When I first started reading the Bible for myself I came across videos about King James onlyism and was so nervous about modern bibles being corrupt that I thought I could only read the KJV and I struggled. When I started reading the NLT, ESV and later NET it felt like the word of God was finally understandable and reached me. The KJV is beautiful and poetic but even the translators themselves would not have claimed it was the only acceptable translation.
Thanks for doing another collaboration fellas. Matthew put me onto Mark’s channel awhile ago and I haven’t looked back. I’ve learned so much from both of you. Nice to see guys back together.
Hi Matthew, as a viewer from the UK, l just wanted to say how grateful l am to the content/videos you post which l find encouraging and informative. If l am ever visiting the USA l will try to visit your church. Best wishes.
I’ve been watching other videos with Mr Mark Ward speaking and I must say that I’m impressed with his work. This is very important work and takes courage as someone needs to not be afraid to confront this issue. hopefully , other leaders will follow . Mr Ward , thanks for your excellence, talents , and humble nature in this tremendous endeavor.
I enjoy watching Mark Ward's Video. He is doing great work for the Kingdom of God. Great interview. By the Legacy Standard Bible has Luke 22:31 31 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat.
I grew up in a KJVO IFB church. We weren’t Ruckmanites, but we were on the verge of it. I now lug around my huge reformation study bible to my reformed Baptist church.
I love the KJV for it's rhythmic flow and cadence, but sometimes it's very clunky and sometimes very hard to understand the meaning as demonstrated. I now use mostly the NKJV, which still gives you most of the cadence but is so much easier to grasp the meaning. The MEV is also very good, if you want the feel of the KJV whilst gaining readability.
I personally like and prefer the 1611 King James. One reason is because it forced me to look up words and verse understandings. I would say it’s not particularly an easy read but rather a great way to study.
Yes, this is a value of reading the KJV! But there will be words you won't know to look up, because you won't realize you're misunderstanding them-because English has changed in the last 400+ years. I explain nearly a hundred of these words on my channel.
I am not a KJVonlyist, nevertheless I do love the KJV and the language and often return to it. I learned a lot in this interview, thanks so much for putting it together.
I have been a Christian since 1982, under NAS then. I went from Charismatic to Baptist to Lutheran and adapted to whatever the Pastor used,( NAS,KJV,ESV). I am back to the KJV and use it exclusively. I have seen so much confusion in churches that use the critical txt and various versions. I encourage all to dust off that KJV and be at peace! Pax!
This. Also, Ruckmanism raises the disturbing question: Where was the Bible for 1500 years? Why could God not preserve it over that time, that he needed to rewrite it in 1611?
Yep I wish that more people understood this, the KJV is a classic historical translation. I personally don’t see anything wrong if it’s the only translation you want to read just don’t beat other people over the head about it. Those arguing the KJVO position can be so rude, hardline and aggressive about it that they can turn people off. I love the KJV but I’ve been yelled at by KJVO people for not being EXCLUSIVELY KJV, even though it’s one of my favorite translations 🙄
I like Thomas Nelson reference bibles because they put the modern meaning of archaic words or sayings in the footnotes. I love the Bible in its many translations
This was so good and so bad. lol. Bad in that it made me realize I should have paid more attention to English in high school. Right now I have a yearning to learn Hebrew and Greek and it seems I should have a better understanding of the English language also. So it’s not really bad I’m just sad that at this age I now want to learn more. So thank you both. I will be looking into your book Mark and the website. May God continue His blessings for you both.
I’m no scholar…just a college educated lay person. I’m puzzled with the reference to “false friends” Perhaps it’s my English background because with the examples that were given I had no difficulty in translating the verses accurately….so I will be looking forward to reading his upcoming book to see if there are any other verses I may be misinterpreting…in any event I read my KJV for the rich tapestry of it’s language but I also use my ESV for my Bible study😊❤️🙏
Yep I love the poetry of the KJV but I too studied literature in higher education and have always been an avid reader including classic books so it may just be right up my alley
Karen, I'd just encourage you to look for my UA-cam playlist, Fifty False Friends in the KJV. I explain in GREAT detail. Too great, if you ask me. Too many videos! You don't have to watch them all. ;)
The problem is that the average reader should not have to first study Elizabethan English in order to clearly understand their bible. The average person should be able to pick it up and understand the words on a first or second reading. That's Mark's whole purpose.
@@markwardonwords Sure thing! Just getting back in the game after a short break. Got some good stuff on the distigmai in codex Vaticanus coming out shortly :)
The Berean Standard Bible is very accurate when it come a to plurals and singulars in the same verse: Luke 22:31-32 (BSB): Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift each of you like wheat. 32But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith will not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” Matthew 26:64 (BSB): 64“You have said it yourself,” Jesus answered. “But I say to all of you, from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
My grandmother is King James-only. She has been telling me for years I should only read old copies of the King James because otherwise the translation is inaccurate and might be missing the Crucifixion and Ressurrection. I’ve compared ESV and NASB for her and told her how beneficial they are and problems with KJV, but she won’t hear it. As far as she’s concerned, it’s the only accurate Bible.
What’s funny about the KJV is that it’s the easiest translation to read as well as the hardest lol. Man it flows so well over much of it yet in sections can be clunky and funky….
I am an Afrikaans-speaking South African, and what worries me is that the KJV is my preferred translation, except of course my Old Afrikaans Translation, also from the Textus Receptus. But I also use Strong in case of doubt. So what is wrong with these English speakers? By the way, I am a Calvinist.
Did you watch the video? Your position is the whole issue. You said that you use strongs concordance “in case of doubt”. What Mike Ward is saying is that with those ‘false friends’ you don’t know you’re in doubt.
Mr. Everhard this may be because I am still learning but why is the King James Bible so highly regarded? I see that the ESV has many of these false friends covered including 1 Kings 8:25. Do many churches only read from the king james and therefore that is why the study project is needed?
I'm happy to stand with the TR/Authorized/ KJB. If someone really wants to debate the subject, Sanding For Truth, is a great debate channel with a playlist on the subject.
Brethren, you really should have just contacted me. I would have happily joined you on this video discussion. By the way, my hunt has been sufficient to feed my family for the next year, so praise the Lord for a most plenteous harvest! Sincerely, Christian the Whitetail Slayer
KJVO group in my opinion has a problem with idolatry. That is why they seem cultish. But I don't think they are a cult. I refer to myself as KJVA - KJV Alone. Which would be KJVO without all the idolatry.
@@Yesica1993 If being in a cult means believing what your leaders tell you, then everyone is in a cult. Cult is only a diversion from the truth which is idolatry. Everyone says the other group is a cult is to keep everyone confused that they are all really idol worshippers. It is the leaders indoctrinating people to idolatry then claiming cultish behavior from those who believe differently than their man-made doctrines. And we talk about WORD confusion in translation. Well, the biggest WORD confusion today is IDOLATRY. Every group will get that word wrong today whether KJVO or not. Idolatry is the biggest problem that all Christians have today. And they need to figure that out soon before it is too late.
The bigger problem is that there is pronounced idolatry in every denomination. How do we convince our leaders to give up their idols? I don't think there is any confusion with language but with the leaders teaching stuff they don't know anything about. No matter what version of the Bible you are using, you are all still so confused. The problem is your leadership not your Bible.
@@sethplace Sure. Here are a few (not sure if all are real words). Denominationalism, Seminarianism, Pastor worship, End time worship, Bible commentary worship, ongoing Pagan Roman worship that was never removed in the Protestant reformation, not following I&II Timothy and Titus rules of exhortation and rebuke of unbelievers in the church. Basically, anything that is not expressly taught in the scriptures alone. Further reform is absolutely necessary in the church as the original Protestant reformers were quickly corrupted and did not finish the work of removing Pagan cultures of Rome. They were still highly influenced by the Roman system and did not recognize all the corruption in their time.
@@nobstompah4850 After taking some time I will edit my answer as these things seem to be on the fringe side and not directly called in the scriptures. So after further thinking on such subjects, I feel it really comes down to doing any and all for the glory of God. I Cor 10:31 Once a person understands that, they will know what to do. Whether to abstain or to participate.
@@kevinerose The IBF/IFB/NIFB are Arminian (Followers of the Accursed Heresiarch Jacobus Arminius and his ungodly repackaging of the Ancient and Damnable Heresy of Pelagianism) and are not Christians, they are utterly Accursed under Galatians Chapter 1 and are a Cult, Condemned to the uttermost as Damnable Heretics under the 1619 Canons of Dort, as a False Religion under the 1646 Westminster Confession and as Promoters of a false gospel under the 1689 Second London Confession, I suggest you change Church with immediate effect as your current "church" is a Non-Christian Cult! Leave it at Once as it is teaching a false gospel of Rome, of Hell and of Satan! The Orthodox Presbyterian Church (who are KJVO however as with the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland) would be a better fit for you I think, absolutely no days other than the Lord's Day are Celebrated - they forbid all "holy days" other than the Lord's Day as per the 1648 Westminster Standards, they also forbid Birthdays and other such "personal" days as Ungodly self worship, and they do not do either Hymns nor music (considering them Papal and Pagan), only Unaccompanied Psalmody from the Geneva Psalter, also as per the 1648 Westminster Standards, Only Permit Confirmed Members to Partake in the Lord's Supper, and they teach the full, uncorrupted, Gospel of Grace ("calvinism") as found in the Bible, the Writings of the Early Founders such as Polycarp, Clement, Chrysostom, Irenaeus, Athanasius, Augustine, Basil, etc, Calvin's Institutes, the 1646 Westminster Confession (and thus the 90% Identical 1689 Second London Confession) and the Heidelberg and Westminster (Both the Shorter and Longer of 1647) Catechisms. They would be a better Fit for you I think. I hope that Helps. Love and Peace. (Ex Reformed Anglican (Low Liturgy), now Reformed Anglo-Presbyterian (Continental Reformed Model) with some Confessional Reformed Baptist Leanings, but, sadly, due to the UK's complete Apostasy, currently Churchless).
Being KJVO is wrong……also telling people they need to start separating themselves from the KJV is also wrong as Mark constantly does. I own most the major English transitions but prefer the KJV for the old poetic style and knowing that a publisher isn’t going to constantly update it to make another dollar. Wish I could watch a video from brother Mark about something other than KJV bashing.
You should watch his top 5 favourite KJV Bibles video, if you think that he always bashes on the KJV. He really doesn't. If anything, his video series on false friends in the KJV helps us to better understand the KJV in certain places.
Yes he is hard to listen to for people who love the KJV because he tends to come as saying that the KJV is inferior to modern translations but that’s a position I don’t agree with. You don’t have to read it but it’s not that hard to read, it’s still English, some people learn the original languages to read the Bible in Greek and Hebrew and no one criticizes them for putting in the effort so what’s wrong with people reading it in Old English
If you ONLY read the KJV than you are most definitely missing out and are not getting the full meaning of the word of God. I used to be KJVO and the subtlety of the Bible and clearer meaning of the word has come alive since reading faithful modern translations of the Bible like the NASB, ESV etc The KJV is good to read but not good as your only or main english bible. Something else that opened my eyes was trying to evangelise using only the KJV, it's like speaking another language. We need to use a Bible that people understand. It's all about people coming to faith in Jesus and being saved, not holding on to traditions of men.
Only the KJV wants you to fast and pray in Proverbs 18:1. All others want you to follow Satan when he encouraged Jesus to stop fasting and "turn these stones into bread." He's scared to death of the practice and stamps it out at every opportunity. Remember what happened When Daniel fasted for 21 days at the River Hiddekel? Satan Thought he had the Persian empire all sown up. but Jesus and Michael came and kicked his butt. And don't forget Esther and the return to Jerusalem through Cyrus.
As a KJV onlyist, I'd have to admit that many preachers in my corner are not good with the English language, early modern or contemporary. I know a guy who graduated from one of the colleges that was named in this video. He was taking high school English at this college. So we are not going to see improvement until the academic levels of English at these schools get beefed up.
This is addressed in the video using Luke 22:31. The ESV (via footnote) and the NIV (via the dynamic rendering “all of you”) use tools available in modern English when the number is unclear from context alone.
Thanks for the interaction, Caleb. What I am referring to is a hypothetical survey, identical to the first portion of the King James Bible Study Project, which, instead of citing the Authorized Version, uses one of the aforementioned versions for each reference. The AV, for better or worse, makes the reality of the original language’s pronoun distinction (present in both Hebrew and Greek) immediately apparent. Imagine one taking this identical survey, but the references are now in one of the modern versions; the participant is asked to determine which pronoun is singular and which is plural. The alleged issue is only exacerbated. Instead of having a chance of distinguishing which number (singular or plural) is being referred to in the original language, the participant has next to no chance since the references are not even attempting to make that distinction. I am not here positing that the distinction is vital, that may be a discussion for another time, but this does undermine this entire portion of the original survey’s objective, i.e., “See, people do not have a high success rate of distinguishing between singular and plural pronouns using the AV’s method,” while at the same time these other versions are not even attempting to make the distinction. But, you say, what about the example at Luke 22:31? Two things must be substantiated. The first being that these methods, such as the use of a footnote, are being used uniformly throughout the text in each instance (as a translation like the AV does with its method of distinguishing audience number), or to at least prove that the practice is normative. Please hear me on this, I am not saying the distinction is vital, I’m saying, best case scenario, the modern versions methods are a downgrade in reflecting this aspect of the original tongues. Because, in order to land the point, modern versions must at least match the AV’s uniform method of distinction. At best, we can say they attempt to convey this distinction sporadically with debatable success. So, if this is indeed a negative aspect of the AV, it is a thousand times more for a modern version. My point being, at least the distinction *can* be easily determined within the AV, not so with other modern versions. Second, we must use equal weights and measures; if it is perfectly acceptable for a modern translation, like the English Standard Version, to relegate translational information to a footnote, why not the AV for alleged false friends, pronoun explanations, etc.? Why is this tool seen as a strength for the ESV, and those like it, but a weakness for the AV? E.g., “A vocabulary word I have not yet learned in the AV is defined in a footnote? Unacceptable;” versus, “The ESV’s lack of original language specificity is expounded in a footnote? Great! At least they are clarifying there.” To Dr. Ward’s point of “false friends,” what is the positive argumentation, or potential alternative? If the AV, for example, is an unacceptable standard English text, what is the acceptable text? What is the replacement? What is the solution? Every single translation of the bible contains these false friends. Any non-Christian, child, or new convert can pick up a bible, and when they do, they will be confronted with a host of theological terms which they will initially and unknowingly misunderstand, or simply not understand entirely. What is the greater concern: that the AV will make an extremely clear, consistent, and accurate use of second person pronoun distinctions, completely analogous to the original biblical languages of Hebrew and Greek, which can be explained in a single sentence, or, that terms like justification, propitiation, substitutionary atonement, etc., which take far, far more time explain, are in bible translations? Why is the focus and concern upon these perfectly appropriate uses of singular and plural pronouns? Finally, we must understand the ‘thee’s and ‘thou’s were not commonplace even during the publication of the AV-this is not how people spoke to each other in the 17th century. The AV translators wisely took advantage of an earlier aspect of English to perfectly convey the purposeful distinctions of the original tongues. If they are “archaisms” for us now, they were “archaisms” for the people at the time of the AV’s publication as well. Yet somehow, the English-speaking Christian community has understood and utilized this aspect of the translation for over 400 years. So what has changed? Have these terms just now become archaisms? Has our language just recently evolved past the point of being able to recognize ‘t’s and ‘y’s at the front of pronouns? Or, have our post-modern cultural standards of thought, learning, and literacy been lowered? Thank you again for the engagement. I hope this message finds you well, and that the discussion proves edifying for us all.
@@alexmoore7755 You say "The AV, for better or worse, makes the reality of the original language’s pronoun distinction (present in both Hebrew and Greek) immediately apparent." But this is only true when the readers know the details of the T/Y distinction and remember to use it. I was KJVO for ~30 years and I didn't remember or use this rule. The pastors we surveyed didn't remember or use the rule (by-and-large). And presumably their congregations aren't doing any better, though there is no shortage of KJVO literature touting its supposed advantage in this area. I am confident in both the methodology and results of the KJB Study Project, but I welcome further research too. Mark has a video covering the pronoun portion of the survey and another called "Does the NKJV change the TR?" (plus probably several more over the last few years) that deal with your objections. I have experienced the difference that a translation into my language makes, so I advocate for translations into current English. When I have encountered differences of text or translation that seem problematic, I have consistently found reasonable explanations using Mark's methods and simple legwork. As a monolingual non-seminary-trained Christian, I prefer the help that the NIV gives at Luke 22:31. It is actually a more accurate translation into 21st century English than the KJV in that place. I prefer similar solutions in the rest of the relatively few places where context alone doesn't make the number of a second-person pronoun apparent. But I don't have a problem with the footnote solution, either in MVs or in the KJV, so I won't argue against that. What the survey makes clear is that the KJV's existing T/Y distinction is not effectively communicating to the audience we surveyed, so another solution is needed. I'm advocating for intelligibility where you prioritize a standard sacred text. All else being equal and the creek don't rise, I would love a universally-accepted English translation, but I'm not willing to sacrifice as much intelligibility as would be required to keep the KJV in that position. God hasn't provided or required a perfect English translation, rather He has given us several faithful and useful ones. I'm thankful for each of them. Hope you have a great Saturday evening and Sunday!
Im confused about kjvo people.. do they like squirm and feel disgusted whenever they read a different english version? Do they think that for 1600 years english speaking people were deprived of a bible? It seems so prideful and arrogant to have such a claim.
I was researching the concepts of "arrogance and pridefulness" around two decades ago. What I learned was how those who see 👀 pridefulness and arrogance may not have researched independently what those words truly mean. Words are extremely malleable, as the pastor has mentioned.
NO We do not SQUIRM BUT I am DISGUSTED when I hear MANY VERSIONS who have NOTHING TRUE TO SAY ; The AUTHORIZED VERSIONS were around during those years BUT The Roman Catholic Church HAD A CORRUPTED VERSION THAT WAS NAILED TO THE PEWS SO NO ONE BUT THEM COULD STUDY IT WHICH IS WHY The REFORMERS WROTE TRUE VERSIONS and Pointed at the RCC as the THE GREAT WHORE , in PURPLE and SCARLET to this day ; ALSO CALLED The POPE The ANTI-CHRIST ; SHE HAS NOT CHANGED BUT most Protestant Churches are RUNNING BACK TO THE MOTHER of HARLOTS ; ARE YOU??? I Hope Not.
My answer to that has always been. God does everything after the council of his own will, in his own time. Remember the 400 silent years between the end of Malachi and John the Baptist. Or look how long it took before the Word made flesh came into the world. He could have came immediately after the fall. But he came 1,000's of years later.
Translation: The guy doesn't believe in an inerrant and infallible Bible and since the KJV teaches sound theology he don't agree with he’s gonna disregard it.
@@CLM1987 Inerrant and infallible is not the elementary thought. You thinking that the KJV is inerrant and infallible is what’s elementary. The KJV did not exist before 1611. And let me bring some awareness to you, Jesus lived before 1611
@@CLM1987 I don’t think anybody would say the KJV is not God’s word. We just argue that it’s not the only trustworthy Bible. The original Greek & Hebrew is perfect. No English translation is perfect. For example, Acts 12:4 KJV says Easter. The Greek word is “πάσχα” meaning Passover. That’s just a simple example where the KJV is not 100% accurate to the original language but it isn’t wrong in its communication.
The problem with Mark Wards work is there is no acceptable, modern translation. All of the modern translations use textual criticism and the result is just confusion. Personally, I take Marks false friends and pronoun problems and correct my KJV study/journaling Bibles.
My friend, the KJV translators did textual criticism, too! Not only did they put text-critical notes in the margins of the 1611 KJV, but they chose readings from among multiple different Greek New Testament editions. They did not stick with just one. The very scholar-F.H.A. Scrivener-who put together the edition of the Textus Receptus used by KJV-Onlyists explains this in detail. I can give you more information if you wish. You cannot get away from textual criticism!
@@markwardonwords I should have been more careful in what I wrote. The problem today is the methods used behind textual criticism. It seems that they go with the ‘older is better’ and when in doubt exclude, not include. By contrast the KJV translation matches up very well with quotations from the early church fathers. The language and sentence structure also strives to match the Hebrew and Greek, which most modern translations don’t. That’s why it is my primary source.
@@61loneviking I respectfully disagree with every one of these assessments-with emphasis on the "respectful." I think these are reasonable positions for Christian people to hold. But they don't add up to exclusive or primary use of the KJV. 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 a new translation of the TR were to be done, and it follows the translation choices of the KJV translators....and all they do is correctly update the English used....There will be a large number of people who are KJV only, who will not accept the new translation, because they have not read and understood the KJV in some places the way the KJV translators intended, due to change in language. This wont be everyone that is KJV Only, but from experience, I would guess a lot of them will fall into this category..... And this means that in order to appease these people, an honest translator could not do this task, since it would require changing the scripture, to accommodate those people who have misunderstood the way the KJV translators used English.... Lastly, there are so many KJV only groups that promote saying things that would cast doubt on God, and salvation if the KJV is anything less than flawless, these people are facing doubting their faith, if they even entertain the idea of using a Bible that has a single thing different than the KJV. Essentially their faith is Jesus + KJV. If the KJV fails, then possibly Jesus fails too. And I know this because I have been in this situatiom for a very long time. The real reason for the modern translation rejection is that the KJV is an integral part of faith and even knowing God is true, real, trustworthy etc. So to change that is ro change their very faith. And yet, this integral doctrine does not exist 400 years ago. It has come to be a doctrine recently. But somehow people got along before this.
Hayfield Hermit, you’re not wrong. A project such as a KJV update would, therefore, also serve as a dividing line between the sincere and the heretical. God have mercy on them all.
@@markwardonwords I just made up KJV Alone now. The KJV Only crowd is so corrupted I have to separate myself from that. I'm a big KJV fan but every time I go to a KJV church, they are all so corrupted with man-made doctrines. (In fact all Protestant churches are corrupted.) They say they are KJV only but 90% of their teachings are outside the Bible. So I am KJV Alone - with no private interpretation of man and no man-made doctrines. I believe you can read the KJV alone (without commentaries or the pastor telling you some strange teachings) and it will have all you need for God's Salvation Plan, the Gospel, understanding of Good Works, understanding of the Law, and understanding of Universal Dispensation w/o replacement.
Is Mark Wards mission in life to discredit the King James Bible? Does this guy actually have a life? Didn’t watch the video as it would have been a total waste of my time. Your welcome and have a very Merry Christmas 🎁🎄
@keithjetta Nope. I mean that deeply and sincerely. Someone who's entire life efforts are aimed at undermining trust in the word of God, should never be featured in the channel of someone who preaches the word earnestly. What business has darkness with light?
@@DesignInNature I don't know how you come to that conclusion. I have watched every video he has produced and have had some private correspondence with him. He does not cast doubt upon God's word but rather has made me more sure that any translation accurately translated is the word of God.
The ESV made me KJVO. I’m not a cultist that is called propaganda. The ESV is the revised RSV and it’s horrible. It’s the nonsense in the text(end of Mark 16) of an ESV that my then 9 year old son asked me about was when I started looking into this. After learning about textual criticism and their wild out ideas and motives. I’m KJVO and would let a modern day scholar train my dog.
and as far as Mark Ward constantly saying we can’t learn to read, it’s more propaganda. We all can learn to read Early Modern English way way easier than believe he knows ancient trade greek in his classical greek class. He doesn’t know if he is wrong or right and we don’t either.
@@treybarnes5549 The KJV is an excellent translation-but if you're going to read it exclusively, you need to understand that it was translated into a form of English no one quite speaks or writes anymore. So there are going to be some places where you think you understand but, because of language change, you're going to miss the intent of the KJV translators. For help discerning when this is the case, I encourage you to check out my "Fifty False Friends in the KJV" series on UA-cam for help reading the KJV! ua-cam.com/play/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc.html
@@markwardonwords if your going to read the greek you need to understand you are reading a version of greek that is only 40 years old and nothing dug up out of the greek is even similar. You also need to understand that the greek words on the page hasn’t change but the application and interpretation has changed(exactly what you are claiming happened with the KJV). The Hebrew is certainly one of the most carefully transcribed manuscripts in all of history, yet modern scholars seem to not be able to even translate something so settled as the Hebrew without change after change. This only means that the translation methods are the errors. So you saying there are words like “by and by” that doesn’t mean what I think it means. or the people that wrote the song in the 1800’s didn’t know what it means. I am well aware that what is changing is scholars definitions and interpretations. This is why the KJV has to be the standard because the word “standard” in all of these changes doesn’t mean “Standard”.
The entire discussion comes across as arrogant and contrary to the Christian spirit. Moreover, it seems trivial and insignificant. Instead of trying to discredit peoples understanding of scripture based on archaic language of the KJV Bible, we should focus on a deeper understanding of scripture. As Christians, our priority should be reaching out to the world with the limited time and resources we have. Is this edifying? Engaging in this kind of debate feels like a significant diversion from our true purpose. As a true sidenote with no axe to grind, I have read the KJV faithfully for about thirty years and God seems to be able to speak just fine through it! Let's fight a different fight, the one we are called to fight.
As someone who has been greatly edified by your work/channel Rev. Matt, this one has really discouraged and disappointed me. Of course there is great issue and concern with IFB but this take seriously misses the theological reasons of why people are KJV advocates. I think this gentleman is disingenuous in his motives. Hence, he's using IFB to prove his stance rather than Confessionally Reformed teachers who will challenge him on these points. Although I'm confident that there are IFB that could do so as well. He needs to address the TR preferred or Confessional position, if his work is to be honest instead of working towards the agenda of American Christianity Consumerism to push new, less faithful translations and tools that are being used by Satan to add & take away from the Word of God.
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.
"KJV Only" caters to PRIDE and LAZINESS: Lazy, because it gets you off the hook from dealing with Hebrew and Greek Exegesis, and PRIDEFUL because you can exalt yourself ABOVE all of REAL Theologians who do. And it sounds so Pompous to say (British accent helps) "The Authorized 1611 King James..."
Hello Cristian Soldier ; I have Compared MANY other Versions , at least 20 , and they ALL have VERSES that are EXACTLY OPPOSITE to what the REAL WORD of GOD says ; I compare WORD for WORD and am quit upset with MOST Translations SO if you call that LAZY you are not INFORMED, and PRIDE has NOTHING TO DO WITH WANTING THE WHOLE TRUTH !!! To me, it sounds LIKE you are too LAZY to SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES ; SORRY IF THAT SOUNDS HARSH BUT what you said was not nice either!!!!!!! Praise JESUS CHRIST The IMAGE of The INVISIBLE GOD AMEN and AMEN
When this controversy first started the plan of attack was to embarrass those who used the KJV. But this is an all new low, to attack those who teach from it. I would rather listen to an old time Preacher filled with the Holy Ghost and armed with the King James Bible than some guy with Dr in front of his name and a bunch of letters after it, preaching from an Niv, Esv, and the rest.
Kjv only is misunderstood by many. Kjv only is the only recent translation that remains true to the real majority text. Other newer translations do indeed change the meanings of words. They literally make Jesus a liar. John 7:7... they take out the fact that Jesus is God in the flesh 1 tim 3:16. They hide meanings from galatians 3: 16 concerning a singular word seed which is Christ and where it says plainly the scripture did not say seeds as of many, but ONE SEED. The scripture is Genesis 22:18 in new versions changed to hide the actual meaning. That's only a couple examples, there are thousands of corrupted verses that dont; do not stay true to the greek text the kjv translators used. So KJV ONLY to me is the best translation in English and the only English version I use, but would be comfortable using the bishops bible 1568, tyndale bible1536, matthews bible 1537, but the most up to date translation in English that stays true to the recieved texts those some 5,000 plus copies from old times that agree with themselves.
If it were only an issue of underlying manuscripts, then the NKJV and the MEV would be included along with the KJV, Geneva, Tyndale Bibles etc.... But typically what happens is those newer TR based Bibles are lumped in with the rest of the newer translations by KJV only people.
When I first started reading the Bible for myself I came across videos about King James onlyism and was so nervous about modern bibles being corrupt that I thought I could only read the KJV and I struggled. When I started reading the NLT, ESV and later NET it felt like the word of God was finally understandable and reached me. The KJV is beautiful and poetic but even the translators themselves would not have claimed it was the only acceptable translation.
Thats how I felt the first time reading the NRSV. Still love the KJV though.
Thanks for doing another collaboration fellas. Matthew put me onto Mark’s channel awhile ago and I haven’t looked back. I’ve learned so much from both of you. Nice to see guys back together.
I have followed both you and Mark for quite a while now. Nice to see you guys crossing paths.
Hi Matthew, as a viewer from the UK, l just wanted to say how grateful l am to the content/videos you post which l find encouraging and informative. If l am ever visiting the USA l will try to visit your church. Best wishes.
Great! I do enjoy Mark Ward's works. Indeed edifying video!I thank God for you both. Praise His Name!
I’ve grown tremendously from
Both these brothers in Christ, cool to see them in one video
I’ve been watching other videos with Mr Mark Ward speaking and I must say that I’m impressed with his work. This is very important work and takes courage as someone needs to not be afraid to confront this issue. hopefully , other leaders will follow . Mr Ward , thanks for your excellence, talents , and humble nature in this tremendous endeavor.
Great collab from 2 of my fave Christian YT'ers
The KJV is my main translation however I cannot stand KJVO , logically it makes no sense at all simply a form of idolatry
Also Matthew has one of the best beards I’ve seen. There should be beard contests.
What a blessing you both have been to many, many thanks to you both.
This video was very informative, and I enjoyed the interview very much. I enjoy Mark's videos as well.
Two of my absolute favorite Bible fellas
I enjoy watching Mark Ward's Video. He is doing great work for the Kingdom of God. Great interview.
By the Legacy Standard Bible has Luke 22:31
31 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat.
I grew up in a KJVO IFB church. We weren’t Ruckmanites, but we were on the verge of it. I now lug around my huge reformation study bible to my reformed Baptist church.
I love the KJV for it's rhythmic flow and cadence, but sometimes it's very clunky and sometimes very hard to understand the meaning as demonstrated. I now use mostly the NKJV, which still gives you most of the cadence but is so much easier to grasp the meaning. The MEV is also very good, if you want the feel of the KJV whilst gaining readability.
wow my two favorite UA-cam bible guys!
Love the work that Mark Ward does. I grew up going to a Christian school that held to this view of KJVO.
I hope you both can come to Canada one day. You both do great things.
Thank you for conversation.🙏🏻
Great conversation, brothers!
I personally like and prefer the 1611 King James. One reason is because it forced me to look up words and verse understandings. I would say it’s not particularly an easy read but rather a great way to study.
Yes, this is a value of reading the KJV! But there will be words you won't know to look up, because you won't realize you're misunderstanding them-because English has changed in the last 400+ years. I explain nearly a hundred of these words on my channel.
Chances are excellent your “1611” is the more accurate, updated 1769 Ben Blayney edition
Pastor Matt. Do you have a video on NKJV? I am curious as to how well it addresses these issues.
I am not a KJVonlyist, nevertheless I do love the KJV and the language and often return to it. I learned a lot in this interview, thanks so much for putting it together.
Which glorifies God, a KJV that collects dust or a CSB someone picks up daily?
Sweet! Can't wait to watch this.
I have been a Christian since 1982, under NAS then. I went from Charismatic to Baptist to Lutheran and adapted to whatever the Pastor used,( NAS,KJV,ESV). I am back to the KJV and use it exclusively. I have seen so much confusion in churches that use the critical txt and various versions. I encourage all to dust off that KJV and be at peace! Pax!
Your Christian pilgrimage is similar to mine. 🙏
Same. KJV exclusive
The King James Version is great, but KJVO is idolatry.
ua-cam.com/video/t6ck6KrVPIk/v-deo.htmlsi=zDmXgJN05zyXgWco
👏🏼 👏🏼 👏🏼
This.
Also, Ruckmanism raises the disturbing question: Where was the Bible for 1500 years? Why could God not preserve it over that time, that he needed to rewrite it in 1611?
Yep I wish that more people understood this, the KJV is a classic historical translation. I personally don’t see anything wrong if it’s the only translation you want to read just don’t beat other people over the head about it. Those arguing the KJVO position can be so rude, hardline and aggressive about it that they can turn people off. I love the KJV but I’ve been yelled at by KJVO people for not being EXCLUSIVELY KJV, even though it’s one of my favorite translations 🙄
ua-cam.com/video/t6ck6KrVPIk/v-deo.htmlsi=A9nR1NV2Tz7S5al1
I like Thomas Nelson reference bibles because they put the modern meaning of archaic words or sayings in the footnotes. I love the Bible in its many translations
This was so good and so bad. lol. Bad in that it made me realize I should have paid more attention to English in high school. Right now I have a yearning to learn Hebrew and Greek and it seems I should have a better understanding of the English language also. So it’s not really bad I’m just sad that at this age I now want to learn more. So thank you both.
I will be looking into your book Mark and the website. May God continue His blessings for you both.
Thank you so much! May the Lord bless your study!
NKJV and ESV helps. For an overview NLT as paraphrase is useful.
Merry Christmas to you.
I’m no scholar…just a college educated lay person. I’m puzzled with the reference to “false friends” Perhaps it’s my English background because with the examples that were given I had no difficulty in translating the verses accurately….so I will be looking forward to reading his upcoming book to see if there are any other verses I may be misinterpreting…in any event I read my KJV for the rich tapestry of it’s language but I also use my ESV for my Bible study😊❤️🙏
Yep I love the poetry of the KJV but I too studied literature in higher education and have always been an avid reader including classic books so it may just be right up my alley
Karen, I'd just encourage you to look for my UA-cam playlist, Fifty False Friends in the KJV. I explain in GREAT detail. Too great, if you ask me. Too many videos! You don't have to watch them all. ;)
The problem is that the average reader should not have to first study Elizabethan English in order to clearly understand their bible. The average person should be able to pick it up and understand the words on a first or second reading. That's Mark's whole purpose.
@@markwardonwords Thanks I will😊
great chat guys!
Thanks, Dwayne! We need to connect again!
@@markwardonwords Sure thing! Just getting back in the game after a short break. Got some good stuff on the distigmai in codex Vaticanus coming out shortly :)
The Berean Standard Bible is very accurate when it come a to plurals and singulars in the same verse:
Luke 22:31-32 (BSB):
Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift each of you like wheat. 32But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith will not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”
Matthew 26:64 (BSB): 64“You have said it yourself,” Jesus answered. “But I say to all of you, from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
My grandmother is King James-only. She has been telling me for years I should only read old copies of the King James because otherwise the translation is inaccurate and might be missing the Crucifixion and Ressurrection. I’ve compared ESV and NASB for her and told her how beneficial they are and problems with KJV, but she won’t hear it. As far as she’s concerned, it’s the only accurate Bible.
Speaking of text, have you seen the discovery from the first temple period? Scribed in silver!
What’s funny about the KJV is that it’s the easiest translation to read as well as the hardest lol. Man it flows so well over much of it yet in sections can be clunky and funky….
The Wycliffe Bible is often more direct where the KJV is clunky.
I am an Afrikaans-speaking South African, and what worries me is that the KJV is my preferred translation, except of course my Old Afrikaans Translation, also from the Textus Receptus. But I also use Strong in case of doubt. So what is wrong with these English speakers? By the way, I am a Calvinist.
Did you watch the video?
Your position is the whole issue.
You said that you use strongs concordance “in case of doubt”. What Mike Ward is saying is that with those ‘false friends’ you don’t know you’re in doubt.
Mr. Everhard this may be because I am still learning but why is the King James Bible so highly regarded? I see that the ESV has many of these false friends covered including 1 Kings 8:25. Do many churches only read from the king james and therefore that is why the study project is needed?
KJV only churches are very few and far between. Vary small amount of people are KJVO.
The ESV does not have a false friend in 1 Kings 8:25. It translates the Hebrew phrase accurately into contemporary English. Please look again!
I'm happy to stand with the TR/Authorized/ KJB. If someone really wants to debate the subject, Sanding For Truth, is a great debate channel with a playlist on the subject.
Brethren, you really should have just contacted me. I would have happily joined you on this video discussion. By the way, my hunt has been sufficient to feed my family for the next year, so praise the Lord for a most plenteous harvest! Sincerely, Christian the Whitetail Slayer
KJVO pastors are borderline cultish. I’ve had experience with them.
For example, I really appreciate what Spencer Smith is doing but his KJVOism is quite off-putting
KJVO group in my opinion has a problem with idolatry. That is why they seem cultish. But I don't think they are a cult. I refer to myself as KJVA - KJV Alone. Which would be KJVO without all the idolatry.
I had no idea KJVO was a thing until UA-cam came along. It's absolutely cultish. It's disturbing.
@@kevineroseYep, that's me. KJV Alone! 😁📖
@@Yesica1993 If being in a cult means believing what your leaders tell you, then everyone is in a cult. Cult is only a diversion from the truth which is idolatry. Everyone says the other group is a cult is to keep everyone confused that they are all really idol worshippers. It is the leaders indoctrinating people to idolatry then claiming cultish behavior from those who believe differently than their man-made doctrines. And we talk about WORD confusion in translation. Well, the biggest WORD confusion today is IDOLATRY. Every group will get that word wrong today whether KJVO or not. Idolatry is the biggest problem that all Christians have today. And they need to figure that out soon before it is too late.
The bigger problem is that there is pronounced idolatry in every denomination. How do we convince our leaders to give up their idols? I don't think there is any confusion with language but with the leaders teaching stuff they don't know anything about. No matter what version of the Bible you are using, you are all still so confused. The problem is your leadership not your Bible.
I’m curious about what other idols you mean specifically. I have had the same thought before.
@@sethplace Sure. Here are a few (not sure if all are real words). Denominationalism, Seminarianism, Pastor worship, End time worship, Bible commentary worship, ongoing Pagan Roman worship that was never removed in the Protestant reformation, not following I&II Timothy and Titus rules of exhortation and rebuke of unbelievers in the church. Basically, anything that is not expressly taught in the scriptures alone. Further reform is absolutely necessary in the church as the original Protestant reformers were quickly corrupted and did not finish the work of removing Pagan cultures of Rome. They were still highly influenced by the Roman system and did not recognize all the corruption in their time.
@kevinerose what are your thoughts on Christmas, hymns & instruments in worship, and the the accessibility of the Lord’s Supper?
@@nobstompah4850 After taking some time I will edit my answer as these things seem to be on the fringe side and not directly called in the scriptures. So after further thinking on such subjects, I feel it really comes down to doing any and all for the glory of God. I Cor 10:31
Once a person understands that, they will know what to do. Whether to abstain or to participate.
@@kevinerose The IBF/IFB/NIFB are Arminian (Followers of the Accursed Heresiarch Jacobus Arminius and his ungodly repackaging of the Ancient and Damnable Heresy of Pelagianism) and are not Christians, they are utterly Accursed under Galatians Chapter 1 and are a Cult, Condemned to the uttermost as Damnable Heretics under the 1619 Canons of Dort, as a False Religion under the 1646 Westminster Confession and as Promoters of a false gospel under the 1689 Second London Confession, I suggest you change Church with immediate effect as your current "church" is a Non-Christian Cult! Leave it at Once as it is teaching a false gospel of Rome, of Hell and of Satan!
The Orthodox Presbyterian Church (who are KJVO however as with the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland) would be a better fit for you I think, absolutely no days other than the Lord's Day are Celebrated - they forbid all "holy days" other than the Lord's Day as per the 1648 Westminster Standards, they also forbid Birthdays and other such "personal" days as Ungodly self worship, and they do not do either Hymns nor music (considering them Papal and Pagan), only Unaccompanied Psalmody from the Geneva Psalter, also as per the 1648 Westminster Standards, Only Permit Confirmed Members to Partake in the Lord's Supper, and they teach the full, uncorrupted, Gospel of Grace ("calvinism") as found in the Bible, the Writings of the Early Founders such as Polycarp, Clement, Chrysostom, Irenaeus, Athanasius, Augustine, Basil, etc, Calvin's Institutes, the 1646 Westminster Confession (and thus the 90% Identical 1689 Second London Confession) and the Heidelberg and Westminster (Both the Shorter and Longer of 1647) Catechisms. They would be a better Fit for you I think.
I hope that Helps.
Love and Peace.
(Ex Reformed Anglican (Low Liturgy), now Reformed Anglo-Presbyterian (Continental Reformed Model) with some Confessional Reformed Baptist Leanings, but, sadly, due to the UK's complete Apostasy, currently Churchless).
Being KJVO is wrong……also telling people they need to start separating themselves from the KJV is also wrong as Mark constantly does.
I own most the major English transitions but prefer the KJV for the old poetic style and knowing that a publisher isn’t going to constantly update it to make another dollar. Wish I could watch a video from brother Mark about something other than KJV bashing.
27:09 Mike Ward literally says the opposite of your statement.
“I have never said the King James is unintelligible.”
You should watch his top 5 favourite KJV Bibles video, if you think that he always bashes on the KJV. He really doesn't. If anything, his video series on false friends in the KJV helps us to better understand the KJV in certain places.
Yes he is hard to listen to for people who love the KJV because he tends to come as saying that the KJV is inferior to modern translations but that’s a position I don’t agree with. You don’t have to read it but it’s not that hard to read, it’s still English, some people learn the original languages to read the Bible in Greek and Hebrew and no one criticizes them for putting in the effort so what’s wrong with people reading it in Old English
Okay … so which version can we read that has updated English but doesn’t use the Critical Text?
If you ONLY read the KJV than you are most definitely missing out and are not getting the full meaning of the word of God. I used to be KJVO and the subtlety of the Bible and clearer meaning of the word has come alive since reading faithful modern translations of the Bible like the NASB, ESV etc The KJV is good to read but not good as your only or main english bible. Something else that opened my eyes was trying to evangelise using only the KJV, it's like speaking another language. We need to use a Bible that people understand. It's all about people coming to faith in Jesus and being saved, not holding on to traditions of men.
"TRUTH is contect-driven; deceit is agenda-driven; those not interested in accurate evidence are not interested in truth."
cc. 2020. 👀🐡🌊
Only the KJV wants you to fast and pray in Proverbs 18:1. All others want you to follow Satan when he encouraged Jesus to stop fasting and "turn these stones into bread." He's scared to death of the practice and stamps it out at every opportunity. Remember what happened When Daniel fasted for 21 days at the River Hiddekel? Satan Thought he had the Persian empire all sown up. but Jesus and Michael came and kicked his butt. And don't forget Esther and the return to Jerusalem through Cyrus.
As a KJV onlyist, I'd have to admit that many preachers in my corner are not good with the English language, early modern or contemporary.
I know a guy who graduated from one of the colleges that was named in this video. He was taking high school English at this college. So we are not going to see improvement until the academic levels of English at these schools get beefed up.
Now choose any modern translation, and ask participants to determine which second person pronouns are singular and which are plural.
This is addressed in the video using Luke 22:31. The ESV (via footnote) and the NIV (via the dynamic rendering “all of you”) use tools available in modern English when the number is unclear from context alone.
Thanks for the interaction, Caleb. What I am referring to is a hypothetical survey, identical to the first portion of the King James Bible Study Project, which, instead of citing the Authorized Version, uses one of the aforementioned versions for each reference. The AV, for better or worse, makes the reality of the original language’s pronoun distinction (present in both Hebrew and Greek) immediately apparent.
Imagine one taking this identical survey, but the references are now in one of the modern versions; the participant is asked to determine which pronoun is singular and which is plural. The alleged issue is only exacerbated. Instead of having a chance of distinguishing which number (singular or plural) is being referred to in the original language, the participant has next to no chance since the references are not even attempting to make that distinction. I am not here positing that the distinction is vital, that may be a discussion for another time, but this does undermine this entire portion of the original survey’s objective, i.e., “See, people do not have a high success rate of distinguishing between singular and plural pronouns using the AV’s method,” while at the same time these other versions are not even attempting to make the distinction.
But, you say, what about the example at Luke 22:31? Two things must be substantiated. The first being that these methods, such as the use of a footnote, are being used uniformly throughout the text in each instance (as a translation like the AV does with its method of distinguishing audience number), or to at least prove that the practice is normative. Please hear me on this, I am not saying the distinction is vital, I’m saying, best case scenario, the modern versions methods are a downgrade in reflecting this aspect of the original tongues. Because, in order to land the point, modern versions must at least match the AV’s uniform method of distinction. At best, we can say they attempt to convey this distinction sporadically with debatable success. So, if this is indeed a negative aspect of the AV, it is a thousand times more for a modern version. My point being, at least the distinction *can* be easily determined within the AV, not so with other modern versions.
Second, we must use equal weights and measures; if it is perfectly acceptable for a modern translation, like the English Standard Version, to relegate translational information to a footnote, why not the AV for alleged false friends, pronoun explanations, etc.? Why is this tool seen as a strength for the ESV, and those like it, but a weakness for the AV? E.g., “A vocabulary word I have not yet learned in the AV is defined in a footnote? Unacceptable;” versus, “The ESV’s lack of original language specificity is expounded in a footnote? Great! At least they are clarifying there.”
To Dr. Ward’s point of “false friends,” what is the positive argumentation, or potential alternative? If the AV, for example, is an unacceptable standard English text, what is the acceptable text? What is the replacement? What is the solution? Every single translation of the bible contains these false friends. Any non-Christian, child, or new convert can pick up a bible, and when they do, they will be confronted with a host of theological terms which they will initially and unknowingly misunderstand, or simply not understand entirely. What is the greater concern: that the AV will make an extremely clear, consistent, and accurate use of second person pronoun distinctions, completely analogous to the original biblical languages of Hebrew and Greek, which can be explained in a single sentence, or, that terms like justification, propitiation, substitutionary atonement, etc., which take far, far more time explain, are in bible translations? Why is the focus and concern upon these perfectly appropriate uses of singular and plural pronouns?
Finally, we must understand the ‘thee’s and ‘thou’s were not commonplace even during the publication of the AV-this is not how people spoke to each other in the 17th century. The AV translators wisely took advantage of an earlier aspect of English to perfectly convey the purposeful distinctions of the original tongues. If they are “archaisms” for us now, they were “archaisms” for the people at the time of the AV’s publication as well. Yet somehow, the English-speaking Christian community has understood and utilized this aspect of the translation for over 400 years. So what has changed? Have these terms just now become archaisms? Has our language just recently evolved past the point of being able to recognize ‘t’s and ‘y’s at the front of pronouns? Or, have our post-modern cultural standards of thought, learning, and literacy been lowered?
Thank you again for the engagement. I hope this message finds you well, and that the discussion proves edifying for us all.
@@alexmoore7755 You say "The AV, for better or worse, makes the reality of the original language’s pronoun distinction (present in both Hebrew and Greek) immediately apparent." But this is only true when the readers know the details of the T/Y distinction and remember to use it. I was KJVO for ~30 years and I didn't remember or use this rule. The pastors we surveyed didn't remember or use the rule (by-and-large). And presumably their congregations aren't doing any better, though there is no shortage of KJVO literature touting its supposed advantage in this area.
I am confident in both the methodology and results of the KJB Study Project, but I welcome further research too. Mark has a video covering the pronoun portion of the survey and another called "Does the NKJV change the TR?" (plus probably several more over the last few years) that deal with your objections.
I have experienced the difference that a translation into my language makes, so I advocate for translations into current English. When I have encountered differences of text or translation that seem problematic, I have consistently found reasonable explanations using Mark's methods and simple legwork.
As a monolingual non-seminary-trained Christian, I prefer the help that the NIV gives at Luke 22:31. It is actually a more accurate translation into 21st century English than the KJV in that place. I prefer similar solutions in the rest of the relatively few places where context alone doesn't make the number of a second-person pronoun apparent.
But I don't have a problem with the footnote solution, either in MVs or in the KJV, so I won't argue against that. What the survey makes clear is that the KJV's existing T/Y distinction is not effectively communicating to the audience we surveyed, so another solution is needed.
I'm advocating for intelligibility where you prioritize a standard sacred text. All else being equal and the creek don't rise, I would love a universally-accepted English translation, but I'm not willing to sacrifice as much intelligibility as would be required to keep the KJV in that position. God hasn't provided or required a perfect English translation, rather He has given us several faithful and useful ones. I'm thankful for each of them.
Hope you have a great Saturday evening and Sunday!
I agree. You go through the KJV with a fine toothed comb, and then we give all the new versions a pass
Im confused about kjvo people.. do they like squirm and feel disgusted whenever they read a different english version? Do they think that for 1600 years english speaking people were deprived of a bible? It seems so prideful and arrogant to have such a claim.
I was researching the concepts of "arrogance and pridefulness" around two decades ago. What I learned was how those who see 👀 pridefulness and arrogance may not have researched independently what those words truly mean.
Words are extremely malleable, as the pastor has mentioned.
NO We do not SQUIRM BUT I am DISGUSTED when I hear MANY VERSIONS who have NOTHING TRUE TO SAY ; The AUTHORIZED VERSIONS were around during those years BUT The Roman Catholic Church HAD A CORRUPTED VERSION THAT WAS NAILED TO THE PEWS SO NO ONE BUT THEM COULD STUDY IT WHICH IS WHY The REFORMERS WROTE TRUE VERSIONS and Pointed at the RCC as the THE GREAT WHORE , in PURPLE and SCARLET to this day ; ALSO CALLED The POPE The ANTI-CHRIST ; SHE HAS NOT CHANGED BUT most Protestant Churches are RUNNING BACK TO THE MOTHER of HARLOTS ; ARE YOU??? I Hope Not.
My answer to that has always been. God does everything after the council of his own will, in his own time. Remember the 400 silent years between the end of Malachi and John the Baptist. Or look how long it took before the Word made flesh came into the world. He could have came immediately after the fall. But he came 1,000's of years later.
Translation: The guy doesn't believe in an inerrant and infallible Bible and since the KJV teaches sound theology he don't agree with he’s gonna disregard it.
Such an elementary thought you have.
@@RevDavidReyes if it’s elementary thought to believe in inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible then I’ll gladly have elementary thought
@@CLM1987 Inerrant and infallible is not the elementary thought. You thinking that the KJV is inerrant and infallible is what’s elementary.
The KJV did not exist before 1611. And let me bring some awareness to you, Jesus lived before 1611
@@RevDavidReyes the KJV is inerrant and infallible, if it’s not then it ceases to be the word of God
@@CLM1987 I don’t think anybody would say the KJV is not God’s word. We just argue that it’s not the only trustworthy Bible.
The original Greek & Hebrew is perfect. No English translation is perfect.
For example, Acts 12:4 KJV says Easter. The Greek word is “πάσχα” meaning Passover.
That’s just a simple example where the KJV is not 100% accurate to the original language but it isn’t wrong in its communication.
Why you believed in Queen James teaching in your bibles. ?
The problem with Mark Wards work is there is no acceptable, modern translation. All of the modern translations use textual criticism and the result is just confusion.
Personally, I take Marks false friends and pronoun problems and correct my KJV study/journaling Bibles.
My friend, the KJV translators did textual criticism, too! Not only did they put text-critical notes in the margins of the 1611 KJV, but they chose readings from among multiple different Greek New Testament editions. They did not stick with just one. The very scholar-F.H.A. Scrivener-who put together the edition of the Textus Receptus used by KJV-Onlyists explains this in detail. I can give you more information if you wish. You cannot get away from textual criticism!
@@markwardonwords
I should have been more careful in what I wrote. The problem today is the methods used behind textual criticism. It seems that they go with the ‘older is better’ and when in doubt exclude, not include.
By contrast the KJV translation matches up very well with quotations from the early church fathers. The language and sentence structure also strives to match the Hebrew and Greek, which most modern translations don’t. That’s why it is my primary source.
@@61loneviking I respectfully disagree with every one of these assessments-with emphasis on the "respectful." I think these are reasonable positions for Christian people to hold. But they don't add up to exclusive or primary use of the KJV. 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 a new translation of the TR were to be done, and it follows the translation choices of the KJV translators....and all they do is correctly update the English used....There will be a large number of people who are KJV only, who will not accept the new translation, because they have not read and understood the KJV in some places the way the KJV translators intended, due to change in language. This wont be everyone that is KJV Only, but from experience, I would guess a lot of them will fall into this category..... And this means that in order to appease these people, an honest translator could not do this task, since it would require changing the scripture, to accommodate those people who have misunderstood the way the KJV translators used English....
Lastly, there are so many KJV only groups that promote saying things that would cast doubt on God, and salvation if the KJV is anything less than flawless, these people are facing doubting their faith, if they even entertain the idea of using a Bible that has a single thing different than the KJV. Essentially their faith is Jesus + KJV. If the KJV fails, then possibly Jesus fails too. And I know this because I have been in this situatiom for a very long time. The real reason for the modern translation rejection is that the KJV is an integral part of faith and even knowing God is true, real, trustworthy etc. So to change that is ro change their very faith. And yet, this integral doctrine does not exist 400 years ago. It has come to be a doctrine recently. But somehow people got along before this.
Hayfield Hermit, you’re not wrong. A project such as a KJV update would, therefore, also serve as a dividing line between the sincere and the heretical. God have mercy on them all.
I am KJV Alone and I do recognize the big problem with KJV Only group.
Here’s proof of KJB being truly God’s word: ua-cam.com/video/t6ck6KrVPIk/v-deo.htmlsi=zDmXgJN05zyXgWco
Kevin, what's the difference between the two views? I'm listening!
@@markwardonwords I just made up KJV Alone now. The KJV Only crowd is so corrupted I have to separate myself from that. I'm a big KJV fan but every time I go to a KJV church, they are all so corrupted with man-made doctrines. (In fact all Protestant churches are corrupted.)
They say they are KJV only but 90% of their teachings are outside the Bible. So I am KJV Alone - with no private interpretation of man and no man-made doctrines. I believe you can read the KJV alone (without commentaries or the pastor telling you some strange teachings) and it will have all you need for God's Salvation Plan, the Gospel, understanding of Good Works, understanding of the Law, and understanding of Universal Dispensation w/o replacement.
Is Mark Wards mission in life to discredit the King James Bible? Does this guy actually have a life? Didn’t watch the video as it would have been a total waste of my time. Your welcome and have a very Merry Christmas 🎁🎄
I watched the entire video, and I didnt hear anything that discredited the King James Bible. Maybe try watching the video before commenting.
Interviewing Mark Ward is not a good look for your channel.
Why is that? Expound please.
Agreed. I never expected this collaboration. To those asking "Why?". It is self evident if you know who he is. Let's leave it at that.
@@DesignInNature you sound like a troll to me
@keithjetta Nope. I mean that deeply and sincerely. Someone who's entire life efforts are aimed at undermining trust in the word of God, should never be featured in the channel of someone who preaches the word earnestly. What business has darkness with light?
@@DesignInNature I don't know how you come to that conclusion. I have watched every video he has produced and have had some private correspondence with him. He does not cast doubt upon God's word but rather has made me more sure that any translation accurately translated is the word of God.
The ESV made me KJVO. I’m not a cultist that is called propaganda. The ESV is the revised RSV and it’s horrible. It’s the nonsense in the text(end of Mark 16) of an ESV that my then 9 year old son asked me about was when I started looking into this. After learning about textual criticism and their wild out ideas and motives. I’m KJVO and would let a modern day scholar train my dog.
and as far as Mark Ward constantly saying we can’t learn to read, it’s more propaganda. We all can learn to read Early Modern English way way easier than believe he knows ancient trade greek in his classical greek class. He doesn’t know if he is wrong or right and we don’t either.
@@treybarnes5549 The KJV is an excellent translation-but if you're going to read it exclusively, you need to understand that it was translated into a form of English no one quite speaks or writes anymore. So there are going to be some places where you think you understand but, because of language change, you're going to miss the intent of the KJV translators. For help discerning when this is the case, I encourage you to check out my "Fifty False Friends in the KJV" series on UA-cam for help reading the KJV! ua-cam.com/play/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc.html
@@markwardonwords if your going to read the greek you need to understand you are reading a version of greek that is only 40 years old and nothing dug up out of the greek is even similar.
You also need to understand that the greek words on the page hasn’t change but the application and interpretation has changed(exactly what you are claiming happened with the KJV).
The Hebrew is certainly one of the most carefully transcribed manuscripts in all of history, yet modern scholars seem to not be able to even translate something so settled as the Hebrew without change after change.
This only means that the translation methods are the errors. So you saying there are words like “by and by” that doesn’t mean what I think it means. or the people that wrote the song in the 1800’s didn’t know what it means. I am well aware that what is changing is scholars definitions and interpretations. This is why the KJV has to be the standard because the word “standard” in all of these changes doesn’t mean “Standard”.
Mark, do you ever give your KJV views a timeout .
You are a Prime example of many words without wisdom . Find a mission with more gravitas than UA-cam
The entire discussion comes across as arrogant and contrary to the Christian spirit. Moreover, it seems trivial and insignificant. Instead of trying to discredit peoples understanding of scripture based on archaic language of the KJV Bible, we should focus on a deeper understanding of scripture. As Christians, our priority should be reaching out to the world with the limited time and resources we have. Is this edifying? Engaging in this kind of debate feels like a significant diversion from our true purpose. As a true sidenote with no axe to grind, I have read the KJV faithfully for about thirty years and God seems to be able to speak just fine through it! Let's fight a different fight, the one we are called to fight.
As someone who has been greatly edified by your work/channel Rev. Matt, this one has really discouraged and disappointed me. Of course there is great issue and concern with IFB but this take seriously misses the theological reasons of why people are KJV advocates. I think this gentleman is disingenuous in his motives. Hence, he's using IFB to prove his stance rather than Confessionally Reformed teachers who will challenge him on these points. Although I'm confident that there are IFB that could do so as well. He needs to address the TR preferred or Confessional position, if his work is to be honest instead of working towards the agenda of American Christianity Consumerism to push new, less faithful translations and tools that are being used by Satan to add & take away from the Word of God.
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.
"KJV Only" caters to PRIDE and LAZINESS: Lazy, because it gets you off the hook from dealing with Hebrew and Greek Exegesis, and PRIDEFUL because you can exalt yourself ABOVE all of REAL Theologians who do. And it sounds so Pompous to say (British accent helps) "The Authorized 1611 King James..."
Hello Cristian Soldier ; I have Compared MANY other Versions , at least 20 , and they ALL have VERSES that are EXACTLY OPPOSITE to what the REAL WORD of GOD says ; I compare WORD for WORD and am quit upset with MOST Translations SO if you call that LAZY you are not INFORMED, and PRIDE has NOTHING TO DO WITH WANTING THE WHOLE TRUTH !!! To me, it sounds LIKE you are too LAZY to SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES ; SORRY IF THAT SOUNDS HARSH BUT what you said was not nice either!!!!!!! Praise JESUS CHRIST The IMAGE of The INVISIBLE GOD AMEN and AMEN
@@neilw.ferris1423 KJV vs. AMP. Which is correct on the color on the 4th horse of the Apocalypse?
@@neilw.ferris1423 Why do TROLLS Reply to Comments, but never initiate a comment? 🤔
Primitive Baptists are Calvinistic and King James only.
When this controversy first started the plan of attack was to embarrass those who used the KJV. But this is an all new low, to attack those who teach from it.
I would rather listen to an old time Preacher filled with the Holy Ghost and armed with the King James Bible than some guy with Dr in front of his name and a bunch of letters after it, preaching from an Niv, Esv, and the rest.
Not attacking anyone here, brother. Didn't reveal a single identity of a single pastor who took the survey.
Kjv only is misunderstood by many. Kjv only is the only recent translation that remains true to the real majority text. Other newer translations do indeed change the meanings of words. They literally make Jesus a liar. John 7:7... they take out the fact that Jesus is God in the flesh 1 tim 3:16. They hide meanings from galatians 3: 16 concerning a singular word seed which is Christ and where it says plainly the scripture did not say seeds as of many, but ONE SEED. The scripture is Genesis 22:18 in new versions changed to hide the actual meaning. That's only a couple examples, there are thousands of corrupted verses that dont; do not stay true to the greek text the kjv translators used. So KJV ONLY to me is the best translation in English and the only English version I use, but would be comfortable using the bishops bible 1568, tyndale bible1536, matthews bible 1537, but the most up to date translation in English that stays true to the recieved texts those some 5,000 plus copies from old times that agree with themselves.
If it were only an issue of underlying manuscripts, then the NKJV and the MEV would be included along with the KJV, Geneva, Tyndale Bibles etc.... But typically what happens is those newer TR based Bibles are lumped in with the rest of the newer translations by KJV only people.
It's telling that James White, a monstrous KJV hater, cringes to be associated with this guy.