I loved the debate, both brothers we're charitable and respectful.. something we should all emulate when we dialog with brothers and sisters. I really wanted pizza after I heard that timer.
I'm a former junkie.. who learned how to read the King James Bible in jail. If I can do it with the help of the Holy Spirit, anyone can. We live in a lazy society where people like comfort and ease.. and have not faith
Interestingly, many KjV Only Pastors were unable to correctly interpret false friends. Hopefully you would not argue that those pastors lack the Holy Spirit!
@robertj5208 Being King James Only does not mean that you know everything, we leave that to the critical text people. KJVO means that you have faith in the text we already have and that is sufficient for you.
Timestamps 0:00 - Introduction 0:58 - Opening prayer 1:48 - Dan Haifley intro 3:36 - Mark Ward intro 4:52 - Topic intro 7:56 - Dan Haifley opening statement 28:13 - Mark Ward opening statement 48:15 - Dan Haifley rebuttal 53:16 - Mark Ward rebuttal 1:03:42 - Mark to Dan “What does ‘even of the very vulgar’ mean?” 1:04:02 - Dan’s response 1:07:21 - Mark to Dan “How do we determine which words we should change and which words we shouldn’t change [in the KJV]?” 1:07:22 - Mark’s response 1:10:19 - Mark to Dan “Have you ever learned from me a King James ‘false friend’ that you never knew before?” 1:10:50 - Dan’s response 1:12:32 - Dan to Mark “Would you say meanings of words are determined by context?” 1:12:54 - Mark’s response 1:13:19 - Dan to Mark “The OED is missed some of the communication in the popular language” 1:13:44 - Mark’s response 1:15:58 - Mark to Dan “How am I supposed to look up King James words I don’t know that I am misunderstanding?” 1:16:06 - Dan’s response 1:18:39 - Dan to Mark “You almost said that it was a sin if we gave our King James Bible to our children. Can you clarify that a little better for me?” 1:19:21 - Mark’s response 1:22:44 - Mark’s closing remarks 1:31:34 - Dan’s closing remarks
Here are two verses that are in the ESV. John 13:34-35-- A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” --John 13:34-35 (ESV) Easy to understand. But in my opinion, so is the KJV of these verses quite readable also: John 13:34-35-- A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all [men] know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. --John 13:34-35 (KJV) [men] = italics. CONCLUSION: A Christian who uses ESV, and a Christian who uses KJV will love one another! ⛪
Anyone can claim “I understand just fine” prove it by checking out the false friends. What did maintain mean in Tit. 3:8? What did “convince” mean in Acts 18:28?
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBelieverI’m interested to see how you would think those are false friends. Could you provide examples of what meaning could be made if the “wrong” definitions were read in those verses?
@@coppersmith1611 I thought you'd never ask! Keep in mind these are just two random examples from my notes I put in to test the commenter. "For he mightily convinced the Jews" (Acts. 18.28) Here there are actually 2 false friends next to each other (this is why the modern translations APPEAR TO differ from the KJV in this verse, but they don't differ in meaning). "mightily" and "convinced". "convinced" today means to cause (someone) to believe firmly in the truth of something." Giving the idea that Apollos was successful in this verse but this definition is not what the Greek word means, and there is an obsolete sense in the Oxford English Dictionary of "convinced" that matches the Greek word exactly and therefore this is a meaning that is not what the KJV translators intended. *ANYONE would THINK the modern translations are saying something different; they're not, we just don't know KJV English.* English speakers today understand mightily to mean "With great physical power or strength; by force of arms; with great mental, intellectual, or emotional power or force; exceedingly, enormously, vastly, immensely, tremendously, hugely, markedly, remarkably, abundantly, to a great extent" so Apollos was very effectual & powerful (mightily). This is not what the Greek word means, and there is an obsolete sense in the Oxford English Dictionary of "mightily" that matches the Greek word perfectly and therefore this is a meaning that is not what the KJV translators intended. In Tit. 3:8 there's 2 false friends as well in the same verse! "maintain" and "constantly" (Ward's got a video on that one! ua-cam.com/video/teAMC1cA-S4/v-deo.htmlsi=QGiLWCKt8TT4IbSc). This is another place where the modern translations APPEAR TO differ from the KJV in this verse, but they don't differ in meaning. Maintain today means to "To keep up, preserve, cause to continue in being (a state of things, a condition, an activity, etc.); to keep vigorous, effective, or unimpaired; to guard from loss or deterioration." That't not what the Greek word means and again there is an obsolete sense (it died in 1650) in the Oxford English Dictionary of "maintain" that matches the Greek word just right and therefore this is a meaning that is not what the KJV translators intended. These are words that can cause the modern reader to add meaning or subtract meaning that is not what Paul or Luke or the KJV translators or the Holy Spirit intended for the reader to have.
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever Here’s the NET translations rendering. Not sure exactly how it’s different to someone reading the kjv rendering. Act 18:28 28 for he refuted the Jews vigorously in public debate, demonstrating from the scriptures that the Christ was Jesus. Tit 3:8 8 This saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on such truths, so that those who have placed their faith in God may be intent on engaging in good works. These things are good and beneficial for all people. Here’s one for you: Luke 22:31-32 (ESV): 31 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, 32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.” Who does Satan demand? Just Peter? Who did Jesus pray for? Just Peter? Luk 22:31-32 31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: 32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. Kjv has the distinction of singular and plural “you”. I guess you could call “you” in modern translations a false friend?
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever TITUS 3:8 -- maintain -- My parent used to be a maintenance operator. This involves the main duty of inspection, and to inspect, you have to BE OVER it, , controling it, to DO IT. Dutifully doing those good works. To put it in the vernacular: Boys, you betta own them good works! Acts 18:28 -- CONVINCE, same root as CONVICT. You are a convict -- it's been PROVEN you are in the wrong. VINCO is Latin to conquer. This doesn't mean these people followed Jesus, they were like the fellas here: "And they which heard it, being CONVICTED by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst." - John 8:9 I win many arguments. But that doesn't mean people are going to do what is right. These Pharisees knew they were without sin. But they weren't about to repent of them. "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God." - John 3:19-21
Mad respect to Dr. Ward. He came in with the passion and energy. I think he was underestimated in this one. The danger of these kind of debates is no clear winner is set in place, and the potential "loser" can be exposed to many to influence to their cause who otherwise would have not given them the time of the day.
Mark Ward is a great orator, but the substance doesn't follow the excellency of speech. Ultimately, he'd never have agreed to this debate if it wasn't in his wheelhouse. The questions he avoids are the ones that are most pressing.
Does Mark Ward care as much about accuracy of Scripture, as he does about readability? Does he have a text of Scripture that is the final authority for the body of Christ, those he claims to love so much? What is Mark Ward pointing us to? Faith or doubt?
Although I understand that the debate is about the readability on modern translation and that “one must use a Bible translation with today’s English” compared to the archaic words in the KJV. That alone is a poor argument to switching translation. I use an ESV and has been my Bible for years but the KJV has been rather easier to read and with my phone I simply define words I don’t understand (same with the ESV). The truth is that KJV is from the traditional text and all modern translation are from the critical text and when you dig deep in the history how that came to be it’s difficult to unsee the many verse taking out of the KJV which is why I chose to use that translation. Now I don’t believe is the only translation a believer must use but it definitely been hard putting it down.
In my line of work, I am constantly learning. If I don’t learn, I fall behind the technology curve which is detrimental to my livelihood. Getting an Oxford English dictionary or Webster’s 1828 and learning a few words in the King James Bible is not that difficult compared to what I do on a daily basis. The beauty of the King James Bible is that it doesn’t change unlike the technology of our present world. When I study it and memorize it and learn what God the author is trying to tell me, I know that it’s not going to change next year, 10 years from now, or ever. That is a great comfort.
From what I read about New Jerusalem, I would venture to say a mansion in this existence is a dump compared to a small dwelling place in the Father’s House
This was a great debate. I really wish that the King James Research Council could take point on doing a modern translation of the King James Bible using all of the same source texts and simply update the “dead words”, “false friends,” and the pronouns no longer in common use. In this way we could have a TR - KJRC approved translation of the Bible in modern English. And perhaps one which could again become the standard or rather unifying translation across all evangelical / Protestant denominations.
I think half of the people commenting here didn't listen to the debate. All the 'I understand the KJV just fine' comments - Mark has proven that you don't. Your KJV pastors don't. There are words you know you don't know and words you don't know you don't know.
Yes! I see these comments everywhere in these discussions. “I started reading the Kjv at 8 years old and I’ve never had trouble understanding it” that just means you don’t understand that you’re misunderstanding. 🤦♂️
The King James Bible has a built-in dictionary. Get to know God's word and God will show you how it works. He will make you skillful in using the word of God.
@@Mr-pn2eh are there any verses to prove this exclusive built in dictionary in the KJB? Is there any pure foreign translations that have this built in dictionary as well?
I learn nothing from people who know what I know and think what I think. If I give you a dollar and you give me a dollar, we each walk away with no more than we came with. But if I give you and idea and you give me an idea, we each walk away with two. "Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend." This was hardly a debate, this was an exchange of ideas between two brothers. I suspect we all had a hard time hearing what the man who thinks differently was seeking to offer.
1:42:15 Brother Hafley just stated it could be possible to update the KJV and that I would say: Brother Hafley now is the time for you and the fine KJRC time to organize such a worthy and novel endeavor!
I think these discussions are good as long as we remember we are all brothers and sisters in Christ. This topic can touch up deeply so I would expect strong arguments. But only Satan is helped by needless anger and division. This topic is personal to me also. I am a good English student, and I know my Bible better than most. But to be honest, I often struggle to understand the words in the KJV. A problem I do not have in other translations. And this is my first point. If I struggle, how much more will people who have poor English skills or only a casual understanding of the Bible? Let me give you an illustration. I am currently studying Romans 11:1-3. The ESV is easy for me to understand. It is written in reasonably English with only the word “foreknew” being a little difficult. The NKJV is a little harder. A reader will need to know what is meant by “cast away”. “seed” and “foreknew” but that is not too bad. Alas though the KJV is much harder. A reader will need to know what is meant by “hath”, “cast away”, “foreknew”, “seed”, “saith”, “Elias”, “maketh”, “intercession” and “digged down”. An experienced KJV reader will probably understand these verses without any effort. Although I wonder how many would know what the unusual “digged down” means. But, this is not so with me. I need to make my own translation in my head to understand what this means. And this is even before I start to work out what Paul is trying to communicate to me. This is a relatively simple section of text. There are plenty of other important passages that are far harder to read. And this is my second point. If the only way I can understand a text is to retranslate it, then I would prefer it to be written from the start in a translation that I do understand. Why should we use words and sentences that are unnecessarily difficult? Why should make barriers that obscure the message of the Bible? The Bible is challenging enough to understand without these issues. I understand the reluctance to change from the KJV. I know that Mark Ward also has regrets in changing from the KJV. It is a wonderful version that has served us well. I do not wish to let it go. But alas I do think it is time to start moving to versions that are more understandable to more people. Romans 11 English Standard Version 1 I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? 3 “Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.” New King James Version 1 I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying, 3 “Lord, they have killed Your prophets and torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life”? King James Version 1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying, 3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
I had a 9th grade ed. Let me give you the Amanda vernacular.... "Has God thrown away His people? Nope! I am also an Israelite, Abraham is my greaaaaaaat- Grandpappy, and Benjamin is the lineage I am from. God's people which He knew before haven't been thrown away! What? Don't you know what Elijah said in the Bible? How he interceded to God against Israel and said, "Lord, they have murdered your prophets and ripped down your alters and I am the only one left and they are trying to kill me right now!"
When I read the examples you listed in the King James...I personally struggle to believe you would find difficulty with those words. This in no way is to belittle anyone, but based on the information, it's difficult to take you seriously.
@@ShallStandForEver I have little reason to add to my sin count or to poke my head up so I can risk being shamed. So yes, I am speaking truthfully. Some words like maketh can indeed be guessed at accurately, but certainly not all. I suspect that not many Christians would realise who Elias was. The only reason I know what digging down means is because the other translations told me. Can we agree that as many people as possible should be able to understand as much of the Bible as they possibly can? Why should the need to read the Bible be frustrated because people have difficulty working out the meaning of the text? Why should the understanding of God’s words be obscured by unnecessarily difficult language? Reading the King James Version is a skill. It is a skill that can be learnt. But I do not think we should require people to learn that skill to understand the Bible. Either way, may God bless our reading and doing of His words!
Seems to be some confusion and false accusing in the comments. 1. Mark Ward and Jonathan Burris cover a lot of the same material. Both of these men actually do love the KJV bible, but they do not believe it is without translation error. 2. If someone claims that something is perfect, and you say it is not, it is a natural response to get offended and think they are "attacking" that object....even though this is not true. Ex: my wife is the best wife in the world, she is the most perfect wife. You disagree. I say "how dare you attack my wife". The offense would not have existed if I didnt first make the claim. 3. They don't "not like" the KJV, what they dont like is KJV onlyism and this is what they stand against. 4. Ward said multiple times he wants people to continue to use the KJV as long as they use another translation to help them understand it like the NKJV. Otherwise....he would prefer the KJV gets updated so it dkesnt fool anybody. 5. Do not comment "the only (fool) here is you, trying to be smart after reading 4." Mark ward doesnt think its a sin giving any child a KJV. He thinks it would be sinful for himself personally to give a child a kjv knowing full well they wont understand it. This is way different. 6. "James 1:22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves." For those who think just because you are "on the right side" or "have the right bible"....guess what, the Jews thought the same thing. This doesnt make you an obedient christian. You actually need to follow the teachings of the bible you claim to believe, otherwise you have decieved yourself. This includes being meek, and not lying, slandering, and false accusing....thinking its ok because that person is "of the devil". Eph 4:29 no corrup communication but edifying one another, ministering grace. Col 4:6, speech seasoned with grace. James talk about bridling your tongue. I have seen a huge lack of obedience to Christ from many of the comments on here.
Ward thinks it would be a sin for him to give a child a KJV, but not someone else. So is the KJV then not the words of God? I think Ward is revealing his own heart with all this nonsense. "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" - Isaiah 5:20 KJV "Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled." - Titus 1:15 KJV
1. I completely disagree that there are translational errors in the KJV. I'm a nobody you'd say (I'm not offended), and I'm familiar with both men you've mentioned. This is somewhat of an appeal to authority or the expertise of these men. 2. All due respect, your analogy is a poor one. You can have a bias and preference for your wife, parent, or child; while still being grounded in the reality we all have imperfections due to sin and the fallen nature of mankind. We know about sin and mankind's fall because (as Christians) we believe the witness of Holy Scripture. We also know the Holy Scriptures come from God; are preserved, inspired, perfect, holy, and true. Why? Because we believe the witness of the Holy Scriptures about Holy Scripture, God's word. In other words; these aren't manufactured claims from KJVO people forced upon the Scriptures. These are claims all throughout Scripture about itself. Don't get mad at us as though we generated or invented the claims. See, you might actually have to wrestle with your own Bibliology before the Lord, not us. 3. What is "KJV onlyism"? Well, it's become a pejorative that's for sure. I think it would be helpful if you and others like you would admit it's said with disdain, because we who defend the word of God in the King James translation are aware of how we are despised by our brethren. But there is variation here. Not everyone is a "Ruckmanite". There are those who defend the King James but are more TR-only, and therefore read more than one translation, but prefer the KJV. We're also researchers like you, we do our homework. That means we have to be aware of and compare other translations. 4. The requirement of another translation to understand the King James is beyond ridiculous. And completely insulting. This is where there is just a blind spot by Mark Ward and his followers. Let's admit this stems from thinking people who read the KJV are stupid. Mark Ward thinks he's smart enough to know what the King James means but doesn't trust anyone else. He's had people tell him they understand the King James, but Mark doesn't believe them, but he's not against the KJV? The logic doesn't flow, and really comes across as disingenuous. And yes, Mark Ward has equated being a King James Bible believer to being sinful. It is not sinful if you hold to ONE translation as your final authority. And by the way, what is Mark Ward pointing us to? What Bible? Just a collection of translations that are ever changing? This is why Mark Ward doesn't want to talk about textual criticism. He wants to hand wave that aside. Mr. Ward doesn't have a settled text. Yet the readability of the King James is his chief concern? This is a glaring issue, and goes back to my point about wrestling with one's own Bibliology. What do you actually believe Scripture is? Where is it? Are you angry at KJVO people for claims they make, or mad at Scripture itself? (Skipping 5) 6. I agree with what you say here. But it doesn't just apply to the KJV side, in case you think it does. God bless you.
There is one fact that is important to remember: the KJV has been around for 413 years. Within that time, countless Bible scholars have produced innumerable works to help us understand the KJV and provide us with insights we would never think of. The fact is that if one has difficulty understanding the KJV, we can be sure the KJV is not the one at fault. You don't need a new translation, you need to put in the work. But then there is the problem.
Mark's comments for the need to step away from the king James because modern people can't understand it is absurd The king James is in English these are English words This is a problem of intellectual nature Of Grammer So what Mark and Dan both are saying is that people don't understand because of a lack of knowledge and a lack of understanding There's a problem and instead of fixing the problem with teaching grammar and big words and definition mark insists on walking away from it completely This line of thought will degrade the English language further and further into a slang I understand and agree that some words are different from the old English to modern day English To have this argument this debate can't be done without going contextual of the translations and the history of them
No it’s not, study in the AV did not mean what it means today. Simple fact. I want to know what my King James Bible is saying and Ward is helping me immensely!
Mark Ward won this debate for several reasons. First, he more clearly advocated for the idea the concern that God's children should understand the Scripture. Second, he was focused, on target/message and stuck to the specific field of discussion and was able to be concise. Third, he gave convincing natural/logical arguments which would lead one to assume that a new/less educated person using the KJB alone could be difficult. However, Mark Ward succeeded in these points actually because of the weakness of his opponent. I believe that his opponent gave some really excellent points, and particularly in his first long statement brought out some really good teachings. In relation to the first point above, the opponent was weaker because he did not sufficiently or at all argue about God's use of English in the KJB, the exactness of the KJB and God's ability and desire for people to come to that exactness in English. In relation to the second point, the opponent was ill-served by cloudy thinking, fumbling, sneezing and straying content. In relation to the third, the opponent either accepted the natural arguments (dispirited, surrendering), or if trying to make a counter argument, seemed to be in a houghed fashion, instead of a charge with spiritual principles (e.g. seeing by faith). The opponent said some very good things, but not with enough strength. I suspect in his smart way Mark Ward chose a "low hanging fruit" kind of KJB defender that was more a "KJB preferred" and "KJB is best but not perfect" kind of foil, to be able to poke his holes into, and so easily deflate. I call Mark Ward "smart" because it's not fully deceptive, it's not conspiratorially evil, it's a Matthew 10:16 issue, among brethren. Ultimately, this whole thing is not good because a contrived victory is a propaganda coup and gives morale to those who think the KJB is teetering at the edge of conceptual oblivion.
That subtlety of Mark Ward is what I would call "more evil" than someone who looks and sounds obviously evil. Exactly what Satan did and been doing since Genesis 3. That's what leaven does to a bread.
I concur. His case against the KJB is as feeble as ever, but Ward deserves credit for winning the debate by arguing with intelligence, clarity and structure. Almost thou persuadest me to be an ephemeral-version-onlyist!
@@arqist In civil discourse, we assume a person is not evil. Of course, we may judge what he speaks, and there are certainly deceptive and wrong things there. I am approaching it as if a man who is born again yet is so greatly deceived with his wrong ideas. There are many low level Christians who are listening to him, and he must be having a dangerous effect on getting some to give up the KJB. I will deal with the ideas, because we have to win a PR battle with his listeners/fan bots, which means not merely calling Mark Ward an effeminate, smart alec agent of the devil.
@@glenn1611 I want to see our side communicate better. He is quite effective with his audience. Notice that Ward's message is to ignore the textual issues, or translation issues, but to focus on the simplistic issue, "the KJB is hard, and hard isn't helpful". That's been the other side's strongest argument against the KJB for a long time. Their other main argument is, "You say the KJB is perfect. Which KJB is perfect?" We can answer that. The very debate was "Is the KJB readable?" The answer is, Yes, of course it is. But how do you measure readability? By comprehension or by contemporary use of language? Mark Ward's argument falls apart once you don't make language at one or other point of history the measure. They know that, which is why they continually say "1611 English" and "today's changing English". Of course, these are fake measures because the KJB is God's use of English and the KJB is designed to be transcendent to any year date. After all, it is God using English.
I agree that Dr. Haifley did not offer the best defense for his position. Who would you propose as a debate opponent if Dr. Ward were to do another one? Granted, it must be someone who would approach the subject in an evenhanded and brotherly manner, much as Dr. Haifley did.
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever Do you understand everything you read in the ESV? Does everyone that reads that version understand it? What causes a person to not understand what he is reading? I learned how to read from Alpha-Phonics by Samuel Blumenfeld as a child. His simple program made verocious readers at early ages, me being one of them. Blumenfeld had some major issues against the education system and it's indoctrination, in which he believed they were purposely dumbing down the American people. And no, he was not a KJV-Onlyist. I think every generation has its modern educators that want to disconnect us from our past. Understanding the language of the past is vital in learning it's history so we do not repeat its mistakes. One of the points I loved that Blumenfeld made was that we were made to be able to READ and COMPREHEND. It takes BAD TEACHING to make a child unable to read. (Stone me, bad teachers!) When you discourage and tell a child they are bad at something, and focus on dumbing down everything for them, rather than affirming that they CAN DO IT -- it makes a HUGE difference. Remember when Mattel made the Barbie Dolls that said, "MATH IS TOUGH!" Women were outraged. They took it as teaching their daughters that girls couldn't do math. And rightly so! Girls can do math! Math is not tough if you get your foundation nailed in straight. But I also know that for those that find learning difficult, you better examine your heart. Is your heart right with God in all areas? When we fail to do what we already understand, God isn't going to open up to us more understanding. First things first. "And the vision of all this has become to you like the words of a book that is sealed. When men give it to one who can read, saying, "Read this," he says, "I cannot, for it is sealed." And when they give the book to one who cannot read, saying, "Read this," he says, "I cannot read." And the Lord said: "Because this people draw near with their mouth and honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me, and their fear of me is a commandment taught by men, therefore, behold, I will again do wonderful things with this people, with wonder upon wonder; and the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the discernment of their discerning men shall be hidden."" - Isaiah 29:11-14 ESV "Evil men understand not judgment: but they that seek the LORD understand all things." - Proverbs 28:5 KJV "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." - 1 John 2:27 KJV
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever Yes, I understand the King James Bible. I'm using the KJB Westminster Reference Bible from TBS so I don't have any issue with the false friends or archaic words (in fact, some archaic words in the KJB are close to French 😀).
@56 minutes. Will the Holy Ghost teach you the word of God? He is conflating the issue. He will lead you to know what every word means IF you listen. One thing he can't do is show you missing words and verses if you are reading the corrupt versions.
So let me see. Is the most READ book in the entirety of human history READable? What else would Mark Ward debate against? Do bears poop in the woods? Is the sky blue? Is grass green? Do rocks fall if you drop them?
The question that should’ve been asked of Mark Ward is if the changes he proposes of words to the modern equivalent were L done Wood he then come back to KJV only? We all know his answer though 😢
1:01:30 Mark on he mentioned a survey of pastors who did not know that thee, thou and thine were singular. That simply shows me that the training those particular pastors received was lacking in basic grammar. What is Mark's solution? Teach them this basic truth? NO, it is to dumb down the entire traditional, accurate translation to make it more "understandable" to him and others.
Dumb down? Brother we’ve been taught over and over the thee and thou pronouns and gloat and rejoice in them… and still PASTORS are failing to REMEMBER, let alone the laymen.
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever I've had a few pastors over the years who never explained this basic truth. One of them started as a KJV preferred pastor. Eventually, he got into translating from the critical texts and mocked the KJB. I no longer attend. He would boast of the Greek that we all had to take his word on. Then he would mock the simpler Elizabethan English of my Bible as if it was too difficult and incorrect.... hypocrisy at it's finest. This is the slippery slope of Mark Ward's philosophy. I've been around long enough to see it happen.
@@preacherman9018 I’ve met countless KJV Only pastors who were trained by KJV Only men, and they all STRESS HOW ACCURATE the the thees and thous are and then they stumble over them and Ward’s survey demonstrates that this is the reality of the situation.
That's a sad commentary on those students of God's Word. My personal experience has been limited too. I attended my first pastor's Bible institute and earned a 4 year BA degree later from a pastor taught Bible college. I do not recall being taught this. Perhaps I forgot or was not listening closely enough. The president was a BJU doctorate. The others were Hyles Anderson grass. One was a S.Western Baptist Bible college grad. Where I learned about this first was with a friend who was a M.A. degree grad from WVU in linguistics. I verified his explanation with a reference book and have taught this to someone less than 2 weeks ago. Some passages are difficult, but have never had the problem Mark Ward does with the singular/ plural forms of you since that day my friend taught me that.
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever It is literally impossible to translate the Greek NT the seminary crowd loves so much without using thees and thous. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Your position can't be both "we needed to be more accurate that we need to take out thees and the thous". Translating everything as "you" is simply not going to be as accurate. Thankfully, Thee and Thou are are perfectly understandable to most people.
Discipleship is important. It's important that people get plugged into a local church and are around stronger Christians after getting saved. You don't go to the world to figure out how to read the Bible you go to the body of Christ... Remember we give the sense God uses preachers. Not dictionaries... Now if a preacher point someone toward the Webster's 1828.. which was written by a Christian.. that's fine. A member of the body of Christ wrote that dictionary. That's not running to the world. There's nothing wrong with using a dictionary if it's a good one however you're running to Egypt and assyria rather than to God just like the Israelites did. You can't look to the world to teach you the Bible.. look to Christ.
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBelieverMisunderstand what? Let’s say some archaic words make it hard for you to understand, do you just stop there and close the book? or do you put an effort to understand them? Also, I would rather have a Bible that’s got all the verses than having a Bible that is missing.
The problem with this question is that there is an imbedded presupposition in it. Namely, the idea that the "Word of God" means exclusively "the Bible." This presupposition would first need to be proven before making any presumptuous claims about the preservation of God's word.
@@SilverioFamilyforChrist Oh, so God promised to preserve His word, but you think He meant scattering them everywhere like pieces of a puzzle? Like the old scrolls that were fragmented and inaccessible to all but a few? Does that sound like a promise that provides clarity and truth to all believers, or confusion? Surely, God’s promise of preserving His word would mean something more accessible, complete, and unified, wouldn’t it?
I’ve got it! I’m right here! It’s my perfectly translated KJV! Now are you going to help me understand it like Dr. Ward is helping me? Is there anyone helping KJV readers understand KJV’s English like he is? Point me to him brother! I want to understand my KJV!
@@arqist No. And the fact that you responded the way you did illustrates both the presupposition you hold (thinking Word of God means Bible) and that you misunderstood what I said to begin with. Preservation is a secondary matter until you can define why "Word of God" to you means precisely "Bible". Because even in scripture (and through historical and rational evidence) we can identify more forms of God's words than that which was written on some pages. Your contention with the idea of preservation has nothing to do with what I asked.
Worried that you can't understand the KJB? Matthew 9:13a (KJV) "But go ye and _LEARN_ what that meaneth..." Problem solved. Dictionaries were made for a reason, people. Also, Jesus Christ told us that he would send his Spirit to guide us into all truth for a reason, people. Proverbs 8:8-9 (KJV) All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them. *_They are all plain to him that understandeth,_* and right to them that find knowledge. 1 Corinthians 2:12-14 (KJV) Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, *_but which the Holy Ghost teacheth;_* comparing spiritual things with spiritual. *_But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God:_* for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, *_because they are SPIRITUALLY discerned._* NOBODY can fully understand GOD'S words without being saved. Mark Ward, you're worried about the wrong thing. Instead of worrying about whether the King James Bible is still understandable for today or not, why don't you worry about weather the reader is SAVED or not? What, would you have the darkened understanding removed from lost people while they are yet lost? You can't change that, because IT IS WRITTEN (Eph. 4:17-19).
@@whattheheckification Admittedly, I caught only the last 45 minutes or so of the debate. I have not watched the entire thing yet (was very busy today), but I am planning on watching the whole thing tomorrow. My comment is based off of what I have watched so far, and what I already know about Mark Ward (I am familiar with his view on the KJV). Mark Ward said towards the end of the debate that he desires that the plowboy would understand God's word (and other similar sayings regarding reading comprehension of the KJV), because he foolishly thinks that the KJV is hard for people today to understand (true if you're unsaved). Howbeit, I suppose you are _somewhat_ right, but I still stand by what I said.
@@AnthonyTuminello Actually Mark stated a few times that he thinks the KJV is mostly intelligible for English readers, but that it has a lot of old phrases and words that cause confusion for modern readers. And unfortunately, many times the old words are words we use today, that we don’t even realize had a different meaning 400 years ago, so we don’t even realize we don’t know them when reading the KJV. He also pointed out many of the old words cannot be simply looked up in a dictionary. Have an open mind to Ward my friend. Maybe he won’t change your mind of being KJV Only, but at the very least you might learn some false friends and meanings of words to look out for when reading KJV.
@@whattheheckification The thing is, my God is not limited by "false friends" and historical definitions. I get what Ward means by that, but God, in his infinite understanding, and by the fact that he "Declar[es] the end from the beginning" (Isa. 46:9-10), is able to use certain parts of his word as "advanced revelation", and also cause it to have a double application. In other words, a certain word that meant something different back then than it does now can be used by God to reveal something _NEW_ for today (Isa. 48:6-7). The Author has every right to do something like that with his own Book. God is in no wise limited by time, and God brought forth the King James Bible to be _THE_ Bible in the universal language of English for these last days, knowing the changes that would be made to the English language later on down the line. Therefore, these so-called "false friends" do not scare me. And if I indeed cannot find the historical definitions to some of these "archaic" words, is the Holy Spirit of God not still capable of guiding me into all truth concerning it? The words of the LORD are _SPIRITUALLY_ discerned, not naturally.
I read the NIV at 41 years of age and thought I needed to be baptized to be saved! Praise the Lord I attend a King James only church, started to read God's Word with no problem and was taught the correct soul saving gospel! I was saved at the age of 42! And without knowing all this stuff, I knew the King James Bible was the Bible that was the true Word of God! I had been going to church my entire life, and was never taught how I could get right with God 😢 False teachers and misleading Bible's in all these churches I attended.
If we want to evaluate translator bias, we need to look at doctrinal statements from the groups that did the translating. Here's what the translators of the KJV believed regarding baptism's role in salvation, taken from the Church of England's 39 Articles of Religion: *Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God's good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.* (Article 25) *Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or new Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.* (Article 27) (There's also some stuff about baptizing babies in there, but I wanted to keep the focus on their view of baptismal regeneration.)
I appreciate the spirit and tone of the debate. It reminded me much of the famous John MacArthur and RC Sproul debate on baptism. In my mind, Mark came across far more prepared than did Dr. Haifley. He seemed to constantly fumble with his notes only to trot out the same tired and worn out talking points. As well, Dr. Haifley seems to talk out of "both sides of his mouth"; he says "Yes, if there were agreed upon terms, we could allow for an update of the KJV." However, it was also very frustrating, when pressed he basically said "but I don't trust anyone who agrees on those terms to do it." Dr. Haifley, which is it sir? Mark challeged the KJBRC to do the job then graciously offered his help. If you don't want his help, fine, do it on your own then. You seem to want to play lip service to a potential update while also "hedging your bet" that it could be done properly. This comes across as an "uncertain trumpet" and "clanging cymbal." "How long halt ye between two opinions?"
If accuracy of Scripture and which textual base you're building from, is not a fundamental principle guiding you in your choice of a Bible translation, you won't find agreement. Mark Ward doesn't have a final authority when it comes to Scripture. That's the elephant in the room.
@@chadwilham3942 Authority of Scripture is a broad term and not useful unless you define what is scripture. If you believe Scripture only exists in the original autographa which we don't have then you can say, believe, and practice whatever you want.
@@murrydixon5221 Authority of scripture is broad term and not useful unless you define what is scripture. If you believe Scripture only exists in your one preferred English translation you can say and believe whatever you want.
2nd Timothy 2:15. Study.... You get to know God and his word by coming to him and it daily... You have to put work in.. God is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.. if you don't diligently seek him you're not supposed to understand his word..(sure he'll give you enough light to get saved) but I'm talking about learning doctrine and learning the word of God. Mark Ward and James White are subtle... Like that other guy back in Genesis..you know.. the serpent who twisted God's word and made Eve doubt it...
Amen! The "world" is lazy and wants everything handed to them. God says that laziness is sin. The Holy Ghost will bestow wisdom and understanding, if we ask Him. How hard is that to do? Apparently, for some, it's an impossible task.
@@RonTheChristFollower NO PROBLEM. The question is… do you understand it? That’s the real issue: what does fray mean in Zech. 1:21? What does mansions mean in John 14:2? What does conversation mean in Phil. 3:20? What does “constantly” mean in Acts 12:15?
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever If I thought you were interested in truth, I would answer your questions, but I know you're only interested in arguments to feed your pride........ Proverbs 14:7 ...........
Marc states he loves the KJV, but suggests to get rid of it lol. Image if we said this about our loved ones! What a bunch of of nonsense. I never heard someone say they love something or someone and suggested to get rid it, that is not a love for anything.
From; "3 Ways to Graciously Engage KJV-Only Believers" by Mark Ward. "KJV-onlyism is not a Christian liberty issue, like eating meat offered to idols. It makes void the Word of God by human tradition-one archaizing lexeme at a time (Mark 7:13). I pray that my brethren’s consciences will one day be liberated to read more than just the KJV." My Comment now.... *Make no mistake, Mark Ward has disdain for the KJV and those who hold it dear. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth, but if you listen and READ with care, it becomes obvious what he really thinks.*
He doesn’t want to get rid of it, he wants KJV-only folks to allow others, specifically those who struggled with the older language, the freedom to read modern translations without attacking their sincerity or salvation. Ironically, it’s Ward’s work that got me more interested in reading the KJV. I have read the Bible a few times in other translations, but for the first time have read the entire word in the KJV. So if he has disdain for the KJV he’s done a poor job of communicating that.
I have a 9th grade education... I understand my kjv perfectly. I also correct the modern versions. I'm more intelligent than the scholar's that put out modern Bible versions! Thank you Lord!
“Perfectly” Oh really? What does “atonement” mean in Rom. 5:11? What does “constantly” mean in Tit. 3:8? Those 100 pastors didn’t. Dr. Peter Ruckman didn’t (see Wards new video). Would you be willing to put your claim to the test? Anyone can claim they understand something, prove it honestly.
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever Can I answer? And please note, I also only had a 9th grade education. The atonement refers to us being reconciled back to God. AT ONE MENT -- we are now ONE with the Father, through the work of His Son. We must look at the verse before which explains it... "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." - Romans 5:10 And "constantly", this would be like persuasively/assertively/with confidence. Because we know that a constant number doesn't change. :) The name Constance comes from that origin and means to standfast. The reason why I know these things and others should know these things is that LANGUAGE matters, root words matter. We should not be content to be ignorant and unlearned. This doesn't mean we have to go to college and study for hours. It only takes training your eyes and ears to pay attention to words and where they are coming from.
Pray to thy Father in heaven, in the name of whom he sent, and ask him for understanding of the KJB and he will give it to you. Man is not capable of teaching you what God will teach you when you trust in him and him alone.
This was an interesting debate/discussion. Both men were gracious and humorous. And both made good points for their position. I use the KJV and love it. For me the primary issue is the underlying Greek text. Even the NKJV gives credence to the critical text which poisons it. And it makes me cringe when fellow believers mock the KJV as if it is not God’s Word. We should have more debates like this one.
Does the KJV marginal note from the translators in Luke 17.36 make cringe too? “This 36. verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies” “Divers weights are an abomination unto the LORD; and a false balance is not good.” Proverbs 20:23 KJV
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever You missed my point. What makes me “cringe” is when believers mock the KJV. Whether or not there should be marginal notes is a different discussion.
@@md11mark really brother, is it *more* the KJV-Onlyists mocking any and every other version, or is it modern version readers mocking the KJV? “For me the primary issue is the underlying Greek text. Even the NKJV gives credence to the critical text which poisons it.” *Answer the question:* Does the note in Luke 17:36 poison the KJV? Fair weights and measures are required by scripture.
@@arqist The ESV and NIV are irrelevant to the conversation that was being had here. The NKJV has Acts 8.37. The MEV has Acts 8.37. The NASB '77 and '95 have Acts 8.37. The AMP has Acts 8.37. The HCSB has Acts 8.37. The LSB has Acts 8.37. The NCV has Acts 8.37. The SKJV and KJVER have Acts 8.37. The Living Bible has Acts 8.37. So the issue is whether the KJV gets a pass that other translations with the same verses don't get.
Jot and tittles are English? What does “oppose themselves” mean in 2 Tim. 2.25? How about sped in Judges 5.30? How about practise in Daniel 8.12? Liking in Dan. 1:10? Do you want to try “people” in Psa. 7.7? Conversation in Phil. 3.20?
My thoughts about God's Word is that he preserves it. So without any doubts or worries I know if necessary he will make it more modern in any language. Just like all throughout history he has. He will pick and guide and produce it. You will know it by it's fruits like the king james and others. The exact inherent meaning will always stay the same according to God's meaning. I see the fruits of some modern translations and God doesn't seem to be in those. Meaning that it was Mankind that produced it without God's intervention.
The King James is much easier to learn to read than ancient trade greek no one teaches nor learns in their one semester at seminary. There is no ignorance worst than the ignorance you teach to others.
lol! Yeah! I believe that! This one is hilarious…who practices sin? "Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness." - 1 John 3:4 ESV
Overall, I enjoyed the debate, which was much less aggressive than I anticipated. If I were in Dan’s shoes, I might have taken a more harder approach in defending the KJV against Mark Ward’s position. However, I understand that everyone has their own style. While I strive to be as diplomatic as possible, I also recognize the importance of standing firm for the Word of God. I believe the KJV is the perfect and inerrant Word of God for today. Do the Hebrew and Greek texts offer insights? Absolutely-they provide a richness and depth that sometimes goes beyond the English. Yet, the English in the KJV is fully accurate and without error. I also believe the KJV is perfectly readable if we make use of the resources available to us in this life and, most importantly, pray for God’s Spirit to grant us understanding.
This was unbelievable! It's obvious that Ward focuses on "readability" because he cannot focus on the actual word of God because it would blow him out of the water. I was an English major. The KJB is written in a 4th grade reading level. Also, the Thees & Thous and Yous & Ye actually bring more understanding to the scriptures. The personal pronouns that begin with "T" (thee, thou) are singular, and the personal pronouns that begin with "Y" (ye, you) are plural. This brings greater understanding to many verses! (One example, ie: Genesis 3:1-6 serpent talking to Eve in Ye (plural) pronouns, proves in verse 6 that Adam was there WITH HER- plural) She was not alone (singular!) Ward said we are "protestants". We are not. Baptists were never in the catholic church to begin with, to protest and leave it. Also, the KJB defines itself in the context, if you read the verses before & after the verse U R looking up & run all the cross references, comparing scripture with scripture. Gail Riplinger proves this in her book, DICTIONARY INSIDE THE KING JAMES BIBLE! She or Sam Gipp should have debated both these guys! Proverbs 30:5-6 📖 5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. 6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. 📖
One thing that Mark gets so wrong is that many KJV guys do believe that there should be a sympathetic update to the KJV but none of the modern translations come close dues to wrong textual philosophy and wrong textual method. Use strictly the TR and Masoretic text with the same principles of the KJV translators and same caliber of them and then we have a Bible we can get behind, but while you all stand behind a worldly Critical text and theory this will never happen.
The thesis against the KJV is that as the culture changes, the words of God should be changed or deleted to accommodate the people. But the result of modern perVersions, is that people are falling away rather than being lifted up. Today, one needs not to be able to spell as the computer finishes spelling words. Imagine future bible translations would be replete with slanguage, pictograms, emojis, and memes as comprehension declines. Would this not be an abomination in the sight of Almighty God? God has promised to preserve his words: “Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” (Ps 12:7 KJV) Will you fight against God? So as people are less literate, knowledge and understanding decline, and vocabularies are shrinking, the gold standard, KJV should be discarded? Absolutely not. The KJV is even more relevant and needed today than ever.
Without touching on the translation discussion I would like to point out that people not speaking/understanding Elizabethan English does not mean that we are less literate or that we are getting dumber. Language changes and you can be extremely smart and literate and not understand older English languages. Are we dumber or less literate for not understanding the English in the 1611? Why did we stop using the 1611 version when it was perfect as is?
I would also add that "changing" the word of God is misleading. Look at units of measurements. We know what the old measurements translate to with modern measuring so is it "changing" the word of God if we were to present the measurements in a way that we understand it vs looking up the conversions?
@@jfb3415I don’t think our English is necessarily dumber, but it is more simplified. The complexity of the King James allows the reader to go more in depth and distinguishes certain words and meanings better, if you study it out. As to why “we” have stopped reading the 1611 KJV, I’d first point out that our King James Bibles today are the 1769 edition which fixed spelling errors and misprints that the earlier bibles had. As well as the use of conjoining two words into one etc. But I think it’s apparent that “we” did not stop reading the King James because it’s still being read everyday by believers and has produced 400 years of good fruit. It’s shown it’s reliability, like an old car. The technology might be older, but the car has never broken down, unless there’s a misuse by the driver. I personally believe that the King James is the pure preserved word as spoken of in Psalm 12:6-7. I believe it’s without error. But I’m not an onlyist. Some might need a simpler version if they struggle with English or struggle with grammar. But I will always defend the King James Bible as my final authority in all matters of faith and practice.
He says Lord willing, the false friends will go from 86 to 100. You see friends.. he wants to take out the KJV. Why else would he want the number of false friends to go up??
Isn’t it obvious? He clearly wants there to be more and more false friends so people keep misunderstanding their Bibles! That’s what Ward said throughout the whole debate! He wants people to misunderstand their Bibles! That’s what he said, right? SARCASM^^^
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever Not at all brother. He wants people to understand their bibles. That is why he is exposing words in the KJV that don’t mean in modern English what they used to mean 400 years ago. If anything, finding more false friends is a really good thing so KJV readers can have a better understanding their bibles better. The more false friends he finds, the more KJV readers can learn which words might cause misunderstanding and learn not to misunderstand them.
Mark Ward in all his videos has pounded the pavement for the New King James Version or Modern English Version HARD but has been silent until last night (as far as I know) regarding the Simplified KJV or any other slightly updated King James Bible. It is as if he has gone to the Critical Text Dark Side and uses readability as his main attack point against the King James. If he was EVER a King James Bible supporter he would still be in it or at least a slightly updated version of it. The NKJV was updated even farther away from the King James in 1984 so it is pointless.
Mark has indicated in the past that he has had little experience with the SKJV, and he tends to be cautious about commenting on versions that he hasn't used. (He has also been skittish about endorsing the LSB, despite assuming that it's probably fine.)
@@MAMoreno What I would expect from Ward is to not be so dismissive of people's textual concerns. The answer is not to wave it away and say I don't care about it. Or say or imply that if you have a textual concern you have NKJV or MEV. People also have legitimate concerns about those. It may not matter to him but if it matters to the people that he claims to care about then hear the concerns. And take the time to get the familiarity with the SKJV. Dr. Dan here said it best I think, If you want to MINIMALLY update it. FWIW, I haven't found any major concerns that I have with the SKJV. I could recommend it cautiously. I am still reading my King James daily and primarily though. I appreciate your engagement MA
I know exactly what Mark is trying to do. He keeps on saying he loves KJV but you can't hide it. That fake gentleness and subtlety of Mark Ward is what I would call "more evil" than someone who looks and sounds obviously evil. Exactly what Satan did and been doing since Genesis 3. That's what leaven does to a bread. Just like how Constantine brought up Roman Catholic disguising it as Christianity when it was actually the continuation of their pagan practices.
I think I’ve put it together. Because you’ve implied me to be some fanatic Mark Ward Follower when I’ve commented on your videos. You’re a hater of Mark Ward lol. You do it on this easy going, passive, sarcastic tone. But I really think you personally dislike the guy. It’s all making sense now.
@@CC-iu7sq I think you have me figured out all except the hate. I think I had you figured out to. It amazes me you hear "tone" in my comments. God bless!
@@ChurchPhone1769 It’s not too difficult to read into the tone of a discussion. But I didn’t expect anything better from you. We’ve had this discussion several times, and every time you either stopped responding or admitted “I’m not KJV only”. I’ll leave you with this. Regardless if it’s on the internet or in person, sin is sin. If you cause division online over rhetoric conversation based on non-biblical doctrine, it’s sinful division. If you lie online. It’s sin. If you hate someone online. It’s sin. And you’ve never displayed an ounce of sincerity in any discussion we’ve ever had. You’ve continued to post this rhetoric on your channel. And I’ve corrected you on several occasions. You simply don’t care to be corrected. You don’t care if you’re wrong. You don’t care if you promote this nonsensable garbage. You’ve never been held accountable for your actions and that’s all I pick up from my discussion from you. But one day, you’ll face accountability, and it won’t be from any mere person. Just remember. If the KJV was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for us, right?
32:00 Mark Ward goes to 1 Corinthians 14:9. It’s not a fair comparison. It is one thing to say preaching should be “easy to be understood” and another to thing to say the deep treasures of the Bible should be easy to be understood when 2 Peter 3:16 clearly says about the Scriptures of Paul that there were some things in them that were “hard to be understood”
“Besom” = “the treasures of the Bible”? Obsolete senses of words we commonly use today, therefore we are misunderstanding words that we don’t realize we’re misunderstanding = “the treasures of the Bible”?
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever Isaiah 14:23- … I will sweep it with the besom of destruction, saith the Lord of hosts… This verse is all about God’s judgment. Most people would acknowledge that “besom of destruction” sounds way more grave and menacing than “broom of destruction.” Also, the verb “sweep” linked to “besom” lets people know what the word should mean.
@@PureWordsBaptistChurch but that exact lettering of “Besom” = “the treasures of the Bible”? *Obsolete senses* of words we commonly use today, therefore *we are misunderstanding words that we don’t realize we’re misunderstanding* = “the treasures of the Bible”? Do you want several examples of this? I’ve got many Ward doesn’t have on his list (I believe the KJV is perfect in its translation)!
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever Sorry if I’m not being clear. I believe broom is an alternate legitimate translation. It is not a corruption and I understand why some would want it translated that way for clarity’s sake. I don’t think “besom” is a bad translation either though even though it is archaic. When I said “the treasures of the Bible” I meant it in the way Proverbs 2:4 does in the sense that sometimes you have to study the Bible more to get more understanding of other passages. If you keep reading the Bible you will see many of the words that are called “false friends” in the context that will give you it’s meaning. For example, “meat” in the KJV Bible is clearly sometimes talking about just food not flesh because Leviticus 2:1 says the meat offering is made of flour.
@@PureWordsBaptistChurch I appreciate your reply brother! what about words where you can’t tell from the context? I’ll use the word you mentioned “forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.” 1 Timothy 4:3 KJV And sometimes the context doesn’t give you much help (mansions-John 14:2; secret- Judges 13:19; sped Judges 5:30; bruise-Isa. 53:10; I’ve got more and more and more brother lol)
We have to bring our standards to God not the other way around... You can't dumb down God's word for people who don't want to put the work in to learn it
@@whattheheckification Modern English is absolutely a dumbing down of Scripture. You going to tell me that the English language is at a higher level _NOW_ than it was 400 years ago? Yeah right 🤣 That'd be like saying that men are smarter now than they were back in the old days, which is also hysterical. Jeremiah 6:16 (KJV) Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, *_and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls._* But they said, We will not walk therein.
@@AnthonyTuminello Why read Jeremiah 6:16 from English 400 years ago? Why not go back 900 years? Jeremiah 6:16 (in Old English): “Hwæt cweð se Drihten: Standað on þæm wege, and geseoð, and ascigeað for þa ealdan wege, hwær is seo gōdweġ, and gāþ on hire, and ġē findað reste for eowre sawla. Ac hie cwædon, Ne willað we gan þǣr on." Language changes over time. That translation above is in English. Just a much earlier version of English than we read today, or than people read during the time of the King James. Is it dumbing down the Old English to read that verse in the King James Version?
Proverbs 30:5-6 (KJV) *_EVERY_* word of God _IS_ *_PURE:_* he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. _Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar._ In order for a Bible to _truly_ be "God's word", EVERY SINGLE WORD of it MUST be PERFECT. Besides, if you're going to ascribe the Bible to God, declaring that it's HIS word, how could it not be perfect? Does your God make mistakes? Mine doesn't (Psa. 18:30). Is your God limited by fallible translators? Mine isn't (Psa. 12:6-7; Jer. 32:27; Luke 18:27). The main problem with you anti-KJVO nuts is that you all have a _SMALL_ God. When you consider the idea of a 100% PERFECT translation of the Scriptures, you immediately think _"God just CAN'T do that!"_ Either you believe what this Scripture says, or you don't. Either you believe that EVERY word of God IS (present tense) PURE (perfect - Psa. 18:30; 19:7), or you don't. Plain and simple. 1 John 5:10 (KJV) He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: *_he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son._* Romans 3:4 (KJV) God forbid: yea, *_let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged._*
@@jfb3415 ...and then he gave us translations. Like the ones in Acts 2. Acts 2:4-11 (KJV) And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak *_with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance._* And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, *_we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God._* This also shows us that translations CAN be inspired by God.
@@AnthonyTuminello And God cannot do that with a translation to modern English? If you want to hit absolute perfection then you have to go to the original. OR you must believe that the translation was ordained (which is your argument here) but why if you believe that translations can be perfect do you not believe there could be a more modern translation that is also ordained?
@@jfb3415 Here's a better question: why do YOU believe that no translation can be perfect and that the only originals were absolutely perfect, even though the originals contained plenty of translations themselves? Answer me THAT.
@@jfb3415 Also, God CAN do that with a modern translation, I never said that he couldn't. However, he is not going to because *_he already gave us a perfect translation 400+ years ago._* There is no need for a "new perfect translation".
Lots of anecdotes here. Unfortunately, the King James is only as good as the person reading it. There are many claims of "I understood it perfectly and had this insert deficiency or personal struggle". Issue precisely comes from this type of personal interpretation which is why so many Protestant denominations exist in the first place. Unfortunately, one man's "I understood it" isn't another man's "I understood it" which leaves the need for an outside objective source of interpretation. "The Holy Spirit guided me" remains but an appeal to a personal interpretation at the end of the day.
The only "false friend" I see here is Mark Ward himself. I'm going to stand by the King James Bible by FAITH, and I could care less if that makes me look like an absolute uneducated fool in the eyes of man. I will GLADLY be a fool for CHRIST'S SAKE (1 Cor. 4:10)! Acts 5:41 (KJV) And they departed from the presence of the council, *_rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name._* _"Gladly will I toil and suffer, only let me walk with Thee."_ Proverbs 24:21-22 (KJV) My son, fear thou the LORD and the king: *_and meddle not with them that are given to CHANGE:_* For their calamity shall rise suddenly; and who knoweth the ruin of them both? Luke 5:39 (KJV) No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, *_The old is better._* THE OLD IS BETTER, even with all the so-called "false friends"! If I can't _fully_ discern the old wine by tasting it, then SO BE IT. God will instruct me and teach me, and will guide me with his eye (Psa. 32:8). I've _nothing_ to fear.
Perhaps …”can’t stand Mark Ward’s voice” is a bit harsh but someone has to tell Mark he sounds effeminate…or is that how BJU trains their students? It’s not the first time I’ve heard that about the guys at BJU.
I go to Google and look up "King James" words and Google has the bible definitions . Also KJV has been shown to be "mathmatacilly correct in every way . Among many other phenomena .......
@guitarman2669 -- "KJV has been shown to be "mathmatacilly correct in every way ." YES! You must be schooled in Brandon Peterson's work of Truth Is Christ on YT? Brother, there's free software for the KJB that is 100 percent accurate and includes Webster's 1828 Dictionary, which is based on the KJB: King James Pure Bible Search . I LOVE IT! God bless you.
I was in an institution. I'm not boasting but I was one of the worst junkies that I've ever seen. God taught me how to read the King James Bible in jail. You are committing sin and blaspheming God's word Mr Ward. You need to repent. (I went to Bible college and failed grammar.. yet God still taught me his word. Later in life God also started teaching me grammar from the word of God... I wonder how that happens!?
It's interesting how people can score points by applying labels. The early believers were first called Christians at Antioch, originally it was intended as a slur but ended up being a badge of honor. The term KJO was invented by BJU to belittle KJV readers but it is not completely correct, many of us read other versions, usually when we are looking for errors, so we read many but trust one. What Mark Ward calls false friends could also be called learning opportunities, I call the KJV my best friend. Dr. Phil Stringer mentioned that there have been over 1000 attempts to make the Bible 'easier to read' and to replace the KJV, most have disappeared into obscurity. So yes, lets have another one by all means, I'll still be reading the King James Version.
If you are saved, you should have no problem reading the Word of God. John 10:4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. John 10:5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers. If you say we don’t have a perfect Word of God, you are basically saying we don’t have a perfect Jesus. And that is blasphemous. Revelation 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
As you read the scripture, the Scriptures interpret themselves. There’s no mistakes just because people aren’t reading. It doesn’t mean we need to change it. If people read it more they don’t understand it more. The language is changing because they’re not reading the Bible and they’re getting away from the scriptures that the language is changing, these new so-called Bibles, which are corrupt are not the answer for people not reading the Bible Should we give them Bibles that have lies in them they’re not true that have Doctor No problems and may God liar and bless me in the name of God just because people not reading the Bible these corrupt Bibles do not come from the correct source anyway
Psalm 33:4, “For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth.” King James Bible. Mr. Ward is a double minded man, and unstable in all his ways. The ABC letters after one’s name mean nothing to God, who is no respecter of persons.
Why does the KJV defender speak in modern English? If KJV English is to be preserved then it is inconsistent to use modern English to advocate for the understandability of KJV English. I’m disappointed to hear KJV pulpit preaching in the most casual, folksy, informal English of all the churches I’ve been to. And then we wonder why kids don’t know the old speech patterns and vocabulary.
We all read (and even write) at a higher level than we speak, at least that's the norm. Where do you guys get these arguments from? They're really bad arguments. The KJV English is not that difficult, and is ACCURATE. I actually shared a quote in modern English of Mark Ward's and a NIV supporter couldn't discern what was being stated by Mark Ward. Proving it seems the real struggle is with English overall, not just the KJV English.
@@ChurchPhone1769 I think you're not taking me seriously. If we wish to understand God's Word in the form of English it is captured in, you want to preserve understandability. If proponents of KJV don't speak it, teach it, or use it, then Mark Ward's prediction will indeed be self-fulfilling within a hundred years.
@@stevegroom58 When the time comes for an update it will be updated but I am definitely not going to trust Mark Ward and his cronies who don’t believe there’s a persevered Bible anywhere to take this to task.
God chastened Israel for running to the world for help (Egypt and assyria) we shouldn't run to most dictionaries.. however there's a dictionary called the Webster's 1828 that was written by a Christian. Christians should go to more mature Christians.. again discipleship is part of learning the Bible. People are not designed to be left to themselves... That's why there's so many Christians that make a mess.
I rejoice if God can open the doors of Biblical understanding to modern translation supporters, through Ward's "False Friends" series. Learning the King James Bible is a rich and valuable pursuit, and learning will never become archaic. My prayer for Mark and his supporters is that they'd have a richer trust and understanding of God's Holy Scriptures found in the Authorized Version. That they'd have faith God is able to keep His promises, and has. "KJVO" has been made into a pejorative, but God can transform Christians lukewarm and perfunctory approach to learning the King James English and make it a praiseworthy endeavor. "Where the word of a king is, there is power" and my KING is not King James, but the KING of Kings, Christ Jesus. And I find His voice in this faithfully preserved and inspired translation, the KJV, Authorized Version. Ultimately, I think God can use even those whose intentions are to tear down, eradicate, or weaken something, to build up, sustain, and strengthen that very thing. I'm reminded of Joseph's words to his OWN brethren and Jesus' words to His... Gen 50:20 KJV - But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive. Jhn 6:63 KJV - It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. Here's to future Authorized Version believing Christians~pulled from the myriad of modern translations and just as many doubts. May Mark's work be used for good~even if his intentions are not. Believing that God has preserved His word, will never be sinful. ~God bless you all in Christ Jesus.
Parables are actually defined as riddles in scripture; riddles are not meant to be understood, easily. Ezekiel 17:2 King James Version 2 Son of man, put forth a riddle, and speak a parable unto the house of Israel; Consider carefully now Proverbs 26:7,9 7 The legs of the lame are not equal: so is a parable in the mouth of *fools. 9 As a thorn goeth up into the hand of a drunkard, so is a parable in the mouths of *fools. *Have looked up the Hebrew word translated "fools" here and it is not "nabal," but another Hebrew word better translated as, [thee] self confident. Thee self confident, who leans unto his own understanding, and is of course, a fool as KJV translators gave us in their translation. What is a Dictionary for Mark if not to look up meaning of a word, and when you look it up, for example chambering you have broadened your own horizon and you will not need to look that word up again, which goes for any other word in the KJB as well.
havent even watched this but this is by far the stupidest debate. i read and understand my KJV every day. desperate attempt to get rid of KJV. just use a dictionary and grow in knowledge of words.
Here is how you look up words you don't know you don't understand in the KJV. Ask God in faith to help you understand the passage even if you think you understand the meaning of every word. James 1:5-6 [5]If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. [6]But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. 42:42 Also, I wouldn't use a contemporary dictionary. Use an archaic dictionary like the Webster's 1828. I remember it being spot on almost every time. The times I remember it being off I was able to figure it out with certainty by the context and/or other passges.
The good thing is, that I know what my Bible says. Salvation is by grace threw grace alone. Then because we are saved we get baptised, take communion, pray, witness, attend a Bible teaching church, love your neighbor ect. I didn't need to know all the stuff People said or Greek ect. For a topic about readability people sure try to make Salvation hard by arguing things no one needs to know to be saved or to read your King James Bible....Oh, the irony!
Acts 19:19 “Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver.” I also burned my NIV, Jesus Calling Devotional, and all the other false teachers/teaching books I own before I was saved, and I absolutely knew nothing about the KJV issue. Curious Bible versions is putting it lightly. Made a nice fire too.
It takes prayer, faith and an interpreter (Holy Spirit) to read KJV only to my young children. I was grieving inside when I heard its a sin. But because I know His Word is Quick (alive) and powerful. And perfect. (Thankyou Brandon on Truth Is Christ youtube channel) And that from the beginning Satan is hating on God's word ("yea hath God said"). The more confident I am that the KJV is the most important book to read to my children. By the way, if all school children were taught the KJV this debate wouldn't be necessary.
I just wanted to add that I don't expect my children to understand everything immediately and it's like a stew cooked slowly over their lifetimes. The Lord will communicate to them at whatever stage they are at. It is amazing what bits they pick up and the questions they ask.
Mark makes a lot of sense but his solution isn’t good since he thinks the new king james is just as good as the kjv. His false friends argument is very compelling. The solution is to modernize the kjv whenever it is needed but to think any other version as of 2024 is better or just as good is ridiculous
Leave the word mansion alone.. think about this heaven has streets of gold. Don't you think a place with streets of gold would have a house that we consider a mansion?
"Is the King James Bible readable?" is an incredibly silly question only a supposed scholar without real-world experience using the Bible would ask. Little children, drunks, druggies, men and women old and young can understand the King James Bible without an issue. Any issues of misunderstanding certain words is solved by a dictionary and this "problem" is present in all versions (or *any book* for that matter). "There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them."
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever "excess" as in too much. The excess is in the wine. Which is why you shouldn't drink any Prov 20:1. Any amount is excess. "Study" Learn to be quiet. Study it out. Look at your life and see how you can be quiet when you are not. These are very simple and easy examples one can come to by reading and believing the text. But even if they weren't, and you could give me examples where some outside study is required (there are, you have not given any), that wouldn't be a problem. The Anti-KJVO crowd only applies this arbitrary standard to the KJB when it can be applied to any version. There's no Bible ever written where everyone understands every phrase or word. And they're shouldn't be. You should be be a student of the word of God who is willing to learn when there is something you don't understand. But my point, which you have not addressed, is the fact that people of all walks of life including little children who are native English speakers read the King James Bible and understand it without an issue. "Without an issue" in the sense that you would apply to any book as I originally explained. And as I said before, the language of the King James Bible being difficult to understand is only a problem that people who have no practical experience and spend their time "ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth". You're not going to convince a group of people who use the King James Bible that it is a problem for the average speaker to understand or that is unreadable for modern English speakers when we literally have seen it been read and understood by said people our entire lives. A ridiculous and silly question indeed.
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever Excess as in too much which the verse says is in the wine. Any amount of wine is therefore in "excess". Study as in...study. Contextually, look at your life and study how you can be quiet when you are not. You have not addressed my overall point from my original comment, which was to say that you can read it without an issue and if an issue does arise you can look up the word. Which is true of any version of the Bible ever written in any language.
@@hermonymusofsparta YOU JUST PROVED WARDS POINT. You just read the KJV with an issue… a big issue… brother you don’t understand what excess means in the KJV nor what study means in KJV, I say with love and care, both of your definitions are completely wrong according the KJV English and what God intended through Paul and the KJV translators in these 2 passages.
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever Okay, I'll concede firstly for the sake of argument you're right and I was wrong about those definitions. Why is that a problem when in said event I can look up the definition? As I would in any version of the Bible or any other book for that matter? Again, you are not addressing the original point at all. Secondly, making a statement is not evidence or an argument. So If I am wrong, that excess doesn't mean excess and study doesn't mean study, then you're going to have to "prove all things" as the Bible says.
Using multiple versions is adultery. It is impossible to please God without faith. When you take what is Spirit and Life, and change it, it is no longer the same spirit. They seek councel, but not of me. and they cover with a covering, but not of my spirit.
Were the KJV translators themselves adulterers, then? Were their Catholic opponents correct to point out that English Protestants were using more than translation? Should the translators not have defended the existence of those earlier translations?
@stevenvalett1231 That's what I love about the NKJV. Isn't being updated constantly, all the verses are there, the meaning is easier for me to understand, and as an added bonus if I want to know what the Critical and Majority texts say, those are in the textual notes. It works really well when paired with the KJV, because frankly, I like the way the KJV phrases things, especially in poetic and prophetic portions.
Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. The words of the Lord are spiritual words and Pastor Ward blasphemed against that which the Lord magnified above all his name. People were stoned to death that blasphemed the name of the LORD; how much more so against that which the LORD magnified above all his name! Woe to Pastor Mark Ward who blasphemed against the Holy Ghost, and to Pastor Dan Haifley who was less than lukewarm to rebuke the sinful man! Mark Ward declared giving the book of the LORD'S holy scriptures to children is a sin! This man, Pastor Dr. Mark Ward, by his own words blasphemed against the Holy Ghost! John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. Mark 3: 28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: 29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: 30 Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit. Psalm 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Leviticus 24: 15 And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin. 16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death. Job 34: 3 For the ear trieth words, as the mouth tasteth meat. 4 Let us choose to us judgment: let us know among ourselves what is good. Matthew 12: 31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. 32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. 33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. 34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. 35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. 36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. 37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
The KJV is indeed harder to understand than any other versions being translated word for word literally from the original language. The KJV is the best translation being the nearest accurate translation from the original. Other Versions used the thought pattern resulting to interpretation rather than translation for the sake of easy reading. Well, the beginners love it, but I hate somebody will interpret the bible for me because most interpretations are erroneous missing a great amount of truth. It takes a harder task to read and understand the KJV, but one can be assured that one is reading the purer or unadulterated words of God.
KJB is PROPHESIED. Zephaniah 3:9 ...a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD and to serve him with one consent. Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are PURE WORDS, as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified SEVEN TIMES. The word came to us in (1) Hebrew (2) Greek (3) Aramaic (4) Old Syriac translation (5) Latin translation (6) German reformation translation and (7) ENGLISH translation. In English (1) W. Tyndale Bible (2) Matthew Bible (3) Coverdale Bible (4) Great Bible (5) Bishops Bible (6) Geneva Bible and (7) Authorized 1611 KJV. Thou shalt keep them O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this Generation forever. There is only ONE GOD, and it is not Jesus. Our God is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ Deuteronomy 6:4 Ephesians 4:4-6
ideas like these above, they don’t even need to be refuted, just everyone… please read the above comment over & over and see. That’s a refutation enough! May the triune God lead you to faith in Himself!
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever Is Jesus your God? Would you go as far as to say that I am deceived and I will die in my sins because I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God whom God sent? Jesus Christ IS NOT MY GOD. By your standards, am I going to hell? My God is the All Powerful, Sovereign, SELF EXISTENT, Supreme Ruler and CREATOR of heaven and earth and everything in them, which Begat Jesus Christ, anointed Jesus Christ, and Gave Jesus Christ all power and authority. He is the God and Father of my Lord Jesus Christ. A true follower of Jesus Christ would read John 20:17 and clearly understand that Jesus Christ is telling us that his Father is our God. A trinitarian says that Jesus is God. Would you say I am deceived for believing in the record that God gave of his Son? Am I believeing in the wrong Jesus because I believe in Jesus Christ the Son of the living God and not God the Son? Is that what your saying? Lets have this discussion. Give yourself opportunity to give Your God glory and speak the truth about it.
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever Who is your God? There is only one God not 3. Which one is it? or do you say that the bible isnt clear and that Jesus was lying to us when he told us His Father is God? Who is the God of Jesus that he is referring to in Revelation 3:12?
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever Your triune God is a false god. A strange god. There is only one God, the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ. There is no man created in the image of God who is his own father. There is no man created in Gods image who is his own son. That would be strange. But yet, the triune God is his own son and his own father and they are equal with eachother...right? "I and my Father are one "? If we two were in the body of Christ, we would be one as well. John 17:21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. So we would be one in them too. Are we God? Are we Jesus ? Can we be? The Father is the Father and the Son is the Son. The Father is the Lord GOD and Jesus Christ is Lord because God gave him all power and authority.
I loved the debate, both brothers we're charitable and respectful.. something we should all emulate when we dialog with brothers and sisters. I really wanted pizza after I heard that timer.
I'm a former junkie.. who learned how to read the King James Bible in jail. If I can do it with the help of the Holy Spirit, anyone can. We live in a lazy society where people like comfort and ease.. and have not faith
Praise the Lord for that! Thank you for sharing your testimony, we are glad to have you as a brother.
@@murrydixon5221thank you my brother. God is so good!
I've used modern translations for over 40 years and it's not at all because I'm lazy or lacking in faith.
Interestingly, many KjV Only Pastors were unable to correctly interpret false friends. Hopefully you would not argue that those pastors lack the Holy Spirit!
@robertj5208 Being King James Only does not mean that you know everything, we leave that to the critical text people. KJVO means that you have faith in the text we already have and that is sufficient for you.
Timestamps
0:00 - Introduction
0:58 - Opening prayer
1:48 - Dan Haifley intro
3:36 - Mark Ward intro
4:52 - Topic intro
7:56 - Dan Haifley opening statement
28:13 - Mark Ward opening statement
48:15 - Dan Haifley rebuttal
53:16 - Mark Ward rebuttal
1:03:42 - Mark to Dan “What does ‘even of the very vulgar’ mean?”
1:04:02 - Dan’s response
1:07:21 - Mark to Dan “How do we determine which words we should change and which words we shouldn’t change [in the KJV]?”
1:07:22 - Mark’s response
1:10:19 - Mark to Dan “Have you ever learned from me a King James ‘false friend’ that you never knew before?”
1:10:50 - Dan’s response
1:12:32 - Dan to Mark “Would you say meanings of words are determined by context?”
1:12:54 - Mark’s response
1:13:19 - Dan to Mark “The OED is missed some of the communication in the popular language”
1:13:44 - Mark’s response
1:15:58 - Mark to Dan “How am I supposed to look up King James words I don’t know that I am misunderstanding?”
1:16:06 - Dan’s response
1:18:39 - Dan to Mark “You almost said that it was a sin if we gave our King James Bible to our children. Can you clarify that a little better for me?”
1:19:21 - Mark’s response
1:22:44 - Mark’s closing remarks
1:31:34 - Dan’s closing remarks
Respectful, kind, Christlike, and charitable. Thank you brothers!
I'll take the truth of God's word (The King James version) every time.
@@igregmart it's a great Bible! 😊
Paul called Elymas a child of the devil the kjv is God's Holy Scriptures
Mark Ward is trying to turn away so many people as possible from the Holy Scripture as possible that is his obsession.
@@SirGiggles the apostle Paul called Elymas a child of the devil for trying to turn the deputy away from sound doctrine.
I might misunderstand some words, but the King James Version is the only one that makes sense to me personally and makes me want to keep studying it.
Thank you for hosting this exciting debate! Thank you for your time Dan and Mark
Here are two verses that are in the ESV.
John 13:34-35--
A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
--John 13:34-35 (ESV)
Easy to understand. But in my opinion, so is the KJV of these verses quite readable also:
John 13:34-35--
A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all [men] know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
--John 13:34-35 (KJV)
[men] = italics.
CONCLUSION: A Christian who uses ESV, and a Christian who uses KJV will love one another! ⛪
I’m a high school dropout welder in Australia and I understand the blessed old black book just fine.
Anyone can claim “I understand just fine” prove it by checking out the false friends.
What did maintain mean in Tit. 3:8? What did “convince” mean in Acts 18:28?
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBelieverI’m interested to see how you would think those are false friends. Could you provide examples of what meaning could be made if the “wrong” definitions were read in those verses?
@@coppersmith1611 I thought you'd never ask! Keep in mind these are just two random examples from my notes I put in to test the commenter.
"For he mightily convinced the Jews" (Acts. 18.28)
Here there are actually 2 false friends next to each other (this is why the modern translations APPEAR TO differ from the KJV in this verse, but they don't differ in meaning). "mightily" and "convinced".
"convinced" today means to cause (someone) to believe firmly in the truth of something." Giving the idea that Apollos was successful in this verse but this definition is not what the Greek word means, and there is an obsolete sense in the Oxford English Dictionary of "convinced" that matches the Greek word exactly and therefore this is a meaning that is not what the KJV translators intended.
*ANYONE would THINK the modern translations are saying something different; they're not, we just don't know KJV English.*
English speakers today understand mightily to mean "With great physical power or strength; by force of arms; with great mental, intellectual, or emotional power or force;
exceedingly, enormously, vastly, immensely, tremendously, hugely, markedly, remarkably, abundantly, to a great extent" so Apollos was very effectual & powerful (mightily).
This is not what the Greek word means, and there is an obsolete sense in the Oxford English Dictionary of "mightily" that matches the Greek word perfectly and therefore this is a meaning that is not what the KJV translators intended.
In Tit. 3:8 there's 2 false friends as well in the same verse! "maintain" and "constantly" (Ward's got a video on that one! ua-cam.com/video/teAMC1cA-S4/v-deo.htmlsi=QGiLWCKt8TT4IbSc).
This is another place where the modern translations APPEAR TO differ from the KJV in this verse, but they don't differ in meaning.
Maintain today means to "To keep up, preserve, cause to continue in being (a state of things, a condition, an activity, etc.); to keep vigorous, effective, or unimpaired; to guard from loss or deterioration."
That't not what the Greek word means and again there is an obsolete sense (it died in 1650) in the Oxford English Dictionary of "maintain" that matches the Greek word just right and therefore this is a meaning that is not what the KJV translators intended.
These are words that can cause the modern reader to add meaning or subtract meaning that is not what Paul or Luke or the KJV translators or the Holy Spirit intended for the reader to have.
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever
Here’s the NET translations rendering. Not sure exactly how it’s different to someone reading the kjv rendering.
Act 18:28
28 for he refuted the Jews vigorously in public debate, demonstrating from the scriptures that the Christ was Jesus.
Tit 3:8
8 This saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on such truths, so that those who have placed their faith in God may be intent on engaging in good works. These things are good and beneficial for all people.
Here’s one for you:
Luke 22:31-32 (ESV): 31 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, 32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.”
Who does Satan demand? Just Peter? Who did Jesus pray for? Just Peter?
Luk 22:31-32
31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: 32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.
Kjv has the distinction of singular and plural “you”. I guess you could call “you” in modern translations a false friend?
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever
TITUS 3:8 -- maintain -- My parent used to be a maintenance operator. This involves the main duty of inspection, and to inspect, you have to BE OVER it, , controling it, to DO IT. Dutifully doing those good works. To put it in the vernacular: Boys, you betta own them good works!
Acts 18:28 -- CONVINCE, same root as CONVICT. You are a convict -- it's been PROVEN you are in the wrong. VINCO is Latin to conquer. This doesn't mean these people followed Jesus, they were like the fellas here: "And they which heard it, being CONVICTED by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst." - John 8:9
I win many arguments. But that doesn't mean people are going to do what is right. These Pharisees knew they were without sin. But they weren't about to repent of them. "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God." - John 3:19-21
Mad respect to Dr. Ward. He came in with the passion and energy. I think he was underestimated in this one. The danger of these kind of debates is no clear winner is set in place, and the potential "loser" can be exposed to many to influence to their cause who otherwise would have not given them the time of the day.
Mark Ward is a great orator, but the substance doesn't follow the excellency of speech. Ultimately, he'd never have agreed to this debate if it wasn't in his wheelhouse. The questions he avoids are the ones that are most pressing.
Does Mark Ward care as much about accuracy of Scripture, as he does about readability?
Does he have a text of Scripture that is the final authority for the body of Christ, those he claims to love so much?
What is Mark Ward pointing us to? Faith or doubt?
@@ShallStandForEver if you listen closely he wants to take down the KJV
Although I understand that the debate is about the readability on modern translation and that “one must use a Bible translation with today’s English” compared to the archaic words in the KJV. That alone is a poor argument to switching translation. I use an ESV and has been my Bible for years but the KJV has been rather easier to read and with my phone I simply define words I don’t understand (same with the ESV). The truth is that KJV is from the traditional text and all modern translation are from the critical text and when you dig deep in the history how that came to be it’s difficult to unsee the many verse taking out of the KJV which is why I chose to use that translation. Now I don’t believe is the only translation a believer must use but it definitely been hard putting it down.
In my line of work, I am constantly learning. If I don’t learn, I fall behind the technology curve which is detrimental to my livelihood.
Getting an Oxford English dictionary or Webster’s 1828 and learning a few words in the King James Bible is not that difficult compared to what I do on a daily basis.
The beauty of the King James Bible is that it doesn’t change unlike the technology of our present world.
When I study it and memorize it and learn what God the author is trying to tell me, I know that it’s not going to change next year, 10 years from now, or ever. That is a great comfort.
From what I read about New Jerusalem, I would venture to say a mansion in this existence is a dump compared to a small dwelling place in the Father’s House
Right? And honestly, a shack is a mansion if the LORD is there.
This was a great debate. I really wish that the King James Research Council could take point on doing a modern translation of the King James Bible using all of the same source texts and simply update the “dead words”, “false friends,” and the pronouns no longer in common use.
In this way we could have a TR - KJRC approved translation of the Bible in modern English. And perhaps one which could again become the standard or rather unifying translation across all evangelical / Protestant denominations.
I think half of the people commenting here didn't listen to the debate. All the 'I understand the KJV just fine' comments - Mark has proven that you don't. Your KJV pastors don't. There are words you know you don't know and words you don't know you don't know.
Yes! I see these comments everywhere in these discussions. “I started reading the Kjv at 8 years old and I’ve never had trouble understanding it” that just means you don’t understand that you’re misunderstanding. 🤦♂️
The King James Bible has a built-in dictionary. Get to know God's word and God will show you how it works. He will make you skillful in using the word of God.
💯
Do other Bible translations have a built in dictionary? Is this a feature exclusive to the King James Bible?
@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever
Yes it's exclusive to the king james Bible
@@Mr-pn2eh Give me some verses that prove it?
Also, is there a built-in dictionary in foreign translations as well? Can there be?
@@Mr-pn2eh are there any verses to prove this exclusive built in dictionary in the KJB?
Is there any pure foreign translations that have this built in dictionary as well?
I learn nothing from people who know what I know and think what I think. If I give you a dollar and you give me a dollar, we each walk away with no more than we came with. But if I give you and idea and you give me an idea, we each walk away with two. "Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend." This was hardly a debate, this was an exchange of ideas between two brothers. I suspect we all had a hard time hearing what the man who thinks differently was seeking to offer.
I love my KJVER (King James Version Easy Read Sword Bible) But i have like 15 or more Bible Translations
1:42:15 Brother Hafley just stated it could be possible to update the KJV and that I would say: Brother Hafley now is the time for you and the fine KJRC time to organize such a worthy and novel endeavor!
I think these discussions are good as long as we remember we are all brothers and sisters in Christ. This topic can touch up deeply so I would expect strong arguments. But only Satan is helped by needless anger and division.
This topic is personal to me also. I am a good English student, and I know my Bible better than most. But to be honest, I often struggle to understand the words in the KJV. A problem I do not have in other translations.
And this is my first point. If I struggle, how much more will people who have poor English skills or only a casual understanding of the Bible?
Let me give you an illustration. I am currently studying Romans 11:1-3.
The ESV is easy for me to understand. It is written in reasonably English with only the word “foreknew” being a little difficult.
The NKJV is a little harder. A reader will need to know what is meant by “cast away”. “seed” and “foreknew” but that is not too bad.
Alas though the KJV is much harder. A reader will need to know what is meant by “hath”, “cast away”, “foreknew”, “seed”, “saith”, “Elias”, “maketh”, “intercession” and “digged down”.
An experienced KJV reader will probably understand these verses without any effort. Although I wonder how many would know what the unusual “digged down” means.
But, this is not so with me. I need to make my own translation in my head to understand what this means. And this is even before I start to work out what Paul is trying to communicate to me. This is a relatively simple section of text. There are plenty of other important passages that are far harder to read.
And this is my second point. If the only way I can understand a text is to retranslate it, then I would prefer it to be written from the start in a translation that I do understand. Why should we use words and sentences that are unnecessarily difficult? Why should make barriers that obscure the message of the Bible? The Bible is challenging enough to understand without these issues.
I understand the reluctance to change from the KJV. I know that Mark Ward also has regrets in changing from the KJV. It is a wonderful version that has served us well. I do not wish to let it go. But alas I do think it is time to start moving to versions that are more understandable to more people.
Romans 11
English Standard Version
1 I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin.
2 God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel?
3 “Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.”
New King James Version
1 I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2 God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying,
3 “Lord, they have killed Your prophets and torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life”?
King James Version
1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,
3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
I had a 9th grade ed. Let me give you the Amanda vernacular....
"Has God thrown away His people? Nope! I am also an Israelite, Abraham is my greaaaaaaat- Grandpappy, and Benjamin is the lineage I am from. God's people which He knew before haven't been thrown away! What? Don't you know what Elijah said in the Bible? How he interceded to God against Israel and said, "Lord, they have murdered your prophets and ripped down your alters and I am the only one left and they are trying to kill me right now!"
When I read the examples you listed in the King James...I personally struggle to believe you would find difficulty with those words. This in no way is to belittle anyone, but based on the information, it's difficult to take you seriously.
@@ShallStandForEver I have little reason to add to my sin count or to poke my head up so I can risk being shamed. So yes, I am speaking truthfully.
Some words like maketh can indeed be guessed at accurately, but certainly not all. I suspect that not many Christians would realise who Elias was. The only reason I know what digging down means is because the other translations told me.
Can we agree that as many people as possible should be able to understand as much of the Bible as they possibly can? Why should the need to read the Bible be frustrated because people have difficulty working out the meaning of the text? Why should the understanding of God’s words be obscured by unnecessarily difficult language?
Reading the King James Version is a skill. It is a skill that can be learnt. But I do not think we should require people to learn that skill to understand the Bible.
Either way, may God bless our reading and doing of His words!
@@MandaKoehn May God bless us as we read and do His words
Seems to be some confusion and false accusing in the comments.
1. Mark Ward and Jonathan Burris cover a lot of the same material. Both of these men actually do love the KJV bible, but they do not believe it is without translation error.
2. If someone claims that something is perfect, and you say it is not, it is a natural response to get offended and think they are "attacking" that object....even though this is not true. Ex: my wife is the best wife in the world, she is the most perfect wife. You disagree. I say "how dare you attack my wife". The offense would not have existed if I didnt first make the claim.
3. They don't "not like" the KJV, what they dont like is KJV onlyism and this is what they stand against.
4. Ward said multiple times he wants people to continue to use the KJV as long as they use another translation to help them understand it like the NKJV. Otherwise....he would prefer the KJV gets updated so it dkesnt fool anybody.
5. Do not comment "the only (fool) here is you, trying to be smart after reading 4."
Mark ward doesnt think its a sin giving any child a KJV. He thinks it would be sinful for himself personally to give a child a kjv knowing full well they wont understand it. This is way different.
6. "James 1:22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves." For those who think just because you are "on the right side" or "have the right bible"....guess what, the Jews thought the same thing. This doesnt make you an obedient christian. You actually need to follow the teachings of the bible you claim to believe, otherwise you have decieved yourself. This includes being meek, and not lying, slandering, and false accusing....thinking its ok because that person is "of the devil". Eph 4:29 no corrup communication but edifying one another, ministering grace. Col 4:6, speech seasoned with grace. James talk about bridling your tongue.
I have seen a huge lack of obedience to Christ from many of the comments on here.
Ward thinks it would be a sin for him to give a child a KJV, but not someone else.
So is the KJV then not the words of God? I think Ward is revealing his own heart with all this nonsense.
"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" - Isaiah 5:20 KJV
"Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled." - Titus 1:15 KJV
1. I completely disagree that there are translational errors in the KJV. I'm a nobody you'd say (I'm not offended), and I'm familiar with both men you've mentioned. This is somewhat of an appeal to authority or the expertise of these men.
2. All due respect, your analogy is a poor one. You can have a bias and preference for your wife, parent, or child; while still being grounded in the reality we all have imperfections due to sin and the fallen nature of mankind.
We know about sin and mankind's fall because (as Christians) we believe the witness of Holy Scripture.
We also know the Holy Scriptures come from God; are preserved, inspired, perfect, holy, and true. Why? Because we believe the witness of the Holy Scriptures about Holy Scripture, God's word.
In other words; these aren't manufactured claims from KJVO people forced upon the Scriptures. These are claims all throughout Scripture about itself. Don't get mad at us as though we generated or invented the claims. See, you might actually have to wrestle with your own Bibliology before the Lord, not us.
3. What is "KJV onlyism"? Well, it's become a pejorative that's for sure. I think it would be helpful if you and others like you would admit it's said with disdain, because we who defend the word of God in the King James translation are aware of how we are despised by our brethren.
But there is variation here. Not everyone is a "Ruckmanite". There are those who defend the King James but are more TR-only, and therefore read more than one translation, but prefer the KJV. We're also researchers like you, we do our homework. That means we have to be aware of and compare other translations.
4. The requirement of another translation to understand the King James is beyond ridiculous. And completely insulting.
This is where there is just a blind spot by Mark Ward and his followers. Let's admit this stems from thinking people who read the KJV are stupid.
Mark Ward thinks he's smart enough to know what the King James means but doesn't trust anyone else. He's had people tell him they understand the King James, but Mark doesn't believe them, but he's not against the KJV? The logic doesn't flow, and really comes across as disingenuous.
And yes, Mark Ward has equated being a King James Bible believer to being sinful. It is not sinful if you hold to ONE translation as your final authority.
And by the way, what is Mark Ward pointing us to? What Bible? Just a collection of translations that are ever changing?
This is why Mark Ward doesn't want to talk about textual criticism. He wants to hand wave that aside. Mr. Ward doesn't have a settled text. Yet the readability of the King James is his chief concern? This is a glaring issue, and goes back to my point about wrestling with one's own Bibliology. What do you actually believe Scripture is? Where is it? Are you angry at KJVO people for claims they make, or mad at Scripture itself?
(Skipping 5)
6. I agree with what you say here. But it doesn't just apply to the KJV side, in case you think it does. God bless you.
There is one fact that is important to remember: the KJV has been around for 413 years. Within that time, countless Bible scholars have produced innumerable works to help us understand the KJV and provide us with insights we would never think of. The fact is that if one has difficulty understanding the KJV, we can be sure the KJV is not the one at fault. You don't need a new translation, you need to put in the work. But then there is the problem.
Praise God for His perfectly verified words in the AV 👑🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥👑
Excellent discussion.
Mark's comments for the need to step away from the king James because modern people can't understand it is absurd
The king James is in English these are English words
This is a problem of intellectual nature
Of Grammer
So what Mark and Dan both are saying is that people don't understand because of a lack of knowledge and a lack of understanding
There's a problem and instead of fixing the problem with teaching grammar and big words and definition mark insists on walking away from it completely
This line of thought will degrade the English language further and further into a slang
I understand and agree that some words are different from the old English to modern day English
To have this argument this debate can't be done without going contextual of the translations and the history of them
I'm Dutch and read the KJV. No problem. Studying the English of the AV is part of 2 tim 2: 15.
I'm Korean and read the KJV in English and in Korean. There is no better option.
Greetings in Christ brothers
No it’s not, study in the AV did not mean what it means today. Simple fact. I want to know what my King James Bible is saying and Ward is helping me immensely!
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBelievershut up
@@Mr-pn2eh No refutation needed!
May our triune God bless your reading of his words!
Mark Ward won this debate for several reasons.
First, he more clearly advocated for the idea the concern that God's children should understand the Scripture.
Second, he was focused, on target/message and stuck to the specific field of discussion and was able to be concise.
Third, he gave convincing natural/logical arguments which would lead one to assume that a new/less educated person using the KJB alone could be difficult.
However, Mark Ward succeeded in these points actually because of the weakness of his opponent. I believe that his opponent gave some really excellent points, and particularly in his first long statement brought out some really good teachings.
In relation to the first point above, the opponent was weaker because he did not sufficiently or at all argue about God's use of English in the KJB, the exactness of the KJB and God's ability and desire for people to come to that exactness in English.
In relation to the second point, the opponent was ill-served by cloudy thinking, fumbling, sneezing and straying content.
In relation to the third, the opponent either accepted the natural arguments (dispirited, surrendering), or if trying to make a counter argument, seemed to be in a houghed fashion, instead of a charge with spiritual principles (e.g. seeing by faith). The opponent said some very good things, but not with enough strength.
I suspect in his smart way Mark Ward chose a "low hanging fruit" kind of KJB defender that was more a "KJB preferred" and "KJB is best but not perfect" kind of foil, to be able to poke his holes into, and so easily deflate. I call Mark Ward "smart" because it's not fully deceptive, it's not conspiratorially evil, it's a Matthew 10:16 issue, among brethren. Ultimately, this whole thing is not good because a contrived victory is a propaganda coup and gives morale to those who think the KJB is teetering at the edge of conceptual oblivion.
That subtlety of Mark Ward is what I would call "more evil" than someone who looks and sounds obviously evil. Exactly what Satan did and been doing since Genesis 3. That's what leaven does to a bread.
I concur. His case against the KJB is as feeble as ever, but Ward deserves credit for winning the debate by arguing with intelligence, clarity and structure. Almost thou persuadest me to be an ephemeral-version-onlyist!
@@arqist In civil discourse, we assume a person is not evil. Of course, we may judge what he speaks, and there are certainly deceptive and wrong things there. I am approaching it as if a man who is born again yet is so greatly deceived with his wrong ideas. There are many low level Christians who are listening to him, and he must be having a dangerous effect on getting some to give up the KJB. I will deal with the ideas, because we have to win a PR battle with his listeners/fan bots, which means not merely calling Mark Ward an effeminate, smart alec agent of the devil.
@@glenn1611 I want to see our side communicate better. He is quite effective with his audience. Notice that Ward's message is to ignore the textual issues, or translation issues, but to focus on the simplistic issue, "the KJB is hard, and hard isn't helpful". That's been the other side's strongest argument against the KJB for a long time. Their other main argument is, "You say the KJB is perfect. Which KJB is perfect?" We can answer that. The very debate was "Is the KJB readable?" The answer is, Yes, of course it is. But how do you measure readability? By comprehension or by contemporary use of language? Mark Ward's argument falls apart once you don't make language at one or other point of history the measure. They know that, which is why they continually say "1611 English" and "today's changing English". Of course, these are fake measures because the KJB is God's use of English and the KJB is designed to be transcendent to any year date. After all, it is God using English.
I agree that Dr. Haifley did not offer the best defense for his position. Who would you propose as a debate opponent if Dr. Ward were to do another one? Granted, it must be someone who would approach the subject in an evenhanded and brotherly manner, much as Dr. Haifley did.
I am French and I read the KJV.
Do you understand it? Would you be willing to put your claim to the test?
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever Do you understand everything you read in the ESV? Does everyone that reads that version understand it? What causes a person to not understand what he is reading?
I learned how to read from Alpha-Phonics by Samuel Blumenfeld as a child. His simple program made verocious readers at early ages, me being one of them. Blumenfeld had some major issues against the education system and it's indoctrination, in which he believed they were purposely dumbing down the American people. And no, he was not a KJV-Onlyist. I think every generation has its modern educators that want to disconnect us from our past. Understanding the language of the past is vital in learning it's history so we do not repeat its mistakes.
One of the points I loved that Blumenfeld made was that we were made to be able to READ and COMPREHEND. It takes BAD TEACHING to make a child unable to read. (Stone me, bad teachers!) When you discourage and tell a child they are bad at something, and focus on dumbing down everything for them, rather than affirming that they CAN DO IT -- it makes a HUGE difference. Remember when Mattel made the Barbie Dolls that said, "MATH IS TOUGH!" Women were outraged. They took it as teaching their daughters that girls couldn't do math. And rightly so! Girls can do math! Math is not tough if you get your foundation nailed in straight.
But I also know that for those that find learning difficult, you better examine your heart. Is your heart right with God in all areas? When we fail to do what we already understand, God isn't going to open up to us more understanding. First things first.
"And the vision of all this has become to you like the words of a book that is sealed. When men give it to one who can read, saying, "Read this," he says, "I cannot, for it is sealed." And when they give the book to one who cannot read, saying, "Read this," he says, "I cannot read." And the Lord said: "Because this people draw near with their mouth and honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me, and their fear of me is a commandment taught by men, therefore, behold, I will again do wonderful things with this people, with wonder upon wonder; and the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the discernment of their discerning men shall be hidden."" - Isaiah 29:11-14 ESV
"Evil men understand not judgment: but they that seek the LORD understand all things." - Proverbs 28:5 KJV
"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." - 1 John 2:27 KJV
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever Yes, I understand the King James Bible.
I'm using the KJB Westminster Reference Bible from TBS so I don't have any issue with the false friends or archaic words (in fact, some archaic words in the KJB are close to French 😀).
@56 minutes. Will the Holy Ghost teach you the word of God? He is conflating the issue. He will lead you to know what every word means IF you listen.
One thing he can't do is show you missing words and verses if you are reading the corrupt versions.
Amen!
But the Holy Spirit can show you where to find the Bible that has all the verses!
The gymnastics required to support KJV Onlyism!
What is "KJV Inlyism?"
@@ChurchPhone1769 corrected...thank you.
King James is readable, just takes consistency.
So let me see. Is the most READ book in the entirety of human history READable?
What else would Mark Ward debate against?
Do bears poop in the woods?
Is the sky blue?
Is grass green?
Do rocks fall if you drop them?
Oxford must have translated the new bibles, even Mark agrees they did.
The question that should’ve been asked of Mark Ward is if the changes he proposes of words to the modern equivalent were L done Wood he then come back to KJV only?
We all know his answer though 😢
1:01:30 Mark on he mentioned a survey of pastors who did not know that thee, thou and thine were singular. That simply shows me that the training those particular pastors received was lacking in basic grammar. What is Mark's solution? Teach them this basic truth? NO, it is to dumb down the entire traditional, accurate translation to make it more "understandable" to him and others.
Dumb down? Brother we’ve been taught over and over the thee and thou pronouns and gloat and rejoice in them… and still PASTORS are failing to REMEMBER, let alone the laymen.
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever
I've had a few pastors over the years who never explained this basic truth. One of them started as a KJV preferred pastor. Eventually, he got into translating from the critical texts and mocked the KJB. I no longer attend. He would boast of the Greek that we all had to take his word on. Then he would mock the simpler Elizabethan English of my Bible as if it was too difficult and incorrect.... hypocrisy at it's finest. This is the slippery slope of Mark Ward's philosophy. I've been around long enough to see it happen.
@@preacherman9018 I’ve met countless KJV Only pastors who were trained by KJV Only men, and they all STRESS HOW ACCURATE the the thees and thous are and then they stumble over them and Ward’s survey demonstrates that this is the reality of the situation.
That's a sad commentary on those students of God's Word. My personal experience has been limited too. I attended my first pastor's Bible institute and earned a 4 year BA degree later from a pastor taught Bible college. I do not recall being taught this. Perhaps I forgot or was not listening closely enough. The president was a BJU doctorate. The others were Hyles Anderson grass. One was a S.Western Baptist Bible college grad.
Where I learned about this first was with a friend who was a M.A. degree grad from WVU in linguistics. I verified his explanation with a reference book and have taught this to someone less than 2 weeks ago. Some passages are difficult, but have never had the problem Mark Ward does with the singular/ plural forms of you since that day my friend taught me that.
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever It is literally impossible to translate the Greek NT the seminary crowd loves so much without using thees and thous. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Your position can't be both "we needed to be more accurate that we need to take out thees and the thous".
Translating everything as "you" is simply not going to be as accurate. Thankfully, Thee and Thou are are perfectly understandable to most people.
Discipleship is important. It's important that people get plugged into a local church and are around stronger Christians after getting saved. You don't go to the world to figure out how to read the Bible you go to the body of Christ... Remember we give the sense God uses preachers. Not dictionaries... Now if a preacher point someone toward the Webster's 1828.. which was written by a Christian.. that's fine. A member of the body of Christ wrote that dictionary. That's not running to the world. There's nothing wrong with using a dictionary if it's a good one however you're running to Egypt and assyria rather than to God just like the Israelites did. You can't look to the world to teach you the Bible.. look to Christ.
Amen!
I have the perfect word of God in the kjv. People dont need to revise or rewrite it they need to reread it!!
And continue to misunderstand God’s words in my perfect KJV? How do we solve this?
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBelieverMisunderstand what? Let’s say some archaic words make it hard for you to understand, do you just stop there and close the book? or do you put an effort to understand them? Also, I would rather have a Bible that’s got all the verses than having a Bible that is missing.
Question for Mark. God promised to preserve His word. Do you have it? If so, where is it?
The problem with this question is that there is an imbedded presupposition in it. Namely, the idea that the "Word of God" means exclusively "the Bible." This presupposition would first need to be proven before making any presumptuous claims about the preservation of God's word.
@@SilverioFamilyforChrist Oh, so God promised to preserve His word, but you think He meant scattering them everywhere like pieces of a puzzle? Like the old scrolls that were fragmented and inaccessible to all but a few? Does that sound like a promise that provides clarity and truth to all believers, or confusion? Surely, God’s promise of preserving His word would mean something more accessible, complete, and unified, wouldn’t it?
@@arqistand it was preserved in 1610 right? The answer Dr. Ward has for you is the same answer you have for the preserved word of God in 1610.
I’ve got it! I’m right here! It’s my perfectly translated KJV! Now are you going to help me understand it like Dr. Ward is helping me? Is there anyone helping KJV readers understand KJV’s English like he is? Point me to him brother! I want to understand my KJV!
@@arqist No. And the fact that you responded the way you did illustrates both the presupposition you hold (thinking Word of God means Bible) and that you misunderstood what I said to begin with. Preservation is a secondary matter until you can define why "Word of God" to you means precisely "Bible". Because even in scripture (and through historical and rational evidence) we can identify more forms of God's words than that which was written on some pages. Your contention with the idea of preservation has nothing to do with what I asked.
Worried that you can't understand the KJB?
Matthew 9:13a (KJV) "But go ye and _LEARN_ what that meaneth..."
Problem solved. Dictionaries were made for a reason, people.
Also, Jesus Christ told us that he would send his Spirit to guide us into all truth for a reason, people.
Proverbs 8:8-9 (KJV) All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them. *_They are all plain to him that understandeth,_* and right to them that find knowledge.
1 Corinthians 2:12-14 (KJV) Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, *_but which the Holy Ghost teacheth;_* comparing spiritual things with spiritual. *_But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God:_* for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, *_because they are SPIRITUALLY discerned._*
NOBODY can fully understand GOD'S words without being saved. Mark Ward, you're worried about the wrong thing. Instead of worrying about whether the King James Bible is still understandable for today or not, why don't you worry about weather the reader is SAVED or not? What, would you have the darkened understanding removed from lost people while they are yet lost? You can't change that, because IT IS WRITTEN (Eph. 4:17-19).
It’s like you didn’t even watch the debate.
@@whattheheckification Admittedly, I caught only the last 45 minutes or so of the debate. I have not watched the entire thing yet (was very busy today), but I am planning on watching the whole thing tomorrow. My comment is based off of what I have watched so far, and what I already know about Mark Ward (I am familiar with his view on the KJV). Mark Ward said towards the end of the debate that he desires that the plowboy would understand God's word (and other similar sayings regarding reading comprehension of the KJV), because he foolishly thinks that the KJV is hard for people today to understand (true if you're unsaved).
Howbeit, I suppose you are _somewhat_ right, but I still stand by what I said.
@@AnthonyTuminello
Actually Mark stated a few times that he thinks the KJV is mostly intelligible for English readers, but that it has a lot of old phrases and words that cause confusion for modern readers. And unfortunately, many times the old words are words we use today, that we don’t even realize had a different meaning 400 years ago, so we don’t even realize we don’t know them when reading the KJV. He also pointed out many of the old words cannot be simply looked up in a dictionary.
Have an open mind to Ward my friend. Maybe he won’t change your mind of being KJV Only, but at the very least you might learn some false friends and meanings of words to look out for when reading KJV.
@@whattheheckification The thing is, my God is not limited by "false friends" and historical definitions. I get what Ward means by that, but God, in his infinite understanding, and by the fact that he "Declar[es] the end from the beginning" (Isa. 46:9-10), is able to use certain parts of his word as "advanced revelation", and also cause it to have a double application. In other words, a certain word that meant something different back then than it does now can be used by God to reveal something _NEW_ for today (Isa. 48:6-7). The Author has every right to do something like that with his own Book. God is in no wise limited by time, and God brought forth the King James Bible to be _THE_ Bible in the universal language of English for these last days, knowing the changes that would be made to the English language later on down the line. Therefore, these so-called "false friends" do not scare me.
And if I indeed cannot find the historical definitions to some of these "archaic" words, is the Holy Spirit of God not still capable of guiding me into all truth concerning it? The words of the LORD are _SPIRITUALLY_ discerned, not naturally.
@@AnthonyTuminello AMEN
Great debate!
I read the NIV at 41 years of age and thought I needed to be baptized to be saved! Praise the Lord I attend a King James only church, started to read God's Word with no problem and was taught the correct soul saving gospel! I was saved at the age of 42! And without knowing all this stuff, I knew the King James Bible was the Bible that was the true Word of God! I had been going to church my entire life, and was never taught how I could get right with God 😢 False teachers and misleading Bible's in all these churches I attended.
Interestingly enough, the King James also teaches that you must be baptized to be saved.
@@SilverioFamilyforChrist King James has commissioned the work to the translators. He was not a translator by himself.
@SilverioFamilyforChrist no it doesn't
If we want to evaluate translator bias, we need to look at doctrinal statements from the groups that did the translating. Here's what the translators of the KJV believed regarding baptism's role in salvation, taken from the Church of England's 39 Articles of Religion:
*Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God's good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.* (Article 25)
*Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or new Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.* (Article 27)
(There's also some stuff about baptizing babies in there, but I wanted to keep the focus on their view of baptismal regeneration.)
@@Mr-pn2eh Indeed it does.
I appreciate the spirit and tone of the debate. It reminded me much of the famous John MacArthur and RC Sproul debate on baptism. In my mind, Mark came across far more prepared than did Dr. Haifley. He seemed to constantly fumble with his notes only to trot out the same tired and worn out talking points. As well, Dr. Haifley seems to talk out of "both sides of his mouth"; he says "Yes, if there were agreed upon terms, we could allow for an update of the KJV." However, it was also very frustrating, when pressed he basically said "but I don't trust anyone who agrees on those terms to do it." Dr. Haifley, which is it sir? Mark challeged the KJBRC to do the job then graciously offered his help. If you don't want his help, fine, do it on your own then. You seem to want to play lip service to a potential update while also "hedging your bet" that it could be done properly. This comes across as an "uncertain trumpet" and "clanging cymbal." "How long halt ye between two opinions?"
If accuracy of Scripture and which textual base you're building from, is not a fundamental principle guiding you in your choice of a Bible translation, you won't find agreement.
Mark Ward doesn't have a final authority when it comes to Scripture. That's the elephant in the room.
@@ShallStandForEver but Dr. Ward does not have to be involved in the project. He offered help, he did not insist upon involvement.
Furthermore, to insist Dr. Ward does not have final authority when he has constantly stated he believes in the authority of Scripture is uncharitable.
@@chadwilham3942 Authority of Scripture is a broad term and not useful unless you define what is scripture. If you believe Scripture only exists in the original autographa which we don't have then you can say, believe, and practice whatever you want.
@@murrydixon5221 Authority of scripture is broad term and not useful unless you define what is scripture. If you believe Scripture only exists in your one preferred English translation you can say and believe whatever you want.
2nd Timothy 2:15. Study.... You get to know God and his word by coming to him and it daily... You have to put work in.. God is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.. if you don't diligently seek him you're not supposed to understand his word..(sure he'll give you enough light to get saved) but I'm talking about learning doctrine and learning the word of God. Mark Ward and James White are subtle... Like that other guy back in Genesis..you know.. the serpent who twisted God's word and made Eve doubt it...
Amen! The "world" is lazy and wants everything handed to them. God says that laziness is sin. The Holy Ghost will bestow wisdom and understanding, if we ask Him. How hard is that to do? Apparently, for some, it's an impossible task.
I'll stay with my King James, thank you, the Bible that saved my life and my soul by introducing me to the real Jesus........
Amen ❤
@@RonTheChristFollower NO PROBLEM. The question is… do you understand it? That’s the real issue: what does fray mean in Zech. 1:21? What does mansions mean in John 14:2? What does conversation mean in Phil. 3:20? What does “constantly” mean in Acts 12:15?
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever If I thought you were interested in truth, I would answer your questions, but I know you're only interested in arguments to feed your pride........ Proverbs 14:7 ...........
Good for you and other people should be encouraged to stay with the bible that saved them!
@@RonTheChristFollower Scripture that comes to mind Romans 16:17-18.
Marc states he loves the KJV, but suggests to get rid of it lol. Image if we said this about our loved ones! What a bunch of of nonsense. I never heard someone say they love something or someone and suggested to get rid it, that is not a love for anything.
Exactly. It's crazy to see how people like Ward are so BOTHERED by the idea that we hold the KJV to be perfect.
When did he say we should get rid of it? Oh that's right, he didn't.
@@AnthonyTuminello No, people like Ward are bothered by all the division, doubt and confusion that is fostered by the cult of King James Onlyism.
From; "3 Ways to Graciously Engage KJV-Only Believers" by Mark Ward.
"KJV-onlyism is not a Christian liberty issue, like eating meat offered to idols. It makes void the Word of God by human tradition-one archaizing lexeme at a time (Mark 7:13). I pray that my brethren’s consciences will one day be liberated to read more than just the KJV."
My Comment now....
*Make no mistake, Mark Ward has disdain for the KJV and those who hold it dear. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth, but if you listen and READ with care, it becomes obvious what he really thinks.*
He doesn’t want to get rid of it, he wants KJV-only folks to allow others, specifically those who struggled with the older language, the freedom to read modern translations without attacking their sincerity or salvation.
Ironically, it’s Ward’s work that got me more interested in reading the KJV. I have read the Bible a few times in other translations, but for the first time have read the entire word in the KJV. So if he has disdain for the KJV he’s done a poor job of communicating that.
I have a 9th grade education... I understand my kjv perfectly. I also correct the modern versions. I'm more intelligent than the scholar's that put out modern Bible versions! Thank you Lord!
Congrats…you’re doing much better than KJV Only pastors!
Boast a little more
“Perfectly” Oh really? What does “atonement” mean in Rom. 5:11? What does “constantly” mean in Tit. 3:8?
Those 100 pastors didn’t. Dr. Peter Ruckman didn’t (see Wards new video). Would you be willing to put your claim to the test? Anyone can claim they understand something, prove it honestly.
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever we record all our studies, you're welcome to them
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever Can I answer? And please note, I also only had a 9th grade education.
The atonement refers to us being reconciled back to God.
AT ONE MENT -- we are now ONE with the Father, through the work of His Son. We must look at the verse before which explains it...
"For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." - Romans 5:10
And "constantly", this would be like persuasively/assertively/with confidence. Because we know that a constant number doesn't change. :) The name Constance comes from that origin and means to standfast.
The reason why I know these things and others should know these things is that LANGUAGE matters, root words matter. We should not be content to be ignorant and unlearned. This doesn't mean we have to go to college and study for hours. It only takes training your eyes and ears to pay attention to words and where they are coming from.
1:44:03 YES YES YES!!
Where do you think the idea of using the word of God to attack the word of God comes from? Who twisted the scriptures in Matthew 4? Luke 4?
Pray to thy Father in heaven, in the name of whom he sent, and ask him for understanding of the KJB and he will give it to you.
Man is not capable of teaching you what God will teach you when you trust in him and him alone.
This was an interesting debate/discussion. Both men were gracious and humorous. And both made good points for their position. I use the KJV and love it. For me the primary issue is the underlying Greek text. Even the NKJV gives credence to the critical text which poisons it. And it makes me cringe when fellow believers mock the KJV as if it is not God’s Word. We should have more debates like this one.
Does the KJV marginal note from the translators in Luke 17.36 make cringe too?
“This 36. verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies”
“Divers weights are an abomination unto the LORD; and a false balance is not good.”
Proverbs 20:23 KJV
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever You missed my point. What makes me “cringe” is when believers mock the KJV. Whether or not there should be marginal notes is a different discussion.
@@md11mark really brother, is it *more* the KJV-Onlyists mocking any and every other version, or is it modern version readers mocking the KJV?
“For me the primary issue is the underlying Greek text. Even the NKJV gives credence to the critical text which poisons it.”
*Answer the question:* Does the note in Luke 17:36 poison the KJV?
Fair weights and measures are required by scripture.
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBelieverCan you read Acts 8:37 from your ESV and NIV? Also, Matthew 17:21?
@@arqist The ESV and NIV are irrelevant to the conversation that was being had here. The NKJV has Acts 8.37. The MEV has Acts 8.37. The NASB '77 and '95 have Acts 8.37. The AMP has Acts 8.37. The HCSB has Acts 8.37. The LSB has Acts 8.37. The NCV has Acts 8.37. The SKJV and KJVER have Acts 8.37. The Living Bible has Acts 8.37. So the issue is whether the KJV gets a pass that other translations with the same verses don't get.
If Mark is confused about "chambering and wantoness" don't introduce him to "jot and tittle".
Jot and tittles are English?
What does “oppose themselves” mean in 2 Tim. 2.25?
How about sped in Judges 5.30?
How about practise in Daniel 8.12?
Liking in Dan. 1:10?
Do you want to try “people” in Psa. 7.7? Conversation in Phil. 3.20?
"Was" confused. He clearly knows what they mean now.
My thoughts about God's Word is that he preserves it. So without any doubts or worries I know if necessary he will make it more modern in any language. Just like all throughout history he has. He will pick and guide and produce it. You will know it by it's fruits like the king james and others. The exact inherent meaning will always stay the same according to God's meaning. I see the fruits of some modern translations and God doesn't seem to be in those.
Meaning that it was Mankind that produced it without God's intervention.
The ESV made me KJVO
The King James is much easier to learn to read than ancient trade greek no one teaches nor learns in their one semester at seminary.
There is no ignorance worst than the ignorance you teach to others.
lol! Yeah! I believe that! This one is hilarious…who practices sin?
"Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness." - 1 John 3:4 ESV
Overall, I enjoyed the debate, which was much less aggressive than I anticipated. If I were in Dan’s shoes, I might have taken a more harder approach in defending the KJV against Mark Ward’s position. However, I understand that everyone has their own style. While I strive to be as diplomatic as possible, I also recognize the importance of standing firm for the Word of God. I believe the KJV is the perfect and inerrant Word of God for today. Do the Hebrew and Greek texts offer insights? Absolutely-they provide a richness and depth that sometimes goes beyond the English. Yet, the English in the KJV is fully accurate and without error. I also believe the KJV is perfectly readable if we make use of the resources available to us in this life and, most importantly, pray for God’s Spirit to grant us understanding.
This was unbelievable!
It's obvious that Ward focuses on "readability" because he cannot focus on the actual word of God because it would blow him out of the water.
I was an English major. The KJB is written in a 4th grade reading level.
Also, the Thees & Thous and Yous & Ye actually bring more understanding to the scriptures. The personal pronouns that begin with "T" (thee, thou) are singular, and the personal pronouns that begin with "Y" (ye, you) are plural. This brings greater understanding to many verses! (One example, ie: Genesis 3:1-6 serpent talking to Eve in Ye (plural) pronouns, proves in verse 6 that Adam was there WITH HER- plural) She was not alone (singular!)
Ward said we are "protestants". We are not. Baptists were never in the catholic church to begin with, to protest and leave it.
Also, the KJB defines itself in the context, if you read the verses before & after the verse U R looking up & run all the cross references, comparing scripture with scripture.
Gail Riplinger proves this in her book, DICTIONARY INSIDE THE KING JAMES BIBLE!
She or Sam Gipp should have debated both these guys!
Proverbs 30:5-6 📖
5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. 📖
One thing that Mark gets so wrong is that many KJV guys do believe that there should be a sympathetic update to the KJV but none of the modern translations come close dues to wrong textual philosophy and wrong textual method. Use strictly the TR and Masoretic text with the same principles of the KJV translators and same caliber of them and then we have a Bible we can get behind, but while you all stand behind a worldly Critical text and theory this will never happen.
The KJVER is the best modern attempt that I have seen.
The thesis against the KJV is that as the culture changes, the words of God should be changed or deleted to accommodate the people. But the result of modern perVersions, is that people are falling away rather than being lifted up. Today, one needs not to be able to spell as the computer finishes spelling words. Imagine future bible translations would be replete with slanguage, pictograms, emojis, and memes as comprehension declines. Would this not be an abomination in the sight of Almighty God? God has promised to preserve his words: “Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” (Ps 12:7 KJV) Will you fight against God?
So as people are less literate, knowledge and understanding decline, and vocabularies are shrinking, the gold standard, KJV should be discarded? Absolutely not. The KJV is even more relevant and needed today than ever.
Great comment. God bless you.
Without touching on the translation discussion I would like to point out that people not speaking/understanding Elizabethan English does not mean that we are less literate or that we are getting dumber. Language changes and you can be extremely smart and literate and not understand older English languages. Are we dumber or less literate for not understanding the English in the 1611? Why did we stop using the 1611 version when it was perfect as is?
I would also add that "changing" the word of God is misleading. Look at units of measurements. We know what the old measurements translate to with modern measuring so is it "changing" the word of God if we were to present the measurements in a way that we understand it vs looking up the conversions?
@@jfb3415I don’t think our English is necessarily dumber, but it is more simplified. The complexity of the King James allows the reader to go more in depth and distinguishes certain words and meanings better, if you study it out.
As to why “we” have stopped reading the 1611 KJV, I’d first point out that our King James Bibles today are the 1769 edition which fixed spelling errors and misprints that the earlier bibles had. As well as the use of conjoining two words into one etc.
But I think it’s apparent that “we” did not stop reading the King James because it’s still being read everyday by believers and has produced 400 years of good fruit. It’s shown it’s reliability, like an old car. The technology might be older, but the car has never broken down, unless there’s a misuse by the driver.
I personally believe that the King James is the pure preserved word as spoken of in Psalm 12:6-7. I believe it’s without error. But I’m not an onlyist. Some might need a simpler version if they struggle with English or struggle with grammar. But I will always defend the King James Bible as my final authority in all matters of faith and practice.
@@theobsoleteman7504 so you allow people to read modern translations when they struggle with the KJV, that’s all Mark Ward calls for, brother.
I can't listen to satan talk through him anymore.
Ward is a troubling figure for sure.
He says Lord willing, the false friends will go from 86 to 100. You see friends.. he wants to take out the KJV. Why else would he want the number of false friends to go up??
He’s uncovering false friends, not creating them out of nowhere.
more like Lucifer willing
Isn’t it obvious? He clearly wants there to be more and more false friends so people keep misunderstanding their Bibles! That’s what Ward said throughout the whole debate! He wants people to misunderstand their Bibles! That’s what he said, right?
SARCASM^^^
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever
Not at all brother. He wants people to understand their bibles. That is why he is exposing words in the KJV that don’t mean in modern English what they used to mean 400 years ago. If anything, finding more false friends is a really good thing so KJV readers can have a better understanding their bibles better.
The more false friends he finds, the more KJV readers can learn which words might cause misunderstanding and learn not to misunderstand them.
@@whattheheckification BINGO! That’s exactly right! My sarcasm wasn’t clear enough lol.
Mark Ward in all his videos has pounded the pavement for the New King James Version or Modern English Version HARD but has been silent until last night (as far as I know) regarding the Simplified KJV or any other slightly updated King James Bible. It is as if he has gone to the Critical Text Dark Side and uses readability as his main attack point against the King James. If he was EVER a King James Bible supporter he would still be in it or at least a slightly updated version of it.
The NKJV was updated even farther away from the King James in 1984 so it is pointless.
Mark has indicated in the past that he has had little experience with the SKJV, and he tends to be cautious about commenting on versions that he hasn't used. (He has also been skittish about endorsing the LSB, despite assuming that it's probably fine.)
@@MAMoreno What I would expect from Ward is to not be so dismissive of people's textual concerns. The answer is not to wave it away and say I don't care about it. Or say or imply that if you have a textual concern you have NKJV or MEV. People also have legitimate concerns about those. It may not matter to him but if it matters to the people that he claims to care about then hear the concerns. And take the time to get the familiarity with the SKJV. Dr. Dan here said it best I think, If you want to MINIMALLY update it.
FWIW, I haven't found any major concerns that I have with the SKJV. I could recommend it cautiously. I am still reading my King James daily and primarily though. I appreciate your engagement MA
I know exactly what Mark is trying to do. He keeps on saying he loves KJV but you can't hide it. That fake gentleness and subtlety of Mark Ward is what I would call "more evil" than someone who looks and sounds obviously evil. Exactly what Satan did and been doing since Genesis 3. That's what leaven does to a bread. Just like how Constantine brought up Roman Catholic disguising it as Christianity when it was actually the continuation of their pagan practices.
Exactly right, spot on!
Mark Ward is the false friend.
I think I’ve put it together.
Because you’ve implied me to be some fanatic Mark Ward Follower when I’ve commented on your videos.
You’re a hater of Mark Ward lol. You do it on this easy going, passive, sarcastic tone.
But I really think you personally dislike the guy. It’s all making sense now.
@@CC-iu7sq I think you have me figured out all except the hate. I think I had you figured out to. It amazes me you hear "tone" in my comments. God bless!
Great response!
"Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him." - 1 John 3:15 KJV
@@MandaKoehn thanks!
@@ChurchPhone1769 It’s not too difficult to read into the tone of a discussion. But I didn’t expect anything better from you. We’ve had this discussion several times, and every time you either stopped responding or admitted “I’m not KJV only”.
I’ll leave you with this.
Regardless if it’s on the internet or in person, sin is sin. If you cause division online over rhetoric conversation based on non-biblical doctrine, it’s sinful division.
If you lie online. It’s sin. If you hate someone online. It’s sin.
And you’ve never displayed an ounce of sincerity in any discussion we’ve ever had. You’ve continued to post this rhetoric on your channel. And I’ve corrected you on several occasions.
You simply don’t care to be corrected. You don’t care if you’re wrong. You don’t care if you promote this nonsensable garbage. You’ve never been held accountable for your actions and that’s all I pick up from my discussion from you.
But one day, you’ll face accountability, and it won’t be from any mere person.
Just remember. If the KJV was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for us, right?
32:00 Mark Ward goes to 1 Corinthians 14:9. It’s not a fair comparison. It is one thing to say preaching should be “easy to be understood” and another to thing to say the deep treasures of the Bible should be easy to be understood when 2 Peter 3:16 clearly says about the Scriptures of Paul that there were some things in them that were “hard to be understood”
“Besom” = “the treasures of the Bible”?
Obsolete senses of words we commonly use today, therefore we are misunderstanding words that we don’t realize we’re misunderstanding = “the treasures of the Bible”?
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever
Isaiah 14:23- … I will sweep it with the besom of destruction, saith the Lord of hosts…
This verse is all about God’s judgment. Most people would acknowledge that “besom of destruction” sounds way more grave and menacing than “broom of destruction.” Also, the verb “sweep” linked to “besom” lets people know what the word should mean.
@@PureWordsBaptistChurch but that exact lettering of “Besom” = “the treasures of the Bible”?
*Obsolete senses* of words we commonly use today, therefore *we are misunderstanding words that we don’t realize we’re misunderstanding* = “the treasures of the Bible”?
Do you want several examples of this? I’ve got many Ward doesn’t have on his list (I believe the KJV is perfect in its translation)!
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever
Sorry if I’m not being clear. I believe broom is an alternate legitimate translation. It is not a corruption and I understand why some would want it translated that way for clarity’s sake. I don’t think “besom” is a bad translation either though even though it is archaic.
When I said “the treasures of the Bible” I meant it in the way Proverbs 2:4 does in the sense that sometimes you have to study the Bible more to get more understanding of other passages. If you keep reading the Bible you will see many of the words that are called “false friends” in the context that will give you it’s meaning. For example, “meat” in the KJV Bible is clearly sometimes talking about just food not flesh because Leviticus 2:1 says the meat offering is made of flour.
@@PureWordsBaptistChurch I appreciate your reply brother!
what about words where you can’t tell from the context? I’ll use the word you mentioned
“forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.”
1 Timothy 4:3 KJV
And sometimes the context doesn’t give you much help (mansions-John 14:2; secret- Judges 13:19; sped Judges 5:30; bruise-Isa. 53:10; I’ve got more and more and more brother lol)
We have to bring our standards to God not the other way around... You can't dumb down God's word for people who don't want to put the work in to learn it
Modern English is not a “dumbing down” of scripture.
@@whattheheckification Modern English is absolutely a dumbing down of Scripture. You going to tell me that the English language is at a higher level _NOW_ than it was 400 years ago? Yeah right 🤣 That'd be like saying that men are smarter now than they were back in the old days, which is also hysterical.
Jeremiah 6:16 (KJV) Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, *_and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls._* But they said, We will not walk therein.
@@AnthonyTuminello
Why read Jeremiah 6:16 from English 400 years ago?
Why not go back 900 years?
Jeremiah 6:16 (in Old English):
“Hwæt cweð se Drihten: Standað on þæm wege, and geseoð, and ascigeað for þa ealdan wege, hwær is seo gōdweġ, and gāþ on hire, and ġē findað reste for eowre sawla. Ac hie cwædon, Ne willað we gan þǣr on."
Language changes over time. That translation above is in English. Just a much earlier version of English than we read today, or than people read during the time of the King James.
Is it dumbing down the Old English to read that verse in the King James Version?
@@whattheheckificationexcellent point!
Proverbs 30:5-6 (KJV) *_EVERY_* word of God _IS_ *_PURE:_* he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. _Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar._
In order for a Bible to _truly_ be "God's word", EVERY SINGLE WORD of it MUST be PERFECT. Besides, if you're going to ascribe the Bible to God, declaring that it's HIS word, how could it not be perfect? Does your God make mistakes? Mine doesn't (Psa. 18:30). Is your God limited by fallible translators? Mine isn't (Psa. 12:6-7; Jer. 32:27; Luke 18:27).
The main problem with you anti-KJVO nuts is that you all have a _SMALL_ God. When you consider the idea of a 100% PERFECT translation of the Scriptures, you immediately think _"God just CAN'T do that!"_
Either you believe what this Scripture says, or you don't. Either you believe that EVERY word of God IS (present tense) PURE (perfect - Psa. 18:30; 19:7), or you don't. Plain and simple.
1 John 5:10 (KJV) He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: *_he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son._*
Romans 3:4 (KJV) God forbid: yea, *_let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged._*
But what God gave us was the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic
@@jfb3415 ...and then he gave us translations. Like the ones in Acts 2.
Acts 2:4-11 (KJV) And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak *_with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance._* And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, *_we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God._*
This also shows us that translations CAN be inspired by God.
@@AnthonyTuminello And God cannot do that with a translation to modern English? If you want to hit absolute perfection then you have to go to the original. OR you must believe that the translation was ordained (which is your argument here) but why if you believe that translations can be perfect do you not believe there could be a more modern translation that is also ordained?
@@jfb3415 Here's a better question: why do YOU believe that no translation can be perfect and that the only originals were absolutely perfect, even though the originals contained plenty of translations themselves? Answer me THAT.
@@jfb3415 Also, God CAN do that with a modern translation, I never said that he couldn't. However, he is not going to because *_he already gave us a perfect translation 400+ years ago._* There is no need for a "new perfect translation".
Lots of anecdotes here. Unfortunately, the King James is only as good as the person reading it. There are many claims of "I understood it perfectly and had this insert deficiency or personal struggle". Issue precisely comes from this type of personal interpretation which is why so many Protestant denominations exist in the first place. Unfortunately, one man's "I understood it" isn't another man's "I understood it" which leaves the need for an outside objective source of interpretation. "The Holy Spirit guided me" remains but an appeal to a personal interpretation at the end of the day.
The only "false friend" I see here is Mark Ward himself. I'm going to stand by the King James Bible by FAITH, and I could care less if that makes me look like an absolute uneducated fool in the eyes of man. I will GLADLY be a fool for CHRIST'S SAKE (1 Cor. 4:10)!
Acts 5:41 (KJV) And they departed from the presence of the council, *_rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name._*
_"Gladly will I toil and suffer, only let me walk with Thee."_
Proverbs 24:21-22 (KJV) My son, fear thou the LORD and the king: *_and meddle not with them that are given to CHANGE:_* For their calamity shall rise suddenly; and who knoweth the ruin of them both?
Luke 5:39 (KJV) No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, *_The old is better._*
THE OLD IS BETTER, even with all the so-called "false friends"! If I can't _fully_ discern the old wine by tasting it, then SO BE IT. God will instruct me and teach me, and will guide me with his eye (Psa. 32:8). I've _nothing_ to fear.
I really can't stand Mark Ward's voice...
Making fun of the way people sound when they talk, real Christlike buddy.
Feminine spirit
🫣 He has a manipulative woman’s tone of voice and that’s scary.
Perhaps …”can’t stand Mark Ward’s voice” is a bit harsh but someone has to tell Mark he sounds effeminate…or is that how BJU trains their students? It’s not the first time I’ve heard that about the guys at BJU.
I’d rather read the pure Word of God than the polluted modern versions. God thought so too. He led the me back to the KJV many years ago.
@@hilogearhart3759 amen it is the only English holy bible
@@johnneufeld6019 You are so right.
You did a great job Brother Dan!
I go to Google and look up "King James" words and Google has the bible definitions .
Also KJV has been shown to be "mathmatacilly correct in every way . Among many other phenomena .......
@guitarman2669 -- "KJV has been shown to be "mathmatacilly correct in every way ." YES! You must be schooled in Brandon Peterson's work of Truth Is Christ on YT? Brother, there's free software for the KJB that is 100 percent accurate and includes Webster's 1828 Dictionary, which is based on the KJB: King James Pure Bible Search . I LOVE IT! God bless you.
I was in an institution. I'm not boasting but I was one of the worst junkies that I've ever seen. God taught me how to read the King James Bible in jail. You are committing sin and blaspheming God's word Mr Ward. You need to repent. (I went to Bible college and failed grammar.. yet God still taught me his word. Later in life God also started teaching me grammar from the word of God... I wonder how that happens!?
God bless you. Thank you for your testimony.
It's interesting how people can score points by applying labels. The early believers were first called Christians at Antioch, originally it was intended as a slur but ended up being a badge of honor. The term KJO was invented by BJU to belittle KJV readers but it is not completely correct, many of us read other versions, usually when we are looking for errors, so we read many but trust one. What Mark Ward calls false friends could also be called learning opportunities, I call the KJV my best friend. Dr. Phil Stringer mentioned that there have been over 1000 attempts to make the Bible 'easier to read' and to replace the KJV, most have disappeared into obscurity. So yes, lets have another one by all means, I'll still be reading the King James Version.
^ This comment, amen.
If you are saved, you should have no problem reading the Word of God.
John 10:4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.
John 10:5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.
If you say we don’t have a perfect Word of God, you are basically saying we don’t have a perfect Jesus. And that is blasphemous.
Revelation 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
As you read the scripture, the Scriptures interpret themselves. There’s no mistakes just because people aren’t reading. It doesn’t mean we need to change it. If people read it more they don’t understand it more. The language is changing because they’re not reading the Bible and they’re getting away from the scriptures that the language is changing, these new so-called Bibles, which are corrupt are not the answer for people not reading the Bible Should we give them Bibles that have lies in them they’re not true that have Doctor No problems and may God liar and bless me in the name of God just because people not reading the Bible these corrupt Bibles do not come from the correct source anyway
I can't listen to Mark Ward anymore. Subtly sliding in alexandrian definitions..
There’s no such thing.
Psalm 33:4, “For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth.” King James Bible. Mr. Ward is a double minded man, and unstable in all his ways. The ABC letters after one’s name mean nothing to God, who is no respecter of persons.
Why does the KJV defender speak in modern English? If KJV English is to be preserved then it is inconsistent to use modern English to advocate for the understandability of KJV English. I’m disappointed to hear KJV pulpit preaching in the most casual, folksy, informal English of all the churches I’ve been to. And then we wonder why kids don’t know the old speech patterns and vocabulary.
He is speaking modern English for all of you that can't understand the King's English, I think.
We all read (and even write) at a higher level than we speak, at least that's the norm. Where do you guys get these arguments from? They're really bad arguments. The KJV English is not that difficult, and is ACCURATE.
I actually shared a quote in modern English of Mark Ward's and a NIV supporter couldn't discern what was being stated by Mark Ward. Proving it seems the real struggle is with English overall, not just the KJV English.
@@ChurchPhone1769 I think you're not taking me seriously. If we wish to understand God's Word in the form of English it is captured in, you want to preserve understandability. If proponents of KJV don't speak it, teach it, or use it, then Mark Ward's prediction will indeed be self-fulfilling within a hundred years.
@@stevegroom58
When the time comes for an update it will be updated but I am definitely not going to trust Mark Ward and his cronies who don’t believe there’s a persevered Bible anywhere to take this to task.
The Lord Jesus Christ is blasphemed over and over again in the modern Bibles 😂...
God chastened Israel for running to the world for help (Egypt and assyria) we shouldn't run to most dictionaries.. however there's a dictionary called the Webster's 1828 that was written by a Christian. Christians should go to more mature Christians.. again discipleship is part of learning the Bible. People are not designed to be left to themselves... That's why there's so many Christians that make a mess.
@1:22:00. Did he say it is a sin to hand someone a kjv Bible? He is so far off he needs to be rebuked by elders and "un" ordaineded. 😂
I rejoice if God can open the doors of Biblical understanding to modern translation supporters, through Ward's "False Friends" series. Learning the King James Bible is a rich and valuable pursuit, and learning will never become archaic.
My prayer for Mark and his supporters is that they'd have a richer trust and understanding of God's Holy Scriptures found in the Authorized Version. That they'd have faith God is able to keep His promises, and has.
"KJVO" has been made into a pejorative, but God can transform Christians lukewarm and perfunctory approach to learning the King James English and make it a praiseworthy endeavor.
"Where the word of a king is, there is power" and my KING is not King James, but the KING of Kings, Christ Jesus. And I find His voice in this faithfully preserved and inspired translation, the KJV, Authorized Version.
Ultimately, I think God can use even those whose intentions are to tear down, eradicate, or weaken something, to build up, sustain, and strengthen that very thing.
I'm reminded of Joseph's words to his OWN brethren and Jesus' words to His...
Gen 50:20 KJV - But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.
Jhn 6:63 KJV - It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Here's to future Authorized Version believing Christians~pulled from the myriad of modern translations and just as many doubts. May Mark's work be used for good~even if his intentions are not.
Believing that God has preserved His word, will never be sinful.
~God bless you all in Christ Jesus.
Parables are actually defined as riddles in scripture; riddles are not meant to be understood, easily.
Ezekiel 17:2
King James Version
2 Son of man, put forth a riddle, and speak a parable unto the house of Israel;
Consider carefully now Proverbs 26:7,9
7 The legs of the lame are not equal: so is a parable in the mouth of *fools.
9 As a thorn goeth up into the hand of a drunkard, so is a parable in the mouths of *fools.
*Have looked up the Hebrew word translated "fools" here and it is not "nabal," but another Hebrew word better translated as, [thee] self confident. Thee self confident, who leans unto his own understanding, and is of course, a fool as KJV translators gave us in their translation.
What is a Dictionary for Mark if not to look up meaning of a word, and when you look it up, for example chambering you have broadened your own horizon and you will not need to look that word up again, which goes for any other word in the KJB as well.
Yea, the pidgin bible is surely easier and better.
To this esv man u lost me when u said can't God learn my language.. KJV teaches we are to change to God not make God change to us how carnal is that !
Not a fan of "nerdy Christianity"
havent even watched this but this is by far the stupidest debate. i read and understand my KJV every day. desperate attempt to get rid of KJV. just use a dictionary and grow in knowledge of words.
Here is how you look up words you don't know you don't understand in the KJV. Ask God in faith to help you understand the passage even if you think you understand the meaning of every word.
James 1:5-6
[5]If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
[6]But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. 42:42
Also, I wouldn't use a contemporary dictionary. Use an archaic dictionary like the Webster's 1828. I remember it being spot on almost every time. The times I remember it being off I was able to figure it out with certainty by the context and/or other passges.
I clicked this off when you just had to toss in a political reference into introduction.
Take mark ward to daniel 9 verse 26.😅
The good thing is, that I know what my Bible says. Salvation is by grace threw grace alone. Then because we are saved we get baptised, take communion, pray, witness, attend a Bible teaching church, love your neighbor ect.
I didn't need to know all the stuff People said or Greek ect. For a topic about readability people sure try to make Salvation hard by arguing things no one needs to know to be saved or to read your King James Bible....Oh, the irony!
Acts 19:19
“Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver.”
I also burned my NIV, Jesus Calling Devotional, and all the other false teachers/teaching books I own before I was saved, and I absolutely knew nothing about the KJV issue. Curious Bible versions is putting it lightly. Made a nice fire too.
Ward is like a false believer in Christ
The same goes for his claims about being KJV only once!
NO Ward you never were!
It takes prayer, faith and an interpreter (Holy Spirit) to read KJV only to my young children. I was grieving inside when I heard its a sin. But because I know His Word is Quick (alive) and powerful. And perfect. (Thankyou Brandon on Truth Is Christ youtube channel) And that from the beginning Satan is hating on God's word ("yea hath God said"). The more confident I am that the KJV is the most important book to read to my children.
By the way, if all school children were taught the KJV this debate wouldn't be necessary.
I just wanted to add that I don't expect my children to understand everything immediately and it's like a stew cooked slowly over their lifetimes. The Lord will communicate to them at whatever stage they are at. It is amazing what bits they pick up and the questions they ask.
Take mark ward to hebrews 3 verse 16.😅
Mark makes a lot of sense but his solution isn’t good since he thinks the new king james is just as good as the kjv. His false friends argument is very compelling. The solution is to modernize the kjv whenever it is needed but to think any other version as of 2024 is better or just as good is ridiculous
Leave the word mansion alone.. think about this heaven has streets of gold. Don't you think a place with streets of gold would have a house that we consider a mansion?
"Is the King James Bible readable?" is an incredibly silly question only a supposed scholar without real-world experience using the Bible would ask. Little children, drunks, druggies, men and women old and young can understand the King James Bible without an issue. Any issues of misunderstanding certain words is solved by a dictionary and this "problem" is present in all versions (or *any book* for that matter).
"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them."
“Without an issue”. Brother… what does “excess” mean in Eph. 5:18? How about “study” in 1 Thess. 4:11?
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever "excess" as in too much. The excess is in the wine. Which is why you shouldn't drink any Prov 20:1. Any amount is excess.
"Study" Learn to be quiet. Study it out. Look at your life and see how you can be quiet when you are not.
These are very simple and easy examples one can come to by reading and believing the text.
But even if they weren't, and you could give me examples where some outside study is required (there are, you have not given any), that wouldn't be a problem. The Anti-KJVO crowd only applies this arbitrary standard to the KJB when it can be applied to any version. There's no Bible ever written where everyone understands every phrase or word. And they're shouldn't be. You should be be a student of the word of God who is willing to learn when there is something you don't understand.
But my point, which you have not addressed, is the fact that people of all walks of life including little children who are native English speakers read the King James Bible and understand it without an issue. "Without an issue" in the sense that you would apply to any book as I originally explained. And as I said before, the language of the King James Bible being difficult to understand is only a problem that people who have no practical experience and spend their time "ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth".
You're not going to convince a group of people who use the King James Bible that it is a problem for the average speaker to understand or that is unreadable for modern English speakers when we literally have seen it been read and understood by said people our entire lives. A ridiculous and silly question indeed.
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever
Excess as in too much which the verse says is in the wine. Any amount of wine is therefore in "excess".
Study as in...study. Contextually, look at your life and study how you can be quiet when you are not.
You have not addressed my overall point from my original comment, which was to say that you can read it without an issue and if an issue does arise you can look up the word. Which is true of any version of the Bible ever written in any language.
@@hermonymusofsparta YOU JUST PROVED WARDS POINT. You just read the KJV with an issue… a big issue… brother you don’t understand what excess means in the KJV nor what study means in KJV, I say with love and care, both of your definitions are completely wrong according the KJV English and what God intended through Paul and the KJV translators in these 2 passages.
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever
Okay, I'll concede firstly for the sake of argument you're right and I was wrong about those definitions. Why is that a problem when in said event I can look up the definition? As I would in any version of the Bible or any other book for that matter? Again, you are not addressing the original point at all.
Secondly, making a statement is not evidence or an argument. So If I am wrong, that excess doesn't mean excess and study doesn't mean study, then you're going to have to "prove all things" as the Bible says.
Using multiple versions is adultery.
It is impossible to please God without faith.
When you take what is Spirit and Life, and change it, it is no longer the same spirit.
They seek councel, but not of me. and they cover with a covering, but not of my spirit.
Were the KJV translators themselves adulterers, then? Were their Catholic opponents correct to point out that English Protestants were using more than translation? Should the translators not have defended the existence of those earlier translations?
The problem with modern translations is using accurate words and removing verses.
@stevenvalett1231 That's what I love about the NKJV. Isn't being updated constantly, all the verses are there, the meaning is easier for me to understand, and as an added bonus if I want to know what the Critical and Majority texts say, those are in the textual notes. It works really well when paired with the KJV, because frankly, I like the way the KJV phrases things, especially in poetic and prophetic portions.
Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.
The words of the Lord are spiritual words and Pastor Ward blasphemed against that which the Lord magnified above all his name.
People were stoned to death that blasphemed the name of the LORD; how much more so against that which the LORD magnified above all his name!
Woe to Pastor Mark Ward who blasphemed against the Holy Ghost, and to Pastor Dan Haifley who was less than lukewarm to rebuke the sinful man!
Mark Ward declared giving the book of the LORD'S holy scriptures to children is a sin!
This man, Pastor Dr. Mark Ward, by his own words blasphemed against the Holy Ghost!
John 6:63
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Mark 3:
28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:
29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:
30 Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.
Psalm 138:2
I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
Leviticus 24:
15 And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin. 16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.
Job 34:
3 For the ear trieth words, as the mouth tasteth meat.
4 Let us choose to us judgment: let us know among ourselves what is good.
Matthew 12:
31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.
34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. 35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
The KJV is indeed harder to understand than any other versions being translated word for word literally from the original language. The KJV is the best translation being the nearest accurate translation from the original. Other Versions used the thought pattern resulting to interpretation rather than translation for the sake of easy reading. Well, the beginners love it, but I hate somebody will interpret the bible for me because most interpretations are erroneous missing a great amount of truth. It takes a harder task to read and understand the KJV, but one can be assured that one is reading the purer or unadulterated words of God.
KJB is PROPHESIED.
Zephaniah 3:9 ...a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD and to serve him with one consent.
Psalms 12:6 The words of the LORD are PURE WORDS, as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified SEVEN TIMES.
The word came to us in (1) Hebrew (2) Greek (3) Aramaic (4) Old Syriac translation (5) Latin translation (6) German reformation translation and (7) ENGLISH translation.
In English (1) W. Tyndale Bible (2) Matthew Bible (3) Coverdale Bible (4) Great Bible (5) Bishops Bible (6) Geneva Bible and (7) Authorized 1611 KJV.
Thou shalt keep them O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this Generation forever.
There is only ONE GOD, and it is not Jesus.
Our God is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ
Deuteronomy 6:4
Ephesians 4:4-6
ideas like these above, they don’t even need to be refuted, just everyone… please read the above comment over & over and see. That’s a refutation enough!
May the triune God lead you to faith in Himself!
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever Is Jesus your God?
Would you go as far as to say that I am deceived and I will die in my sins because I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God whom God sent?
Jesus Christ IS NOT MY GOD.
By your standards, am I going to hell?
My God is the All Powerful, Sovereign, SELF EXISTENT, Supreme Ruler and CREATOR of heaven and earth and everything in them, which Begat Jesus Christ, anointed Jesus Christ, and Gave Jesus Christ all power and authority. He is the God and Father of my Lord Jesus Christ.
A true follower of Jesus Christ would read John 20:17 and clearly understand that Jesus Christ is telling us that his Father is our God.
A trinitarian says that Jesus is God.
Would you say I am deceived for believing in the record that God gave of his Son?
Am I believeing in the wrong Jesus because I believe in Jesus Christ the Son of the living God and not God the Son?
Is that what your saying?
Lets have this discussion. Give yourself opportunity to give Your God glory and speak the truth about it.
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever Explain the triune God.
Do you pray to Jesus?
Do you pray to the Holy Spirit?
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever Who is your God? There is only one God not 3. Which one is it? or do you say that the bible isnt clear and that Jesus was lying to us when he told us His Father is God?
Who is the God of Jesus that he is referring to in Revelation 3:12?
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever Your triune God is a false god. A strange god.
There is only one God, the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ.
There is no man created in the image of God who is his own father.
There is no man created in Gods image who is his own son. That would be strange.
But yet, the triune God is his own son and his own father and they are equal with eachother...right?
"I and my Father are one "? If we two were in the body of Christ, we would be one as well.
John 17:21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
So we would be one in them too. Are we God? Are we Jesus ? Can we be?
The Father is the Father and the Son is the Son. The Father is the Lord GOD and Jesus Christ is Lord because God gave him all power and authority.