a lot of what Scott had to say, however i thought it was a bit of a shame to call the NA28 Bibles "storybook bibles," it tars them a bit despite the incredible work that good christians have done to translate the word of God.
I myself have made peace leaving a KJV-only group and restong with a Majority text position; alas i havent found a bible that i thoroughly enjoy that uses a TR or a Majority text.
So this is where i may seem like a walking contradiction - While i started with the NKJV, and enjoy it... there are places where I will admit i still stumble, so i use the Berean Standard Bible as my primary, and ive made peace with this decision because they have good footnotes. The other reason being is my new church uses the NIV, and thats not a hill I need to die on.
In my ideal world I'd have Majority text or a TR NIV-style translation, but that doesnt exist, and ive lost confidence in the publishers of the MEV.
So for now I use bibles that are. Based on the NA28, and hope that Biblehub will print their Majority Standard Bible in the near future.
I love you guys but listening to him say “he reads the original text” makes me sick.
When I heard that I responded out loud “ so your reading the Hebrew?”
I pray (and I actually will ) that the creator opens their eyes
The prophets and the apostles spoke KJV English and wore white shirts and ties. Didn't you know?
You forgot powdered wigs and tights (not yoga pants). Elijah wore a thick leather belt and a camel hair tunic.... with a powdered wig and tights. John the Baptist too.
@@firstnamelastname2552I needed that humor today guys . Thanks .
😅
@@firstnamelastname2552you go hater. No one's opinion but yours is right. Toni's husband
@@tonimccoy9778 That's about a 10/10 on the overreaction meter. Maybe loosen your tie a little bit and try to relax.
Hmmmm. He started learning facts, and he moved away from KJVO.
Funny how that works! I'd love to buy this brother a cup of coffee!
Thanks, but I was never KJVO. I have always said that the KJV is more exact to the traditional text, while the NKJV translation of the traditional text is more instantly understandable…. But I would still take a cup of coffee. ;)
@@PastorScottIngram I've I ever get down your way, I'll buy! 👍
The problem I have with UBS 5/NA28, which I see creeping into translation revisions presently, and I say this as a CT proponent, is this:
The CT has veered strongly into Internal Criteria for text validity, which is subjective. And away from objective, external criteria. Changes are made to the text (not simply confidence grading) in the latest CT where no new external data has been presented. Only subjective opinions on which is more difficult. I find that unacceptable. Verging on a postmodern text critical methodology.
And yet every approach that is actually on offer is limited (except in rare cases, cases translators can evaluate individually) to readings that are actually extant in the manuscript tradition. There's a major control, then, a set of guardrails, on all NT text-critical work.
@markwardonwords I agree that has been the case in the past. But reading sections from the text commentary on the last revisions, I'm not convinced this was done with sufficient caution. Especially given how confidence in the 4th Edition was generally high. I'm not saying I'm going TR. But I am disinclined to move from 4/27 to 5/28.
@@shawngillogly6873 Someone with your level of ability in understanding the issues-demonstrated solely by these comments-will be able to use any edition of the GNT judiciously. At least when it comes to major evangelical English translations, all the translators will have those skills as well.
@@markwardonwords I don't disagree in the near term. But drift happens over time, so we have to be diligent. Especially since we don't take a simple solution like KJVOnly preservationism.
Also, thank you for the time and compliment. I have always appreciated the spirit you conduct these discussions in.
If I understand you two correctly: people editing the text to align with perceived doctrinal rhetoric within, initiates the question of who is weighing these matters and with what level of confidence can we trust them to not reinforce their own suppositions
Like 1 John 5:7 oftentimes being celebrated/reviled due to trinitarian doctrine instead of evidence it was known/missing for the first four centuries AD? People red-faced arguing about what ALMA meant or unique versus begotten versus only.... engineering their textual updates to "fit the truth".
Great discussion, I plan on watching more of Pastor Scott's videos.
REAL QUESTION related to your discussion of the Triquetra. Do you think there is actual power in symbols? As in should Christians not knowingly wear or use symbols related to demonic or false gods? I know this is more of a Haunted Cosmos question but I haven't posed it to them yet. Thank you.
I think symbols have a combination of conventional and intrinsic meaning-but that most of the meaning is conventional. If someone unselfconsciously uses a symbol to mean something and most people of good will who want to understand in fact do understand, then that's what that symbol means. The OK symbol isn't a racist dogwhistle for 99.9% of the people who use it, only for the tiny community of people who like to play with that racist meaning.
@@markwardonwords Thank you for replying. That has been my traditional view on the subject, but it has been on my mind a lot in the last year and so wanted another opinion.
I’m not anti-CT translations. But I am more comfortable with the TR. Is this a hangover from my KJV years? Maybe. I do love the NKJV.
It probably is-but I wouldn't worry about it as long as it's not causing division or strife between you and other believers. Read the NKJV and understand! That's the important thing.
Mark: how about that NASB 2020? I just started reading that, after almost a year with NASB, IMO (thus far) it's the same but less boring. All I can find about it online is people bashing it for not being 95, but they're oftentimes NASB-95onlyists.
True NASB enthusiasts should also bash the ‘95 for not being the ‘77 :P
I mostly read the NKJV, but I did get a NASB 95 a few weeks ago, and like it a lot more than I expected. I always hear it’s “wooden,” but so far that has not been my experience.
For every passage in the NASB that I think might be more wooden than the NKJV, I can find a different passage where I think the NASB reads better than the NKJV.
@@kaltech04 I thought "lovingkindness" all through the old testament was obnoxious, most of the time it felt like a more direct and less nuanced NKJV. I didn't find the amazing depth and "I'm better than you because my bible is more literal-er than yours" feeling either.... I wanted to figure out why those people gravitate to that translation 🤷♂️ (because JMac worship requires it?). It was a solid translation, but I prefer NKJV to it for (anything Paul) nuanced rhetoric, and (again IMO) ESV (2016, specified because I don't know what's gonna happen with the new one) dominates it by a wide margin. Currently ESV is like Ronnie Coleman screaming "lite-weight baby" and NASB 95 is some guy on the Mr Olympia stage, that deserves to be there even, but isn't really a contender for the title.
I haven’t run into “lovingkindness” too much, but I’ve mostly used it to compare passages to the NKJV and KJV, and have mostly been in psalms and the prophetic books. If I decide to read it all the way through I may find more issues with it than I have so far.
I do wonder if some of those who choose the NASB for being the most literal translation fail to see how dynamic it often is, and has to be to remain legible.
@@kaltech04 I think that whole dynamic equivalence argument is flawed, the premise exists but the continuum charts.... 🤦♂️
Early genesis, we're told that human language (perhaps comprehension) is scrambled so bad that corporate enterprise is hampered enough to prevent us from ever achieving whatever feats were capable by humanity during the building of the tower of babel (interdimensional travel, scrying, nephilim production, making a rhebus?). If any language (or comprehension) was capable of delivering and receiving truth 100%, it's not now, and that applies to the whole of the bible and any language it's translated into, and that's not even static because language changes continuously. We can read the testimonies and parables within and learn from them enough to develope critical thinking and jurisprudence that can allow us to grow towards Christ and interpret what's been preserved, Christ being the crescendo of the biblical narrative. The point being us attempting to grow into people welcome in Zion, not bible scholars that can quote everything word for word (words are integers for thoughts, not of value beyond delivery of conceptual messages, noise and scribbles otherwise). Whatever iteration helps me grow, I'm using it, the life and security of my household depend on it.
Part of what I still struggle with about NT scholars is that many of them want Italics or footnote Mark 16 or John 8 etc... Claiming they were add later, whether true or not, we can debate another day. Assuming for a second they were added later, does that make them any less scripture? Most credit Moses with writing the first 5 books, but clearly he didn't write Deut 34. It was written by someone much later, likely during the monarchy era (v10). But that doesn't make it any less valuable. OT scholars are not grammatically segregating OT chapters from the rest of a book and making them de facto 2nd class scripture. We either do to both or we do it with none. I don't care much for the KJV verbiage, but at least it leaves the fonts and texts alone.
I always thought that Joshua wrote the end of Deuteronomy. Or that Moses could have written it knowing what was already going to happen.
@@curtthegamer934how many people amended the chronology we now know as genesis? Generations of people and language drift during and after the curse of the tower of babel, we know that was a trying time. Re-populating the world after the flood and not only having trouble but outright failing to keep the faith and culture intact... those texts that survived were edited bullet points. Still legit.
Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face, who did all those signs and wonders the Lord sent him to do in Egypt-to Pharaoh and to all his officials and to his whole land. For no one has ever shown the mighty power or performed the awesome deeds that Moses did in the sight of all Israel. -deut 34:10-12
Those verses seem to imply a much larger time skip that just Joshua. They writer likely had the prophet from Deut 18:15 in mind when he wrote those words. Not realizing that it would be centuries more still until Jesus shows up.
@@suiko2fan2 There didn't need to be a large amount of time. A prophet of God could have already known that there would never be another prophet like Moses.
One of the criteria for a book to be included in the new testament is for it to be apostolic, so it would be problematic if Mark 16 or John 8 was added in, say, 150AD.
This was great, thanks.
Glad you enjoyed it!
I am mildly familiar with Pastor Ingram, I've commented on a couple of his videos. No, I'm not surprised you two are talking at all. Reasonable people can diagree and be civil. Civility is what matters, not agreement.
Thanks. Civility seems lost today and I am thankful for that compliment.
Faith is not lacking reasoning or experience. Verbal affirmation is a falsifiable sign.
I believe you have to have faith in whose Word it is. Did they, you pray for understanding?
Yes, my friend! Scott and I prayed together right before this recording.
👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽Great Video thank you
You are so welcome!
Interesting to take part in. And nice to see a good and pleasant dialogue despite different positions. One negative thing: Scott speaks of the "arrogance" (28:46) of those who work from the critical text and who have removed certain texts. Unfortunately, Mark accepted that word choice (30:29) which was not so good. Of course, it is not in the slightest about "arrogance", but about an objective analysis made on a scientific basis which led to certain texts not being included in the critical text.
But as a whole, good! And thank you.
I don't accept that word choice; I merely believe it is better than "demonic"! I'm trying in this video to focus on common ground.
@@markwardonwords Yes, and you did it well. And sorry if I misunderstood you, so thanks for your clarification.
The "arrogance" could be in relying purely on rationalistic conclusions without factoring in a more practical and theological component: namely, the readings that were widely used throughout the centuries were the readings that God permitted to be widely used. (Note: I'm not necessarily agreeing with that assessment of the scholars' approach.)
I don't think hard opinions can be delivered gently. Arrogance, vehemence, whatever, I'm glad it's direct and honest. How both parties handle that discussion after the opening salvo is what makes progress possible.
I was rattled by the comment about CT bibles being like children's bibles - but he seemed to actually believe that. I'd argue the question: "what theology follows either source", but they didn't take that path. The worst thing about the KJVonlyists crowd is that they have virtually no unifying theology, they're all over the continuum in many issues, usually the most radical and contradictory positions too. CT guys aren't exempt but there are identifiable camps.
The criteria used to determine the readings using textual criticism is not scientific nor objective. There is still very much a subjective aspect to it. Even if there is scientific data, that data still needs to be interpreted and the way they interpret the data is not scientific.
Textual criticism is not like chemistry or mathematics, and we really cannot test some of the ways that textual criticism uses to determine genuine readings when variants are present.
The TR and the critical text
Are
Not
The
Same.
Whole verses are removed.
Mark 1:2 is erroneous in the CT.
1 John 5:6-8 is incorrect grammar in the CT.
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.
Imagine you had a question, and you wanted to get multiple perspectives on it, so you asked different members of your family.
The KJV is like your great grandpa, the RSV is like your grandpa, the NASB is your dad, and the CSB is your brother. All different perspectives, trying their honest best to help you.
They all try to convey the original meaning as best they can, but their different translation philosophies and the cultures they come from will inevitably be reflected in the text.
I think every translation that comes out should also release a parallel KJV Bible. Because the KJV is so old, the thinking of its translators is likely to vary from that of modern translators. By comparing the two, you can sort of distribute the error a little.
One is the Divine Council in the Old Testament and Deuteronomy 32 the Mas.text says Israel and the oldest Old Testament that we have says sons of God the LXX says sons of God just something to throw out there
Scott!
I'm not a KJVO but I love Scott. Excited to listen to this collab
He's a fine fellow!
@@markwardonwords he really is.
I'm more on the side on the Critical Text in terms of this specific issue, but I've enjoyed a lot of Scott's sermons.
This was a great discussion and I look forward to more!
Hopefully we can get more from TR/KJV only/preferred camp to have more civil discussions on the channel in the future!
I hope the goal of all sides is always to achieve the most accurate representation of the original manuscripts, unfortunately we only have copies of copies, so even the “earliest” is not the original. Since we don’t have the original and most passages are in the majority text and many were referenced by church fathers before the earliest manuscripts, it creates a construction zone type caution for me, with a realization the removing of historical passages if/when an even older manuscript are found may someday find a reversal and these verses need added back. I primarily read two versions. The NKJV being one and I also like to read the Gideon’s ESV translation which has the additional verses included in the majority text. All things in balance, but my preference and research leads me to error on the side of caution and stay with the majority text or a CT text like the ESV which has the Gideon’s version that includes those majority text passages without brackets.
Brother Ward, you are the model of civility and good sense. I wish I could get a bit of that to rub off on me.
Thank you. Pray for me!
@@markwardonwords It will be my pleasure.
Great video I enjoyed it
Glad you enjoyed it!
I’m glad it was a blessing brother!
@ 27:42 ~ amen.
I respectfully disagree with Mr. Ingram. I don't think his arguments are sound, but at least he admits he's biased, I'll give him that.
I don’t expect everyone to agree and truthfully, we all have our bias. I try to simply share facts and let others make their decisions.
Andrews, your arguments are not sound either so you are probably biased too.
Ward, what's the best argument against KJVO?
1 Cor 14 + false friends.
I'd take a different approach than Mark and say that the best argument against KJVO is the fact that the Spirit of God clearly works through churches that are not KJVO. As Peter says in Acts 11.17, "If then God gave them the same gift that he gave us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could hinder God?"
The fact that the church existed 1,600 years without the KJV is a strong argument against KJV-Onlyism, when it says that it's the only translation that has the Word of God.
@@eclipsesonic Some of the dispensationalist KJVOs will justify their position by insisting that the Rapture is nearly upon us, which explains why we now have a perfect, purified Bible. (As to why this perfect Bible is in Jacobean English rather than contemporary English, that's because our current "Laodicean" church can't be expected to produce a good one.) If that's the case, I suppose Kirk Cameron, Nicolas Cage, and the rest of the Left Behind crew had better bone up on the English of Shakespeare's time once the Baptist Bride is taken away.
Mark, can you recommend books on Bibliology?
I love John Frame. www.amazon.com/dp/0875522645?tag=3755-20
Kevin DeYoung is a good place to start for a beginner (if you're asking for someone else!): www.amazon.com/dp/B00IFG0EPM?tag=3755-20
@@markwardonwords Thank you, Mark! I just ordered the J. Fame for myself.
Excellent Christian dialog between two brothers. But the "storybook" line about anything other than the KJV or NKJV was off-putting.
Nevertheless, considering today's climate on the issue, a much appreciated video.
I wonder what Scott meant by that line, because he has read through modern versions. He and I have another conversation coming up on his channel (a conversation we haven't had yet); I met get a chance to ask him privately or publicly.
@markwardonwords Mark, didn't I hear you say in a recent video that the NKJV translators _recently_ said that they had indeed used other TRs in addition to the one used by the KJV translators and in one instance didn't use the TR at all? Not that it matters to me, but for TR/KJVonliests, isn't that all they need to say, "see, we told you so," they have been covering up/lying all these years?
@kirbysmith4135 no, they’ve been clear all along. It was I missed that wording in ancillary material in a decades-old edition of the New King James.
@@markwardonwords Got you. Thanks for clarifying!
Would you ever want to return to a pastor role?
Some day, perhaps. Not now, I don't think.
@@markwardonwords well, if you want to discuss this a little bit more, my church is somewhat close to where you live and our pastor is leaving in May, and you came to mind for me for a potential replacement for him
@@king_ape_6 What is the name and location of the church? I am at least curious!
@@markwardonwords it is Kaleo Church in Aberdeen, WA
@@king_ape_6 Ah-I've been to Aberdeen. Yeah, we're aiming to stay where we are in Mount Vernon, I'm afraid. That's been our prayer.
“Critical text bibles are storybook bibles” … yikes😮
I can't believe Scott really means that like it's been sounding to my viewers. I'm going to try to find out. Scott, I welcome your input here!
@@markwardonwordsI pray not. It was a great interview but that comment was harsh and belittling to all the people that worked on all the Bible’s out there… and to Christians that read CT bibles.
I've heard this statement from him in the past, and the thing to keep in mind about his use of the term "storybook Bibles" is that he's not necessarily talking about how literal or non-literal they are, but how they omit information that he considers canonical. Perhaps the better comparison would be to the Reader's Digest Bible, which is truly a Bible to the degree that it contains the text of the RSV, despite condensing the text significantly enough that it can't be considered The Bible proper.
Mark, I've watched most of your video in the past on Ruckmanism. There is a member of my home church who went to Pensacola Bible Institute (Ruckman's college) and is a clear believer of the saving work of Christ, but is clearly on the Ruckmanite side of the translation debate. As you have dealt graciously with people you have disagreed with, I am wondering how to clearly defend my position that I've come to believe (very similar to your views on modern translations) while also addressing a big area that this brother has brought up, as I don't know if you've covered it on your channel before:
- Modern versions come from Alexandria, Egypt (where "Israel was in bondage" and where we shouldn't get our translations from), and we should use translations (or, more specifically, the KJV) from Antioch, where believers were first called Christians.
Great question. Common situation.
On the one hand, that argument is utterly foolish, because it's a massive oversimplification of some big complexities.
On the other hand, I just don't see how people who accept such reasoning are going to be argued out of it. My consistent answer to this kind of silliness has been to say this: "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."
If he's a close enough friend that you can reason with him, I might point out that "Alexandrian text" is a conventional designation but that the actual manuscripts we use for critical text readings aren't from Alexandria. And the manuscripts used for the KJV (in those places where they differ from modern versions) are most associated with Byzantium/Constantinople/Istanbul. I just doubt you'll get anywhere with direct attacks on his viewpoint.
I can think of a couple of objections. From the Biblical perspective, if we should view things from Egypt with skepticism, then why did Jesus’s family flee to Egypt when he was young?
From a practical perspective, you could ask them if they think there were faithful early Christians in Alexandria that tried to preserve and pass down the scriptures.
Similar to what RealCrawfish said, you could appeal to the text.
- Apollos was from Alexandria.
- Paul was sent from Antioch.
- Paul criticized those who say, "I am of Paul, and I of Apollos."
- Christ is not divided. Neither should we be.
In the millennial kingdom; Assyria, Egypt and Israel will be as one. When "that canaanite guy" (abram) got segregated to make his family line a particular race, the growth period happened with his grandkids and great grandkids raising in Egypt and for awhile being part of the ruling apparatus, married and bred with the upper echelon even (Joseph's line is specified as such, his children got a double portion and "2 tribes blessing" whilehe was also de facto ruling Egypt), Joseph having intact bones brought from Egypt and into the outlawed land after 400* years, Jesus "I called my son from Egypt" after a 400* year prophetic hiatus, Jesus being the passover lamb (more intact bones references) and destroyer of the exodus (destroyer of Ezekiel, Zechariah and Revelation too). I'm sure Egypt being a staging ground for Christianity was God's plan, but if not were supposed to trust the Jewish and Roman sources that persecuted Christ directly and after his death persecuted the early church?
Why some have problems with Reasoned eclecticism.
I John 5:7 is found in a majority of the Latin,
but not the Greek so out it goes.
Good will towards men
Doxology in Matthew
Without cause
God manifest in the flesh
Are a majority in the Greek but not in the Latin,
so out they go
The PA and Mark 16:9-20 are a majority in both the Greek
and Latin so out they go.
Even the “not yet” found in the two of the earliest(P66.P75) in John 7:8
some throw out.
If as an orthodox Christian you don't see a problem,
what would you see as a problem?
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 To pretend that differences between the Traditional church texts and CT texts don't matter is just the Post-Modern fallacy of no meta narratives. May the dialog continue. Blessings.
@@jamessheffield4173I believe they matter. I believe they matter little compared to the matter the Bible actually addresses, namely translation: edification requires intelligibility.
@@markwardonwords While there are scribal errors and politics, there is no way anyone could have changed the majority of church texts without being noticed. The first documented recension of the Greek Church texts was the 1904 A.D. Patriarchal text. Peace.
If we're accepting 1 John 5.7 despite its absence from the Greek manuscripts, should we accept the other Latin readings that are absent from the Greek? Or do we just consider the ones that Erasmus and Stephanus decided to include, ignoring the ones that they decided to "leave out" of the TR?
These Critical Text men are ignorant or they have what people call Cognitive Dissodense. Compare Luke 2:22 in your ESV to the KJV, does Jesus need purification? Compare Luke 2:33 Is Joseph Jesus' father? I have more verses, these two verses are enough for me to realize the CT is corrupt.
No scribe, not even a heretical one, would have any reason to make these arbitrary changes to Luke 2: they make for very poor proof texts for a heretical view of Christ in light of the larger narrative context, and they're too easy to explain away from an orthodox perspective. Surely the heretics instead revise something significant, as Marcion did by cutting out the nativity narrative from his version of Luke's Gospel.
On the other hand, a well-intentioned scribe would have every reason to revise the text in the direction of the TR readings for the very reasons you mentioned: doing so removes any room for misconstruing Christ as something less than fully divine. (Of course, the "Jesus doesn't need purification" argument doesn't hold water when you remember that he chose to receive John's baptism despite having no sins that needed forgiving.) The Critical Text readings in these two verses are almost certainly the original readings.
@@MAMoreno if these 2 verses in the Critical Text are original than the Bible is a fraud and God is a liar, I will take the TR the text of the Reformation which has borne much fruit and gives me confidence in the word of God especially in the Geneva and King James Bibles.
@@dwashington1333 Melodramatic much? In the case of "her purification," it's not supported by the majority of Greek manuscripts, let alone the most ancient. William Tyndale's New Testament reads "their," in line with the evidence.
@@MAMoreno You are acting like these are the only two discrepancies in the CT. Explain Mark chapter 1? Why does the CT say that a prophecy that is in Hosea is in Isaiah? Mark quotes the prophets Isaiah and Hosea not just Isaiah, another reason to reject the CT.
"Cognitive Dissodense"...LOL. At least learn English before you try to use it to bash someone. 🤣
The King James version is THE HOLY BIBLE for English speaking people.
I agree with your words, if not your intent. The KJV is THE HOLY BIBLE for English speaking people. The NKJV is also THE HOLY BIBLE for English speaking people. The NASB is also THE HOLY BIBLE for English speaking people. And so on.
The Spirit of God is not limited to Jacobean English, nor is God limited to one translation's set of English glosses for the Hebrew and Greek words, whether that translation be the Geneva Bible or the English Standard Version. Christ's gospel is in fact not trapped exclusively in one precise manuscript tradition, if 2,000 years of salvation history across the world--regardless of versional and textual variants--have taught us anything.
So even if there is an overall best version of THE HOLY BIBLE for English speaking people in any given century (the 14th, the 17th, or the 21st), the power of God unto salvation speaks in all generations, even in "the meanest translation."