Major KJV-Only Institution (Sort of) Responds to Me
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 лют 2023
- I'm so desperate for engagement from IFB KJV-Only schools on the matter of readability that I'll take the tiny scraps I'm thrown under the table! But five years after my book came out, this is all the engagement I'm getting from these particular brothers with my ideas-which, if you know my channel, are not my ideas, but the ideas of mentors of mine and of Noah Webster. What are we supposed to DO when fellow Christians we love, who share a ton of precious articles of faith with us, refuse to listen to what sure seems to be the truth? After I respond a bit to Alton Beal, I raise that question: how can we move forward?
🎁 Help me end Bible translation tribalism, one plow boy at a time:
✅ / mlward
✅ buymeacoffee.com/mlward
📖 Check out my book, Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible:
amzn.to/2r27Boz
🎥 Watch my Fifty False Friends in the KJV series:
• 50 False Friends in th...
👏 Many, many thanks to the Patreon supporters who make my work possible!
Name, James Duly, Robert Gifford, Lanny M Faulkner, Lucas Key, Dave Thawley, William McAuliff, Razgriz, James Goering, Eric Couture, Martyn Chamberlin, Edward Woods, Thomas Balzamo, Brent M Zenthoefer, Tyler Rolfe, Ruth Lammert, Gregory Nelson Chase, Ron Arduser, Caleb Farris, Dale Buchanan, Jess English, Aaron Spence, Orlando Vergel Jr., John Day, Joshua Bennett, K.Q.E.D., Brent Karding, Kofi Adu-Boahen, Steve McDowell, Kimberly Miller, A.A., James Allman, Steven McDougal, Henry Jordan, Nathan Howard, Rich Weatherly, Joshua Witt, Wade Huber, M.L., Brittany Fisher, Tim Gresham, Lucas Shannon, Easy_Peasy , Caleb Richardson, Jeremy Steinhart, Steve Groom, jac, Todd Bryant, Corey Henley, Jason Sykes, Larry Castle, Luke Burgess, Joel, Joshua Bolch, Kevin Moses, Tyler Harrison, Bryon Self, Angela Ruckman, Nathan N, Gen_Lee_Accepted , Bryan Wilson, David Peterson, Eric Mossman, Jeremiah Mays, Caleb Dugan, Donna Ward, DavidJamie Saxon, Omar Schrock, Philip Morgan, Brad Dixon, James D Leeper, M.A., Nate Patterson, Dennis Kendall, Michelle Lewis, Lewis Kiger, Dustin Burlet, Michael Butera, Reid Ferguson, Josiah R. Dennis, Miguel Lopez, CRB, D.R., Dean C Brown, Kalah Gonzalez, MICHAEL L DUNAVANT, Jonathon Clemens, Travis Manhart, Jess Mainous, Brownfell, Leah Uerkwitz, Joshua Barzon, Benjamin Randolph, Andrew Engelhart, Mark Sarhan, Rachel Schoenberger
I was disowned by my half-brother because I read a non KJV Bible. He sent me an email demanding I repent for my sin. Otherwise I was going to loose my salvation. When I tried to respond with compassion, he attacked me even harder. I have not communicated with him since Years later, I sent his wife (who I was a FB friend) some pictures I had from his childhood. She sent me a very sweet thank you message. He was still mad at me. I didn't send those photos to get back in his good graces. I sent them because it was the right thing to do. It is sad how much division has occurred over people's stand on Bible translations.
I don't think Brother Beal would defend your half-brother's actions. I don't want to pin those actions on him. But it's up to Beal to push back against people who would act like that. I think he does so in various ways.
In any case, this is a big reason why I do what I do. Those who sow discord among brothers are objects of God's hatred, according to Proverbs. =(
🙁
I lost a great friend over it... he is a ruckmanite though
Very sad 🙁
Is your half- brother IFB? I haven't come across many IFB who believe salvation can be lost and they almost universally hold to eternal security as I do too although not IFB and more moderately non-denom. fundamental. There are some pentecostal groups, especially of the Oneness or Jesus Only variety who can be as rigidly KJV Only as the IFB but they believe that salvation can be lost. Anyhow, a sad state of affairs that this issue has resulted in you being shunned by him and a totally overboard reaction. Preferring the KJV is one thing, being KJV Only and making it a major dividing line is something very different. Much blessing and may God give him the Grace that the rift may be healed.
I have dropped out of the KJV Debate for quite some time now. It is too frustrating for me.
So why do I listen to so many of your talk? It’s because I am learning so much about the bible. Every time I see your video my understanding of how it fits in the world is challenged and edified.
Thank you
You nailed it: my goal is not just to push back against an error but to promote some important truths.
Wow! This is the most exposure I’ve ever heard from an established KJVO College on your work. I’m hoping more colleges such as West Coast, Heartland, Hyles-Anderson, Fairhaven, and others begin to publicly address the recent movements in the debate.
One ironic thing I noticed when Beal referenced the translators of the KJV is that for YEARS all I heard about the translators was that they were the “smartest” and “godliest” men who God moved to make “the absolute perfect choices” in their translation.
But ever since I wrote my book (literally, I can trace this as the inception point), KJVO defenders gaslight those who were taught to revere the translators. Now, KJVO defenders are even subtly vilifying the translators!
This is alternate proof of confirmation bias. Now to prove their bias, they are willing to revise previous points they used to PROVE their point. This is getting really interesting. We live in some interesting times.
I remember hearing Steven Anderson, one of the loudest KJVOnlyists there is, call the KJV translators stupid for putting words in italics after years of saying they were the brightest and smartest men of their time. After that I couldn’t take his KJV only arguments seriously anymore.
You know this better than anyone, but when we point to the preface, it's not to say that what they wrote there was inspired. Instead, we're merely pointing out that it is inconsistent to criticize modern translators for holding convictions that also underlie the actual translation work behind their favorite translation. If those convictions poison the quality of your work, as they imply, then it would take some external influence overriding those tendencies to produce an untainted translation. I can't see how some form of double inspiration does not logically follow, though many claiming to be in the TR camp would deny this.
TL;DR: We agree that the preface isn't inspired, but we believe that in it the translators were being honest and correct in stating that none of _their_ contributions to the KJV (i.e., the textual and translation decisions) were inspired or, therefore, infallible, either.
@@socksthemusicalcat exactly. Regardless how you cut the cake, the preface to the KJV gives invaluable insight on HOW the translators chose to do their work.
@@joshuabarzon1112 They love talking up "how the sausage was made" until they are reminded that the old editions actually included the "recipe," and it doesn't sound all that consistent with what they're saying.
Excellent comments, guys. Socksmusicalcat, that’s brilliantly put.
Would be interesting to see you put together a video on the various KJV editions and revision attempts over the past 200 years.
✔
I've been curious about this topic myself; it's astounding how many people have "updated" or "revised" the KJV over the years. It's a little sad, too, because many seem to be reaching for similar goals, but their versions just never took off for one reason or another.
@@MM-jf1me And then KJV-Onlyists use this failure as proof of the KJV's superiority. It may indeed be superior to the great majority of these attempted revisions (I tend to think it is!), but I don't think that's the reason the KJV still has cachet they don't. I don't think trust works that way.
@@markwardonwords I had no idea that has been an argument for the KJV's superiority! That seems very silly, especially if one counts all the great translations we have in the "KJV translation family".
Your poise and tact continue to impress me my friend - it is not always easy to know how to disagree agreeably while also remaining faithful to the truth - I view you as an exemplar Mark - thank you once again for another stimulating and informative video
Thank you, Dustin! That means a lot coming from you! You do the same thing, my good friend.
*Edit*
I posted this carelessly, I do not mean to spread divisiveness among the body. Please read the reply to this comment to see Mark Ward effectively put me in my place, lol
***
This is currently on the Wikipedia page for the MEV:
"In Isaiah 58:8 they change the KJV's "rereward (pronounced rear-ward)," which is often modernised as "rear guard," into "reward," revealing that the 47 translators totally misunderstood the correct meaning of the archaic rereward, and also that they really didn't do real checks and balances like the men in 1611. The '47 translators' sales pitch is merely to create a false association with the KJV so that people would assume that it went through the same cross checking filtration processes the 1611 did, which was at least 14 times according to Bancroft's translation rules. I doubt it even went through two cross checks in this verse. It is clearly an error and reveals their incompetence. It appears that they just saw the KJV's rereward and assumed it was reward not even checking the NKJV. It also reveals that they didn't go into the Hebrew at all."
If one error reveals incompetence, then the KJV translators were incompetent. But one error does not reveal incompetence, as the KJV translators themselves clearly say in their preface. Look up their "warts" analogy.
@@markwardonwords Thank you for the reply. I should have been more clear, I am not promoting the views that I am quoting from the wikipedia page, I'm not entirely sure what I was doing, perhaps gossiping?
Whatever my motives, despite my careless spreading of unhelpful and divisive arguments, your reply is helpful so I will keep the post up. Please, forgive me. I should have been more careful before posting something like this publicly.
@@charlesmcbeath5624 I appreciate this! All is forgiven!
Mark, thank you for sharing this video. You made a lot of great points in this video, especially with your emphasis on humility (which is something I find difficult in heated debates, especially in translation tribalism). It is often tempting to exhibit overconfidence in subject matters that we are not well acquainted with; as one who studies theology and textual criticism as a hobby, I have to remind myself that I haven't done a lot of the difficult work that separates amateurs like me from professionals such as yourself. The saying "a little learning is a dangerous thing" certainly applies here. We start on our journey of learning and understanding and think we have come so far, not knowing that the destination is far off in the distance.
I also found it intersting that you mentioned Augustine; Augustine is a favorite author of mine, and I have read about half a dozen of his books, including Confessions and The City of God. His books are well worth the time spent reading them.
I myself am somewhere between amateur and pro on NT textual criticism. I try to stay in my lane, making only claims I have done the study to back up. But it's hard to make yourself continually stay aware of what you don't know and therefore shouldn't speak to. That's why I gathered Elijah Hixson and Peter Montoro into the Textual Confidence Collective. They know their TC stuff!
@@markwardonwords I have watched the Textual Confidence Collective videos on your channel and I found them to be a great help in adding to my understanding of the issues involved. Elijah and Peter certainly opened my eyes to much that I had not known before regarding ancient NT manuscripts, and I learned quite a bit from Tim Berg regarding the history of the TR and the KJV. Thank you for having those discussions and sharing them on your channel.
Excellent video brother. You mentioned that many critical text translations omit the word "yet" in Jn.7:8, but I noticed that not all of them do. For example, the NASB 77 and 95 leave it out, but the LSB has it, and not in brackets. The 78 and 84 NIV both include it, but the 2011 omits it, as well as the ESV. The Catholic Douay Rheims version also omits it, and it's older than the KJV. I guess that we will always have to deal with certain inconsistencies regardless of what translation we use. But that still doesn't make them bad translations according to the KJV translators themselves.
IMO, the meaning of the verse was exactly the same with or without the word "yet," because Jesus clarified why he wasn't going. The implication was that if his time came while the feast was still going, he would go. So I could see an argument for inserting the word "yet" into the verse in an English translation even in a hypothetical alternate universe where no Greek manuscript in existence included it, as that is the implication.
You have 44,000 changes between the NASB77 and NASB95, how many of those changes do you agree with? Which one is MORE correct?
It was this exact question 25 years ago in a Baptist church that used the NASB that put me on the path to being KJVO.
@@casey1167 Most of those changes are just spellings of words or archaic words being replaced with words that mean the same thing. The 1611 KJV was the same way, lots of differently spelled words.
@@curtthegamer934 When I reviewed the changes 25 years ago, I thought it was more than updated words, but for sake of argument, let's say you are correct. But one is better than the other, because they are not equal, they have different words at least. Should a pastor or teacher recommend what they feel is the best, or tell you they are all the same?
@@casey1167 Was the Bible originally written in English? Yes or no? As a hypothetical, if one English translation said "a big box" and the other said "a large box," does it matter which reading is to be preferred? Yes or no? Why or why not?
Wonderful video brother Mark! Thank you for your humility in your approach in all of your videos; I come away from them feeling edified and my faith strengthened in the Word of God. So again, thank you! And for what it is worth, you have my vote on an updated version of the KJV based on the TR in more modern english - I long for such a version.
Then pray for it to come! Thank you for this!
Thank you bro. Ward for your blessed insights and wisdom. Who saved us from damnation? The bible translation?Or Jesus Christ crucified?
✔
Hi Mark. I want to commend you on your very gracious approach to this issue and always trying to present both sides in a balanced way. I looked into the translation issue years ago and sided on the kjv side because of many of the books you mention on that side of the argument. I am now revisiting the issue to see what is new. While I have not changed my mind so far I do agree with you that there should be no place for slander, especially when coming at this from the angle of correcting a brother. I have noticed that in the KJV camp one of the things that is almost universal in their argumentation is presenting the other side as non believers or heretics. That makes it a lot easier for them to attack not just the arguments but the people making them. A very distasteful practice. I enjoy how you approach the topic so much that I am watching your videos with my son not only for the content of the arguments but for the way you present them. I told him your are an example of how we as believers should go about presenting an argument, always with grace and humility.
Totally agreed. Not all KJV defenders do this, of course, but it is very common. I do regard some major KJV extremists to be unbelievers or heretics, specifically Peter Ruckman. But not the mainstream.
Bro…I had no idea how deep the KJV-only issue runs…they have Bible colleges too 🤔
Many.
This is very good to hear. Brother Beal seems like a very since and godly man. I have to respect him and the way he approaches the issue. A large part of me desperately wants to agree with him. However, the words of the Ambassador grad that you read at the 36 minute mark get right to the heart of the issue. The most important thing I learned in King James Only circles was respect for the word of God and it was that very respect that ultimately led me out of King James Onlyism. I would love to see an update of the King James that does nothing more than update the language.
An update of just some words simply cannot happen at this point (which is something the NKJV translators found out) The issue with modern translations post 1947 is the Law.
1. As of 1947, 17 U.S.C. 103: "The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material."
1a. From legalzoom: "However, there have been numerous court cases interpreting the law, which complicate things and render this definition incomplete. There must be major or substantial new material for a work to be considered copyrightable as a derivative work. The new material must be sufficiently original and creative to be copyrightable by itself."
2. Based on a review of the top ten modern Bible versions, there is not a single chapter in the Bible were there is not a change of meaning, or "contributed authorship," based on decisions of translation or underlying choice of text. The changes cannot be explained based on new information or advancements in scholarship because many of the same experts work on numerous translations in the last decade.
3. Because the "preexisting material" at this point is voluminous based on the number of translations in existence today, new "material contributed" by the organization seeking a copyright based on "Formva" has to by default make changes which impact the meaning of passages of scripture which have little or incorrect textural basis.
4. Although it can be argued "no doctrine is impacted" by the changes being made, just one glance at a Thomson Chain Reference Bible tell us the Bible is interwoven to a point where a change here does impact other scriptures. "As it is written" or a variation of this, appears in the Bible over 50 times. The vast majority of the New Testament is quoting or referencing the Old Testament, either in the Gospels, Paul's writings or Words of Christ. Therefore, we cannot accept a modern translation of the Bible under US Copyright post 1947 because the changes in translations are based in part not to "godly scholarship" but on the requirement to legally apply for copyright under US Copyright law which is a perversion of the Bible.
So, you are not getting your KJV with a couple hundred updated words.... can't get a copyright.
@@casey1167 I suspect that if institutions like Ambassador Baptist College would support it, they could produce such an update and just not copyright it.
@@nerdyyouthpastor8368 And from a practical standpoint, who would use it? Now my text does not match my study guides, study Bibles, replace all the pew Bibles. Which one to memorize out of? How are we doing congregational readings of the Bible? How is making the decision on which word to use and which words are actually archaic????
I can print out the fourteen page word list from Trinitary Bible Society cropped to fit in my Bible and I am done. Regardless of ability to do so, change of the KJV it is just not practical.
@@casey1167 How many people do you know who actually use TBS's list? Of those people how many use it to look up words they don't realize they are misunderstanding? Would you tell you some who uses a KJVER to "go get a real Bible"?
@@nerdyyouthpastor8368 Frankly, if someone had a NASB1995, NASB1977, NKJV, KJVER, KJV2000, I would not say anything except I feel the KJV is correct when there is disagreement. I have never told anyone to get rid of any version, just that the KJV is the correct translation of the correct manuscripts.
My six year olds memorize out of the KJV, and I explain words, just as my parents did.
In practicality, I am in the greater Seattle area, any church that is not KJV I would probably have little in common with from a doctrine and music standpoint. When is the last time you were in a church service and the pastor had you turn to twenty passages, and two of those passages everyone read aloud out of their own Bibles? That is what I am used to.
Another great video, brother Mark! Dr. Beal's differentiation between the two ditches of ignorance and academia is helpful. That middle road is having the humility to acknowledge that those who hold to the authority and inerrancy of Scripture have legitimate differences in their interpretation of various parts of Scripture. It is holding our interpretations with confidence rather than absolutism. It is the attitude of saying, as you've said before, "I want to submit, not only to what is clear in Scripture, but to what is unclear."
Right!
Been a KJVO in the past (nothing to do with ABC. Mine was PCBBC now known as Heartland Baptist Bible College. we were located in San Dimas, CA and believe it or not, became a Calvinist there...not because of the school though how I saw some people treat some Calvinists did affect me in a negative way. Though I knew I disagreed with them, was always impressed with their love for the scriptures, sound doctrine, and overall seemed kind...did not meet too many Cage Stage Calvinists nor never became one myself. Sorry for the long parenthetical statement). I have been loving the MEV but right now switching to the LSB. I really like it as a translation.
This and your review of the KJVRC conference are your greatest UA-cam work. I may find disagreement with you on some things, but your genuine & kind spirit in these two videos and seemingly real offer to come alongside in a translative work are appreciated by myself, for one.
Thank you for this. Progress is being made on a number of fronts.
This was excellent. Thank you!
Glad it was helpful!
I have read several books by someone named David W. Daniels , and I listened to so many of his arguments, that it started to sound like the devil was personally being channeled by Wescott and Hort and the modern Bible translators. I don’t know if you're up on his arguments, but they're EXTREMELY inflammatory. It would be great if you could address the errors from this fellow. Oh, and I am really enjoying the NKJV, but would love to see the kind of update to the KJV you're mentioning here!
I was just thinking about grabbing a book of his that looks like it’s focused on KJV readability.
I find it interesting that the kjvo crowd lifts the translators up to such a high degree (they were smart and used by God, I’m not saying they weren’t) yet they brush of their very own words in the preface like they don’t matter one iota, like the way they viewed their work doesn’t matter.
If I were a student at Ambassador, I'm afraid that what Brother Beal's warning would do to me is send me scurrying to that preface. =| And I wasn't an especially iconoclastic undergraduate student. But I think I'd be so curious! What is it that the KJV translators-whom we've always been told to revere-have said that makes Brother Beal warn us not to listen to them? The trouble is that the preface is difficult to understand, ironically. =|
@@markwardonwords that is true. I remember hearing your friend you mentioned who wrote the book about the preface, mentioning something about updating the language of the preface at some point
I'm interested in a set of books like gary f zeolla did so I can add or takeaway the deuteronical or apostolic fathers books I want the set to contain a concordance, companion and updated archeological evidence with maps and timelines I want it to be an analytical literal translation.
I want the lxx septuagint version because of the history behind it with the new testament from the byzantine manuscript.
You could roll out book by book and I'll buy do you have and I'm willing to donate through PayPal month by month for this set
I would also like the set to includ e a seperate book of the third testament the spirit of truth Im in the process of accepting this book and want it in the set so I can add it if I see fit.
Awesome video! Keep up the good work.
Pray for me!
There is just so much in this video that is good and that I appreciated that I wouldn’t know where to begin. I’ll just say thank you for the whole thing!
✔
I wonder how the KJV only version answer the question of translations that are in other languages. I’m from Malaysia and many in the rural places don’t read English. How would they do missions to other nations if they only translation they hold to is the KJV? Well those are just my musings.
Ambassador would say, I believe, that as long as the translation uses the right texts and is done carefully, it's good.
They just don't apply that standard to English.
There actually are KJV-Onlyists on the more extreme side that say that you have to learn English to have the true Bible. A lot of Ruckmanites take that stance.
Amen Brother. Very good point. Thank you for the reminder on this.
✔
Oh man. The Pastor at the IFB church i was attending went to Ambassador, he is really pressuring all the teens in the youth group to forget a classic education and go to Ambassador. He even did a road trip and drove some of them down there. I left that church recently. They were really pushing the girls to wear long skirts, and the preaching was just spiritually abusive. The Pastor could be nice but every Sunday message was about how you are failing God on every level there is, he never preaches God's grace and mercy. I felt like it was becoming very legalistic, like a Duggar church. I was finding any excuse I could towards the end to miss church on Sundays, because I knew the message would be an absolute beat down and demand for all the people not living up to his standards to come up to Altar and repent (rarely did I ever see one person go up, they were terrified of being judged worse by the Pastor) I had to hide my NASB bible when I went to services b/c they are so kjv only. I am now in a reformed Baptist church and we use the NASB. I have tremendous peace, love the Pastor and Elders, joined a women's Bible study and taking their membership classes now. I still feel spiritual PTSD from my time in IFB. I really appreciate your messages that you share on UA-cam. Please keep up the great work.
I understand this. And I'm glad you're not there anymore. Think, though, of what Jesus said to the seven churches: he found positives in churches that were far, far more messed up than this. I'd suggest you work to do the same-while being grateful to God that you an read your NASB and hear the doctrines of grace!
King James' English is indeed harder to read than Casiodoro de Reina's Spanish!
I'm obviously biased as a native Spanish speaker 😂 (I felt a little attacked by that comment)
But in all honesty, I would take a vernacular Bible in either language I speak, over KJV or RV Antigua.
I am 100% behind a KJV update, sir! In my research over the past 8 months, I have discovered the MEV and the KJVER for myself, and find both to be extremely useful. I have also homed in on the 21st Century/Third Millennium King James Bible, which appears to do what you seek to do, which is, bring a more up-to-date KJ to modern readers. It was published in 1994, so it could use a little language touch-up, I'm sure.
My suggestion would be, maybe contact the publisher, and either purchase the rights to that translation, or gain permission to publish another, updated edition, with simplified font styles and double columns (this version is printed single-paragraph, with various font sizes and types, which to me detracts from its appeal as a preaching or teaching Bible).
On a personal note, I have been trying SO hard to find a modern translation that is appealing to me. Many come very close. Shaking off Ruckmanism really is a hard thing to do, as you say! I plan to watch your vid on that subject next.
God bless, and keep up the good work!
Nice! Thanks for the comment. I have access to and connections with multiple possible KJV updates. The real question is how to make one that is both trustworthy (which would not be too hard) and *trusted,* which means (I think) getting buy-in from KJV-Only institutions. That's the difficult part.
@@markwardonwords Yes indeed. The Trusted part is definitely difficult the way things are today.
Great job, once again. Thank you, Mark.
So thankful to have found your channel. Praying for you brother.
I appreciate that. I need that!
3:30 sounds like a Webster bible update
Yes!! I would love to see a good update of some of the language of the KJV. I have read in the past some different ones but they just didn't quite work for me: KJ2000, 21st century KJV, KJVer. All just seemed to fall a little short. Hope y'all can make that happen.
It's a very, very tall order. Worth some real prayer.
@G J of all the updates of the KJV, which one(s) came at least close to the goal you think would be ideal? I’d love to hear your thoughts on that!
You may have discussed this before, but in the KJV update you envision, what would set it apart from the NKJV and other KJV derivatives? Is the main thing participation, and thus hopefully buy-in, from TR advocates who are currently KJV-only, or would there be other differences?
The main thing would be buy-in. But I would also plan to assist those buying in to make as close to an English-only update as possible. And to describe in detailed footnotes why it was difficult in some places.
@@markwardonwords The Berean Standard Bible has released an online Majority Text version. Both versions have great textual variant footnotes. Maybe they could do a TR edition as well. They already have pretty much all the text, and the BSB is an excellent translation.
In contrast to the IFB, the problem with the Confessional Bibliology group is that, while they take the position that the TR = the autographs (a bridge too far in my view) and vehemently deny being KJV only, in practice they are just that and reject any other TR-based translations. I think their issue with the NKJV is that it dares (gasp!) to include footnotes documenting variants with other textual traditions.
I do know a few CB guys who use the NKJV. But, yes, it's a tiny percentage.
@@markwardonwords Prominent Confessional Bibliologist Jeff Riddle released a book "Why I Preach from the Received Text", which turned out to be pro KJV vs. TR and, sadly, even referred to other translations as "Satan's Bible". Seems like there was just a pinch of Ruckmanism there, though they would doubtless deny it.
@@sbs8331 Yes, I've heard of that book! byfaithweunderstand.com/2022/07/24/review-why-i-preach-from-the-received-text/
;)
And: ua-cam.com/video/zYWoLlf7-y8/v-deo.html
And: ua-cam.com/video/pos_4N4pDbA/v-deo.html
You can actually buy official copies of the NKJV that don't include footnotes. My childhood Bible was an NKJV with no footnotes. I always point this out when people use the footnotes as a point against the NKJV. It's an invalid argument as the publishers have provided a way around it for those that don't like footnotes.
Check out Standing for Truth and we can hook you up with a debate or discussion on any KJV issue you want to talk about. If you want to engage we can get you an engagement with a KJV proponent. The debates discussions are always friendly and respectful. Check it out and contact Donny.
So far, only two KJV-Onlyists have engaged in any level of detail, publicly, with my thought. That would be Christopher Yetzer and Bryan Ross. I have real respect for both men. A tiny few more have engaged privately. I have no confidence that a public debate would suddenly cause any of these brothers to really listen. The one person I'd like to talk to publicly at some point, and he agrees, is Joe Shakour. But we're busy working on our agreements right now and don't see a need to talk so much about our disagreements. The time for that could come. There's some significant mutual trust and brotherly love there that would permit the conversation to be God-honoring.
Ok. Brother Shakour is a wonderful man. There are great people on both sides of the issue that could discuss the subject and differences and be Christ honoring. Brother Donnie as a moderator holds both participants to be kind in the discussion or debate. Anyway, keep Standing for Truth in mind. Most of the debaters have content online you can check out before the debate. It's fun and people always learn a lot.
@AV1611 I agree. But what I said remains true: I can't think of anyone besides Ross and Yetzer who have listened hard enough-and shown a penchant for public response-to make debate worth my while. You know, Robert Vaughan is another who might count. We've had some good private discussion. But I don't want to debate textual criticism; I won't do it with anyone who insists on the exclusive use of the KJV. And that's all they want to-and can, in my experience-talk about. Very, very few KJV defenders have shown an ability to talk about translation and not text. If I debated someone who hasn't listened to and understood what I've been saying, we'd spend the whole "debate" talking past one another; we'd get nowhere. And, frankly, I'd look like a fool for engaging with someone who doesn't actually grasp what I'm saying.
LoL, yes they know about you Mark Ward.
The Ruckmanites actually have your picture on their wall. 😁😁
Your patience is extraordinary.
Pray for me!
Is KJV onlyism primarily a Baptist phenomenon? I’ve known a few Reformed and Presbyterian pastors who had a preference for the TR and KJV but I’ve never seen Onlyism.
Yes, primarily. But there is a small but (I think?) growing number of Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians that have almost exactly the same viewpoint as mainstream, IFB KJV-Onlyism.
It’s not about the old words as real as that might be. That can be learned. It’s a translation period and that is what the KJV translators made clear. Most Cults and sects use KJV so it does not prevent false teaching.
I think that many of the old words can be learned by most people. I don't think most of the old words can be learned by most people. There are too many of them. I haven't learned all the old words.
But your second point I agree with! Absolutely! And it's a good one.
See, Mark, its statements like this that make it sound like more than 5% just saying…
@@brandenlawrence Braden, I can tell you're a sharp guy. This is not empty flattery. I hope you'll continue commenting on my videos, truly.
I sincerely believe that my reply above is perfectly consistent with my belief that only perhaps 5% of the KJV is archaic (in any way that should concern us). The Bible is a big book, and 5% of its wording is a lot of different words. I think there are too many false friends to keep track of.
What do you think of the KJ21 version? Thank you
I haven't been able to spend time with it; I simply do not know!
@@markwardonwords Thank you and God bless you. Happy Easter!
I think the misrepresentation on readability is more subtle at 6:35. There's a hint of 'if you don't use the KJV, you have no basis for determining reliability' and of course the implication here is that you have no justification for rejecting translations such as the NWT or the TPT. Some have taken this logical conclusion from this sort of argument, but it's a misrepresentation.
Readability v reliability: - even if someone trusts a particular version of the TR implicitly, if the translation of it is so old it has words that no longer mean what they used to (even if they hold that the translation was originally perfect) it is NOT reliable now - it is occasionally misleading in places and why would anyone want to promote it as being currently optimum?
It's like they are saying that readability and reliability are mutually exclusive.
Right! I feel like that is the simplest, see-through argument-unworthy of Brother Beal! He wants a good position and a good disposition! Great! Why not a reliable text and a readable translation of it?
You said what I was thinking: 5:47
Funny-because I also said what I was thinking! ;)
The KJV will always be a beautiful expression of the Scriptures and a remarkable, scholarly work of its time. For some, it may be the best translation and I would not dare suggest to them that they are wrong for their use of it. But how does one present a new Christian today with a Bible written in an obsolete language and hope he falls in love with God's Word? How can we ignore the reality that the original text was written in the common language of the people so that it could be understood and taught, and insist today that our only connection with the Scriptures must be a text which is alien to its intended audience?
Would the project to revise the KJV need any help from lay people? I will gladly dedicate large portions of my free time, but I don't have a degree in anything, just a love for God and a desire to handle his word with care.
Thank you for this! I do not know yet. I do not know what shape this will take, if any. Many others have tried.
Thank you, Brother Mark 🌹🌹🌾🌹🌹
St. Augustine certainly did believe the Scriptures are inerrant. You find this throughout the fathers. You find none who attribute real errors to Scripture.
Yes, indeed. I think-as I recall-that I made further points about Augustine’s view of tradition that were the things my Catholic readers raised issues with.
If you do an update to the AV please do as the NIV did and ensure the words and grammar are natural across English speaking countries and not just in the American form as we have current words with have developed different meanings internationally in English just as we have words which have changed meaning over time. And obviously use the correct British spellings!
Does a KJV update really need to be done when we already have the NKJV etc.?
Further explanation: I moved away from the KJV a long time ago but still have a deep love for the TR. Prefer it actually. We use the NKJV for preaching and teaching in our church. However, I would certainly entertain the idea of an updated KJV, but, unless it had a major publisher behind it, I’m not sure it would be broadly accepted.
It doesn't really need to be done to create a trustworthy TR-based translation. The NKJV already is that. But it does need to be done to create a *trusted* TR-based translation. The disinformation and discrediting campaign against the NKJV from the KJV-Only crowd has succeeded marvelously. They will never trust it.
@@markwardonwords what is really needed is a modern update from someone like Joe Shakour or someone else who is solidly TR-only and functionally KJVO.
Of course, anyone who is really Ruckmanite will reject it, but it would be something that at least some might adopt.
NKJV is not an update of language only it is very different in many verses from the KJV.
@@dwashington1333 as someone who uses the NKJV everyday, and knows someone who helped on the translation itself. Your wrong. It is not in fact “very different” in many places from the KJV. Just because a translation may use a different word/words, doesn’t make it “very different.”
I would compare the AV/KJV to Shakespeare rather than Spanish!
I would, too. I think it's easier than Shakespeare for a number of reasons. But I also think that both suffer from false friends, as John McWhorter and others have shown.
Funny enough, I've had some KJV-Onlyists pull the Shakespeare card on me by asking me "Do you read Shakespeare in modern English?" They think they have me backed into a corner, but are in for a shock when I simply honestly say "Yes, I do."
Some KJVO types actually try to convince people that the NKJV isn't based on the same Vorlage as the KJV, the preface and the reality notwithstanding. Some who claim to be TR-only will savage the NKJV in ways that show the TR stance is a mere cloak for KJVO, e.g., Trinitarian Bible Society.
When I did, 10-15 years ago, a translation of the New Testament, I intentionally used a similar "blend" of texts to the KJV. (But due to my limitations I worked from Latin rather than Greek.) I was hoping I could create a viable alternative for some KJVO types. I eventually concluded that my project was an abject failure and not even all that great a translation.
Yes, the rejection of the NKJV remains the greatest testimony against the KJVO movement. You have to move from "the correct texts" to "the correct people translating the texts," and then you have to explain how a bunch of Reformation-era Anglicans were more righteous by conservative Baptist standards than the 20th century fundamentalists behind the NKJV.
This is insightful, M.A. And it never ceases to amaze me how often simple untruths about the NKJV get peddled around, even by KJV defenders I generally regard as more responsible. I was genuinely shocked when Chuck Surrett at Ambassador said he had heard the NKJV was based on the same texts as the KJV but wasn't sure. And when Del Johnson placed a big stack of Bibles next to the PCC pulpit and just one (the KJV!) on the other, I almost jumped out of my chair: that wasn't true then, and it isn't true now!
If you aren’t saved if you don’t use the KJV, then most of South America, Africa, Asia and Europe aren’t saved!!! So RIDICULOUS!!
Onlyists would do well to put away the superstitious clinging to their translation and adopt the spirit of Christ. Thank you for your grace and patience and for another great video! 🙏🏼
Pray for them with me!
I am currently plodding through the KJV, having been through the ESV, NKJV, etc more than once.
Sometimes, a single false friend in a passage can warp your understanding of quite a bit that follows. And a single archaic word that you neglect to look up can leave you out on a limb - lost in a jungle of words without significant context.
Now, these issues can be alleviated with a good study Bible like Beeke's KJV Reformation Heritage Bible. But the average Joe and Jane, and the average youth or child usually starts with a low cost non-study Bible with minimal footnotes, if any.
Bible translations are supposed to be for the plow boy.
So, as you are plodding through the KJV, how are you handling changes of meaning between the KJV and ESV? Like Gen 3:16?
I hear a lot of people reading one translation, than another but I never follow how you can do so without coming to a hard stop on verses having completely different meanings, or a soft stop when verses really don't say the same thing.
👍🏽👍🏽👍🏽
Thank you, Hunter! Let's pray for our brothers at ABC!
The note you sang was actually pretty good 😂😂
Ha!
😁👍
Always enjoy your videos.
I appreciate that!
My daughter went to Camp Barnabas(at Ambassador) summer of 2021....while we were still at an IFB church. Interesting video:):) Thanks!!! Love and hugs from North Carolina!!
I'm certain there was good there at that camp, and that there will continue to be. The place is not Ichabod. It's just wrong on this thing!
You know, it’s odd for me to hear this perspective. Just a little history on me, I use the KJV, I don’t agree with the position of KJV only people as described in your videos, I’ve never attended a KJV only church, and I chose the KJV in my mid twenties after a very long and in depth search of which Bible was the best and most accurate. There were so many to choose from and coming out of atheism, I wondered why we needed so many if they all say the same thing. Anyway, I landed on the KJV, read it multiple times that year, and it changed my life. I knew for certain that it was true and that I could never stop believing after that. I was asked one evening to read the scripture for our Bible study, and to my surprise, I was then mocked and belittled for my KJV. Basically, the rest of the study was then an attempt to “convert” me from my Bible. I didn’t know what to say, I just sat and took it. That was my first but not the only experience I had with people that don’t use the KJV. Almost every single time someone hears me read it aloud or even sees it in my hand, they comment negatively about it. So I have experienced the exact opposite of what you describe in your videos. The division comes from the other side. I’m not saying you’re wrong or anything, just that both sides are at fault. It may not even be the same percentage wise but it does happen. I don’t care what Bible a person chooses to use, so why are they so intent on disparaging mine? Sometimes I even wish I could go to a KJV only church just to get away from the snide remarks of people who, on every occasion, treat me like I’m stupid and they’re smart and they probably haven’t even read their whole Bible once. It makes me want to hold on to the KJV even tighter,not let it go. I’ve grown irritable about people griping about the KJV and it hasn’t served me well in some situations, even comments to you on other videos. It’s just so tiring hearing this all the time when all I want to do is serve God. It really has been exhausting. I do enjoy your videos and I have learned about some things that will make me a better KJV reader, so I’m not complaining about your videos, just a different perspective. I hope I made sense.
Ambassador grad here. I can attest - Dr Beal is the real deal. Didn’t mean to rhyme so much but the man has a heart of gold.
I disagree with much of what I was taught and hope our brethren in Lattimore forsake unreasonable, unbiblical conclusions like KJVO-ism.
Yes, many of the people who take this problematic position are still decent people otherwise. KJVO is extreme by nature, but not everyone promoting it is an extremist.
I'm glad and yet not surprised to hear this. I'm hopeful for the future of Ambassador.
Is a group like this ok with something like the Cambridge New Paragraph version?
I’ve never heard them acknowledge its existence.
@@markwardonwords Par for the course, I suppose. It’s a fascinating, albeit tragic, mentality.
If the Cambridge New Paragraph Bible is the one I think it is, I'd assume no because 1 John 5:7 is placed in italics.
No. They complain that it reverted back to readings from 1611 that were "corrected" by later editions, they fuss about the addition of quotation marks and the removal of italics, and they take issue with some of Norton's spelling updates (which may alter the pronunciation).
@@curtthegamer934 That's the old Cambridge Paragraph Bible by Scrivener. They hate that one, too. Anything that departs too far from the Blayney revision must be the work of a "Bible corrector." (See also Webster's tame revision of the KJV and especially the very mild update offered in the New Scofield Reference Bible.)
A subset of them will argue over the modern Oxford text vs. the current Cambridge text (or even throw in an older Cambridge text from the early 1900s), but those differences don't stir up nearly as much ire as the paragraph Bibles.
When he said that “reading the KJV is like reading Spanish” this is hyperbolic and jesting speech. The point is that there does seem to be a palpable exaggeration as to the archaism of the KJV. At least he shows a great deal of “reasonableness” to acknowledge the existence of archaic words. Of the different videos that I have watched of yours (a good number at this point) this is the first time I have heard you give a statistic of 5% which I appreciate you finally saying. I personally feel it would be “reasonable” of you to mention that more often. The reason you receive this reaction is that your average video comes across as if every other word in the AV is archaic. We often paint pictures of ourselves based on what we say and also fail to say. And I would think you understand that not everyone has the time to watch every video you have made. I also have to say that It seemed condescending and assumptive to take a shot at his level of scholarship in being too busy to be familiar with “obscure Hebrew lexemes etc…” saying that an academic institution like Ambassador is closer to the ignorant ditch is frankly offensive and not representative of a good disposition. We will not assume that your educational background is ignorant and publicly declare it so and would appreciate you refraining from doing the same. I didn’t hear you quote him on downing education or seminaries. He has attended several postgraduate seminaries as have many ABC grads including myself. Not helpful speech my friend. An apology could be apropos if the Spirit moves you in such a manner. Coming from a brother who would like kind hearted debate that kind of down the nose talk doesn’t engender unity IMO. I appreciate the request to avoid ad hominem on our comments but that seemed a bit ad hominem to me. Back to the topic…The average reasonable TR guy isn’t saying that there couldn’t be another translation from the TR. We are saying that 5% doesn’t warrant the larger con in comparison to the very minor pro. Now if you think 5% of archaic words warrants a new translation, you of course are welcome to your opinion but (not sure why it still surprises you) many “reasonable” men disagree. The truth is that the few TR based versions don’t seek to simply update the 5%. They end up retranslating a lot more. You yourself give 5 things that go away with the KJV. I could list more and feel that those ought weigh the con of changing to a new TR English version. Especially when the extant TR versions may have a certain percentage of readings not preferred. If someone isn’t concerned by the 5% then don’t be surprised that they don’t feel it necessary to further engage. Your point on false friends for me is nothing revelatory. Any reasonable pastor who has been ministering with the KJV is aware of potential misunderstanding of words. It is why I took 5 years of Greek at Ambassador. To make sure that I convey an accurate understanding of the text when I preach and teach but I don’t believe that the average parishioner needs to take five years of Greek for 5% of the KJV when dictionaries and books on false friends clarify that very small number of words. And just because you are able to find 100 pastors who are unaware of some false friends or 2nd person pronouns isn’t really revelatory. We all understand that anyone who goes searching for ignorance can find it. On disposition, Bro. Beal’s point is simply that, in this debate there has been a lot of acidic behavior and speech through the years. So, running into someone who is gracious in their disposition does not mean that we should automatically assume that their position is correct. Is this not a point to agree on rather than debate? You seem to take umbrage at his statement. Though we disagree on this issue, I would think you could appreciate this advice given to young people who might encounter someone with a nice disposition but with a position that we both would agree is one of error. As far as painting KJV-only believers with a broad brush of divisiveness and contention, until you have met with all those who hold that position to make an accurate judgement, might I suggest that you consider that the extreme and ungracious crowd is generally the loudest screaming and noticeable crowd… not necessarily the largest represented crowd. Many balance Christians hold to their position not as noticed because of their refusal to be in your face about it. Otherwise, thank you for your partially kind words though we continue to disagree “reasonably” over the issue.
When he said that "reading the KJV is like reading Spanish" this is hyperbolic and jesting speech.
I hope you're right! I don't honestly think you are, but I'd welcome a clarification.
"Of the different videos that I have watched of yours (a good number at this point) this is the first time I have heard you give a statistic of 5% which I appreciate you finally saying. I personally feel it would be "reasonable" of you to mention that more often. The reason you receive this reaction is that your average video comes across as if every other word in the AV is archaic. We often paint pictures of ourselves based on what we say and also fail to say."
This point is well taken. I truly mean this. It's substantive and charitable. I will sincerely consider this.
"And I would think you understand that not everyone has the time to watch every video you have made."
Also well taken.
"I also have to say that It also seemed condescending and assumptive to take a shot at his level of scholarship in being too busy to be familiar with "obscure Hebrew lexemes etc…" saying that an academic institution like Anbassador is closer to the ignorant ditch is frankly offensive and not representative of a good disposition."
I say this with sorrow and not with joy. I don't enjoy saying offensive things. But I must stand by my comment. This is NOT to say that all ABC teachers or grads are ignorant! That is definitely not true. I have numerous respected friends who are ABC grads, several of whom are supporters of this channel. But I have done some real homework here, and I must stand by what I said. (I also wonder if the school is not as strong academically as it was when you were a student. Chuck Surrett is no longer teaching, I believe?)
"Coming from a brother who would like kind hearted debate that kind of down the nose talk doesn't engender unity IMO."
I can tell that you are such an one. I believe you. Please take my own comments in the best light possible, as coming from a friend and not an enemy. Faithful are my wounds. Or so I intend them to be.
"The average reasonable TR guy isn't saying that there couldn't be another translation from the TR. We are saying that 5% doesn't warrant the larger con in comparison to the very minor pro."
Brother Lawrence, I'm putting some time into this reply because you are clearly a thoughtful guy who actually listened to me. I very much appreciate this. You also-rightly!-feel defensive for your alma mater. I don't mind this at all. It's a good thing. But let me just tell you what I see from my seat: for every one person who acknowledges that 5% of the words in the KJV are archaic (at last I presume that's what you're acknowledging!) there are literally hundreds of KJV defenders who comment on my videos issuing flat denials and instead telling me I'm not saved. *All I've wanted from the beginning* is for KJV defenders to say what you just said, and instead I get the most energetic run-arounds imaginable. All anyone has had to do from day one is say, "Yes, we know these dead words and false friends exist, and we're teaching them to our people. We don't think they're a big deal." But, brother, you're not. Or maybe *you* are-you seem like the kind who both could and would! But check out my kjbstudyproject.com, which launched mere moments ago. KJV preachers do not know the false friends. They don't even know that "ye" and "you" are plural in KJV English.
"Your point on false friends for me is nothing revelatory. Any reasonable pastor who has been ministering with the KJV is aware of potential misunderstanding of words."
Then why, brother, do I receive constant flack for pointing out the false friends? I'm sincerely asking! And if this is not revelatory, why do I detect such incredible reluctance among KJV-Only pastors to ever say to me, "Wow! I never knew that X really meant X in 1611! Thank you!"? I *never* hear this.
"It is why I took 5 years of Greek at Ambassador. To make sure that I convey an accurate understanding of the text when I preach and teach."
I praise God for this, brother. Preach the word! I suspect strongly that you are not the problem.
"As far as painting KJV-only believers with a broad brush of divisiveness and contention, until you have met with all those who hold that position to make an accurate judgement, might I suggest that you consider that the extreme and ungracious crowd is generally the loudest screaming and noticeable crowd… not necessarily the largest represented crowd."
I know this from deep personal experience with godly, humble, faithful KJV-Onlyists from Heritage Baptist Church of Woodbridge, Virginia who taught me in high school. I just saw a number of them at that church a few weeks ago for the first time in 25 years, and it was really wonderful to fellowship with them again. I also know that it is very, very hard to stand up to Ruckmanism in your world, and that I almost never hear anyone in your world do it. Brother, where were the amens from your world when I did a video on Ten Ways to Avoid Ruckmanism? I'm not taunting you at all; I'm reporting the truth: I did not hear them.
Feel free to contact me privately if you'd like to pull this conversation out of public view (not a demand; an invitation): byfaithweunderstand.com/contact.
Thankfully this whole KJV madness is more of a North American phenomenon, altough its "light" version of TR-onlyism is trying to grip other places, with only very modest success, but even then translations of the TR in other languages (even published by the TBS) differ from both the main text of the KJV and widely on its use of archaic language.
I'm with you.
I almost got caught in the KJVO trap, so glad I didn’t. There’s so many translations out there just find one that fits you like a glove is what I say. For me I use the ASV primarily.
I did, too. Many otherwise good people are caught there.
@@markwardonwords It hurts when I see them burn or throw Bibles away because it doesn’t say KJV, that’s sacrilegious IMO
I go to a church, that’s teaches the KJV is the true inspired word of God and all other translations are error and an attempt from Satan to take away the truth. I have questions and thoughts but I can’t really say anything without, atleast I think without push back, major pushback
I don’t encourage anyone to cause trouble. But I do encourage people not to let anyone else keep them from reading God’s word in their own English.
The sin of KJV-onlyism is that it creates divisions in the church that are unnecessary. I am of Paul......
Well done! Bringing light to dark spaces is God's work.
And the funny thing is that there's a ton of light there at ABC-it's not all dark. They just have some dark spots.
I'm certain I do, too. Search me, O God!
!!!
It does come across pretty dishonest when they have to build a straw man just to interact with your position. It comes across condescending and I have to say that if their position has merit of it’s own accord, they would be able to interact with what you say as you say it. It’s unfortunate. I pray that these brothers and sisters in Christ some day link arms with us in caring as much about readability of scripture as we do. It seems like they have to turn the conversation to text criticism because it’s more vague and nuanced. You are much more patient than I am, Mark. I feel humbled and encouraged to strive to be more gracious with other believers.
It is possible he wasn't thinking of me at all; it is possible there is someone else who actually said that. But it was also that line that made me feel I needed to make a video. All these years of no response from major KJV-Only educational institutions, and suddenly I get what appears to be a tiny response-and it misrepresents my central point drastically. =( I don't expect KJVO college presidents to have watched all my videos, but I don't think you have to watch more than a few to see that the Spanish comment was a misrepresentation.
@@markwardonwords well it really just makes me think that they know on some level that they can’t actually respond to your argument because your position is so reasonable, every believer should be able to side with it! By taking text criticism out of the equation completely, it really makes no sense to me why they wouldn’t at least agree on the readability point and seek to update the KJV or use the other major translations based on the TR. That makes me also think that the TR issue isn’t really the crux of the issue like they claim. I’m not trying to say that every KJV-Only believer is purposefully being dishonest, but I think they are being dishonest on some level when they claim that the whole issue is the text but then don’t concede on the language change. And even beyond that, they belittle the language change issue altogether. It’s exactly what you were talking about in your “How to Avoid Ruckmanism” video. It’s like they can’t help but fall into some of those pitfalls because at the end of the day, it’s the KJV they trust, not just the TR.
@@maggieprice357 You have uncovered the very heart of my work. Well done. Let us pray that this understanding we have received will be given to our brothers in that world!
Mark Ward,
This is a Scriptural matter…as you have pointed to 1 Corinthians 14 more than once as the basis for why the 5% of the AV version is so critically important.
Even though the AV has plentiful helps available, still, that 5% is important.
The importance of Biblical doctrine makes even 5% readability a major matter. Accordingly, where are you producing content that addresses the much greater doctrinal error of Faithlife concerning their part in undermining the Gospel itself?
This may sound like an insincere question, but it is very, very sincere.
You work for Faithflife and have been associated with Logos for a long time.
Faithlife and Logos work together to promote Catholic materials that deny salvation by grace, substitutionary atonement, turn people to worship Mary and follow the Pope, among other highly destructive doctrinal errors. I received advertisements from your company regularly offering me Catholic materials. A small amount of archaic language vs. attacks on the Gospel itself. What am I missing?
Thank you.
I asked a very similar question before coming. In nearly all my work there, the Catholic and Protestant departments have been entirely separate. The two times I have been asked to help with minor marketing tasks for the Catholic department, I have declined and was not reprimanded. I accept founder Bob Pritchett's explanation for the breadth of theological resources we sell-and we do draw lines. But those lines are "anything believably useful for students of Scripture." Our customers are knowledgeable people, mostly pastors and other Bible nerds, who know what they're getting. I like having some Catholic and even liberal resources for purposes of understanding and critique-and, sometimes, learning! They're not wrong about everything.
@@markwardonwords Logos is used by the masses of “non-scholars” just as much as by scholars. It promotes itself as a program for pastors and for the common man to gain access to deeper Biblical study and any discussion with the broader range of believers out there shows that the Logos is “common” among the “common man," among non-scholarly believers, that is.
You have brushed aside the incredible danger this is to God’s sheep, not to mention unbelievers. We are speaking of the Gospel itself here and its outright corruption, not an archaic expression of it.
And, if I may politely point out, you also seemed to have missed my actual question. May I restate it for clarity? I was asking whether you have written against these attacks on the Gospel by the company you work for, not whether you worked on Catholic materials yourself. Their promotion of Catholic and liberal material is beyond academic interest. They are making money selling Gospel-denying materials to Catholics (Catholic edition, etc.) and promoting these materials without warning.
Certainly, for academic purposes and apologetic ones, scholars and leaders need access to even very dangerous books. That is not what is taking place. Logos and Faithlife are actively promoting Catholic books, not to scholars but even to the weakest believers, again, with no warning whatsoever. Do you warn about this? (Gal. 1:8 is much stronger than 1 Cor. 14:7)
Brother Mark, readability and understanding of the KJV are one thing, but reading a different Bible is another. My use of the AV continues because the others change or delete verses. Part of studying to approve myself unto God is looking up the definition of older words. The most important thing , however, is that ongoing evangelism of lost souls should take place. You’re a nice guy. Go soul winning. It is awesome.
The KJV is an excellent translation-but if you’re going to read it exclusively, you need to understand that it was translated into a form of English no one quite speaks or writes anymore. So there are going to be some places where you think you understand but, because of language change, you’re going to miss the intent of the KJV translators. For help discerning when this is the case, I encourage you to check out my “Fifty False Friends in the KJV” series on UA-cam for help reading the KJV! ua-cam.com/play/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc.html
And please watch my two videos on “study.”
So wait... The translators we're inspired to translate the bible.. but the preface is something he doesn't care about? Could it be, because the translators were not kjvo?
Yes, I find this to be a really surprising turn in the overall debate. It's as if the KJV translators were given special gifts from God to do the translation work but that their inclusion of the Apocrypha and the preface were tests of our ability to discern error or something. I love that preface. It's so rich!
👍
Well said, Dr. Mark.
Thank you!
if it looked similar to the 67 new scofield w/o the notes i would love it
Tell me more! What would you like to see?
Mark, I'd be happy to help you update our English Bible into current English. I spent 20 years doing the same in Polish.
Brother, where can I read your views laid out? I clearly don’t understand where you’re coming from.
@@markwardonwords Hmmm...UA-cam isn't taking my response. Perhaps because of the link I added. So, I responded to your "By Faith We Understand" page. Hope you get it.
@@BrentRiggsPoland Got your email. Will respond-give me a bit of time! That was helpful.
@@markwardonwords Great! Be sure to read, "Scripture - Translations & Copies" under "Version Debate."
I don't think we need more Bible translations even if we call it an update of an existing translation
I agree! But none of them have satisfied TR defenders, so perhaps giving them input will change that. There are many, many people in hundreds or thousands of churches who could benefit greatly if suddenly there were a trustworthy and trusted TR-based English translation into contemporary English.
@@markwardonwords it has been my experience and perhaps yours as well that anything other than the King James will not suffice to a certain group of people and to those people I just " Shake the Dust off of my feet and move on"
On the other hand there are those that are King James only that are somewhat open-minded and willing to consider different translations those are the people I try to focus on For Better or Worse
@@randywheeler3914 I don't at all disagree. This video is an attempt to do just what you describe. I pray that the Lord grants the effort some success.
I would love to see an update to the KJV.
Have you seen the Simplified KJV, the KJVer, the MEV?
Please, a request to any person who favors a new version. The proof is in the pudding.
My request is to reveal any doctrine found in your chosen version which can't be found in the KJV.
Can't be done. They teach exactly the same set of doctrines.
@@markwardonwords funny, that's what I thought someone might say.
Consider the following from one of the favored:
But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed.
Gal.3.23 NKJV
Now please to prove your position show us the faith that came after the law, the faith which was afterward revealed.
@@markwardonwords let me add, I find it greatly presumptuous on anyone's part to state the new versions teach all the same doctrines of older versions because that would require that the statement maker knows every doctrine in every version.
@@markwardonwords come on man, you said it could not be done in 1 hr; now it's been 5 hrs.??
Perhaps a hint? (I'm using the NKJV so not to burden you with words that might trouble you.)
For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.”
Rom.1.17 NKJV
Faith to Faith hummm there it is in a new version just begging for doctrinal help.
By the way Paul was quoting Hab 2:4.
@@markwardonwordsare you a man of your word, truly knowing the scriptures or just a drive by Bible corrector? Seems to maintain any form of credibility you would do as the scriptures instruct, be quick with an answer.
The doctrine to which I’m referring is very important, in fact it teaches how we today are JUSTIFIED!
When did ABC become KJVO? I don't recall them being this way back in the 90's.
I believe they’ve been that way since the beginning. Could be wrong.
@@markwardonwords From my experience, they have always been TRO. They don't consider themselves KJVO, but they only use the KJV. There may be a more recent trend in their teaching that is more simplistic and sounds more like KJVO.
@@techsavvydad Right: it really depends on how technical you want to be. Yes, technically, they leave room for TR-based English Bible translations other than the KJV. But the KJV is the only one they accept. Though I have some evidence this might be changing! I heard that a grad in good standing is using a KJV update.
If the KJV speaks to you; read it. If not; find a version of the Bible that does; read that one. 😊
I think I'm offering a more objective and less subjective standard here: edification requires intelligibility.
Satan has been trying to be our "friend" since the Garden of Eden. So, I am glad to see there are still institutions that hold to THE HOLY BIBLE, aka the King James version.
Please interact with the arguments made in the video.
The use of strawmen misrepresentations is quite literally an act of bad faith.
It makes me highly suspicious of someone's heart and motives who employs these deplorable tactics.
I can't be 100% certain that he was talking about me. But I am the one person I know of who talks the most about readability, and he did profoundly misrepresent my position. But perhaps he was quoting someone who himself misrepresented my position to him? Or an over-zealous follower of my views compared the KJV to Spanish??
@@markwardonwords That Spanish comparison was a new one for me!
Brother Mark, I apologize in advance for the long comment, but I did watch your video in its entirety and want to express my genuine concerns over the positions you state. I will begin by saying that I do respect your position and you as a person, but I cannot come to the conclusions you have come to regarding the King James Bible. In regards to the issue of other TR-based versions, I have done some research and watched other videos (especially Pastor Scott Ingram's video on the difference between the KJV and MEV) on these versions and have come to the conclusion that they are simply not as accurate to the TR as you may assume them to be. The MEV makes questionable changes in some places that the KJV translators had obviously gone to great pains to preserve the literacy of the text, even if the result was greater ambiguity in the translation. The reason for this is because the KJV translators did not want to pose their bias on the text. They prioritized literacy over what Pastor Ingram calls "instant understandability." The KJV rendering may be less understandable at face value, but in many cases (even in the current 1769 update that we read) was done deliberately to avoid a disproportionate bias asserted on the biblical text.
Additionally, the loss of specificity in the MEV, NKJV, SKJV, etc. due to loss of distinct second person pronouns is a significant issue as well. I have read some articles that say this is a non-issue and one that can be solved by simply opening a Bible app, tapping on the English word, and looking at whether it is singular or plural in the Greek. Once again, this is not really a problem of readability and accuracy, but a problem of instant understandability and accuracy. Let me ask you this question: Is it more readable to have to always look up in a Bible app whether a second person pronoun is singular or plural in a passage such as Luke 22:31-33, where this can be important to the sense, or is it more readable to use the KJV which clearly spells out the difference? Yes, to a modern English speaker, the thee's and thou's can be confusing, but I would argue it is not really an issue of readability here. It makes much more sense to have a clear distinction in these pronouns than to have to always look it up. My argument is further substantiated by the fact that "thee's" and "thou's" were already becoming archaic in 1611 and were definitely archaic by 1769. So, why did the 1769 "update" to the KJV not change them? Obviously, they thought that this archaic wording was critical to the accuracy (and readability) of the text that they did not change it. Once again, to be fair, thee's and thou's may not be easily understandable to a modern English speaker, but if their meaning is taught properly, I feel it is an enhancement to both accuracy and readability.
Now to my last comment which may be a bit personal, but I feel led to say it and defend my brothers in Christ whom you mentioned publicly on this video. I am an Ambassador Baptist College alumni myself, and I was personally trained (either directly in class lectures or indirectly through textbooks) by men like Dr. Charles Surrett, Mr. Matthew Hanke, and of course, Dr. Alton Beal. I will not sugarcoat my emotions for you, and I must admit I was gravely offended by the way you passively alluded that in holding to the KJV, Dr. Beal and others were "bowing to ignorance" and needed to "be clothed with humility" by "meeting you halfway" in the version/text debate. These men are far from the camp of ignorance. Not only do they possess graduate (and some of them post-graduate) degrees in theology, but they have lived and taught the Bible for longer than you and I have been alive (yes, I'm a younger graduate of Ambassador and am under 40 years of age). Using the biblical story of Rehoboam and many verses in Proverbs as my support, I think your subtle accusation of their purported "ignorance" is a preposterous, pompous, and egregiously arrogant statement that can in no way be said to be the exemplar of being "clothed with humility."
The more accurate assessment of the position these men hold would be that they are bowing to faith--faith in the fact that God has inspired His word and preserved it to every generation to be accessible to all people. Yes, there may be some facets of the text issue that they may not know or be privy to, but that does not make them closer to ignorance or ignorant. Remember that we are dealing with a spiritual book, Brother Mark, not just an ancient relic of history. The Bible repeatedly alludes to the fact that true knowledge of God is not a head knowledge of arbitrary facts about miniscules, uncials, manuscripts, and ancient texts, but rather an experiential knowledge of God's character, attributes, and nature. “And this is life eternal, that they might know (Greek, γινωσκω, knowledge gained by experience, not οιδα, a factual knowledge) thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” ~John 17:3
The very substance of our eternal life hinges on the experiential knowledge of our God and Saviour--Jesus Christ. Our primary Source for this knowledge is the Holy Bible. When any part of our Bible is compromised, whether it be in the omissions of the Critical Text, or the less egregious, but still significant inaccuracies in TR-based versions like the NKJV, SKJV, MEV, etc., we run the risk of compromising our knowledge of Jesus Christ and thereby compromise our own abundant life which Jesus shed His precious blood to give us. I choose to accept by faith the reliability, inerrancy, inspiration, and preservation of God's Word, just like these godly men who have trained me do. That means I choose to reject any text, version, etc. that does not represent the greatest level of accuracy and integrity to the biblical text. That is why I hold to the King James Version, and by God's grace, I pray that I will remain faithful to it for the duration of my sojourning on this side of eternity.
Brother Richard, I appreciate your respect toward me-and I honor your respect toward Beal and Surrett (I know Hanke only through his Sunday school series on the KJV, and I cannot honestly say that I share that respect-but I feel certain you have good reasons for it). My brief interactions with Beal and Surrett have been respectful, and I've repeatedly heard praise about them from ABC graduates, even those who have come to disagree with their stance on the KJV.
And, brother, I do quite obviously disagree with that stance. I've dived deep into the data, so I just can't any longer take seriously a statement like, "The KJV rendering may be less understandable at face value, but in many cases … was done deliberately to avoid a disproportionate bias asserted on the biblical text." Over and over again, brother, I have shown that there are archaic words and constructions in the KJV *that were perfectly appropriate in 1611 but communicate different ideas today.* I have cited authoritative English dictionaries for this judgment-over and over (see ua-cam.com/play/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc.html). I don't think any of my false friends can be explained as the avoidance of disproportionate bias. Did the KJV translators choose "halt" instead of "limp" in 1 Kings 18:21 in order to avoid bias, or because "halt" was their word for "limp"? Did they choose "ass" over "donkey" to avoid bias, or because (and this is the truth) "donkey" didn't yet exist in their English and "ass" was not a common vulgarity?
Brother, we have a Bible principle at stake here: edification requires intelligibility (1 Cor 14:9). And yet KJV defenders, even those who insist that the text is the issue, just never can bring themselves to be satisfied with any TR-based translations but the KJV. And yet the KJV is no longer fully intelligible. At best, it is in tension with the principle of 1 Cor 14:9. So why don't you make a faithful TR-based translation into fully intelligible contemporary English, brother?
And with regard to second-person pronouns, I hear this all the time (as you might imagine), but I've never seen a single IFB KJV-Onlyist patiently listen to and interact with my counterarguments. I actually acknowledge that "thou" and "ye" are "more accurate" than "you" and "you" in modern versions. But I still don't think they should be used. Here is a video in which I discuss this matter at some length:
ua-cam.com/video/OyS1IB7OK8A/v-deo.html
You ask a fair question: "Is it more readable to have to always look up in a Bible app whether a second person pronoun is singular or plural in a passage such as Luke 22:31-33, where this can be important to the sense, or is it more readable to use the KJV which clearly spells out the difference?" And if that were the only passage to weigh in the balances, I'd be with you. At the very least, we'd have to have a footnote. But we have to weigh a) all of the times when Elizabethan second-person pronouns fail to communicate accurately vs. b) all of the times when modern English second-person pronouns fail to communicate accurately. I have a phone survey I'm releasing in the fall that shows that 100 KJV-Only pastors from across the country most certainly, as a group, did not know that "y-" second-person pronouns are plural and "t-" pronouns singular. For these men-and presumably, the people they pastor-the greater accuracy in the KJV didn't matter. It didn't help them understand. How can they teach the meaning of these words properly when they themselves don't realize they're misunderstanding? By contrast, translators of modern versions regularly use footnotes or even words like "yourselves" in those relatively few passages where the number of a second-person pronoun isn't already made utterly clear by context. Please do watch my video. I'm rehashing material I've already made public.
I work hard to be fair, to represent my Christian opponents with honesty and charity. But Dr. Beal-with whom I've had at least two cordial and courteous conversations-is indeed "bowing to ignorance." He said he'd never seen a manuscript of the Greek New Testament. And for his school he has hired precisely zero Bible professors who have the training necessary to evaluate GNT manuscripts. Schools like ABC reject the need for PhDs, and so they have none and (naturally) produce none. Chuck Surrett has graduate training from Central, this is true. But he did not go down the academic track; he went down the ministry track. There is nothing wrong with that-until you start making academic pronouncements on academic subjects. When I reviewed Surrett's two (major?) books on the text issue, it was repeatedly obvious to me that he did not know how Greek lexicography works. He was using poor resources and faulty methodologies. I explain this at some length in posts that no one at ABC has ever responded to, to my knowledge. (Search my blog for "Surrett"). Not every school has to have a PhD program, but small Bible colleges whose focus is ministerial training should, at the very least, clothe themselves with humility when it comes to properly academic questions. It is very rare that I encounter KJV/TR defenders trained at KJV-Only schools-like ABC-who have taken more than four semesters of Greek, or who have any advanced knowledge of the language. And yet they constantly tell me that I'm the ignorant one. My brother, this ought not so to be.
Brother, again I say that you *should* respect your professors at ABC. This is good and right. It is biblical. Esteem them highly in love for their work's sake, absolutely. But what can I do when these men who "bow to faith … in the fact that God has inspired His word and preserved it to every generation to be accessible to all people" fail to answer the most basic, obvious follow-up questions? Which TR is the perfect one? They don't answer; they frequently seem to be unaware that there are multiple TR editions, editions that contain differences. I personally witnessed Dr. Surrett admitting (if I understood him correctly) in a social media conversation that he was unaware of differences among TR editions. And in his books he certainly makes no reference to this issue.
You said: "I choose to reject any text, version, etc. that does not represent the greatest level of accuracy and integrity to the biblical text. That is why I hold to the King James Version, and by God's grace, I pray that I will remain faithful to it for the duration of my sojourning on this side of eternity."
Brother, how much Greek and Hebrew training do you have? I strongly suspect that you do not have the knowledge and skills necessary to judge the level of accuracy in any given Bible translation. I must speak clearly to you: clothe yourself with humility. I beg of you: listen! Watch twenty of my Fifty False Friends in the KJV videos, and if you already know all the words in them, I will be shocked-and I will publicly acknowledge this fact. But I am certain I can teach you the meanings of KJV words that you have misunderstood because of language change.
Bro. Mark, so that you don’t continue to criticize ignorantly. I sat in class after class of textual criticism in the undergraduate and graduate levels at Ambassador examining Greek manuscripts. Dr. Sheets who now teaches at Tabernacle in Virginia insisted on scholarly examination of the text. Matt Hanke continues this faithful study in his classes today. When I was there, we talked about the “which TR argument”. I thought you didn’t want to get into textual arguments though. It seems you only want to participate in textual arguments so long at it is critical of the TR. Textual criticism is a process as you well know. No one denies this but you of all people should be aware of the massive number of extant manuscripts that formed the Majority Text (old use of the term) family. The updates on the TR as it was in process were minor as I saw in my studies. Is faith involved to say the TR is preserved from what was inspired? Of course, but there is a big difference between a massive agreement of manuscripts that were accessible for years and a largely absent family of texts for nearly 1200 years in the Vaticanus and Sinaticus if indeed they were actually that old. There is legitimate questioning of the antiquity these days. We choose to believe I a text that was largely present based on the Biblical promise of preservation “to every generation”. As far as scholarship goes, If your definition of scholarship is confined to letters after a name this too is an ignorant assumption. No one is against postgraduate degrees. I’m finishing one now but scholarship by many men also takes place in personal study outside of a classroom as well. The classroom is where you learn how to study. Can we please stop with the “I’m more scholarly than you” piety. You can’t honestly judge what all these men know and don’t know and you have not demonstrated proof that you have sufficiently interacted with these men to be a proper judge. Completely unnecessary and unfair criticism. Is it your goal to run off those that have answered the call to interact and respond some? Let’s just please stick to the debate. Shall we?
Your whispering you so low your unintelligible really would help if you could speak up
It’s my bad audio skills. I’ve recently found a tool that really helps.
This video was great…
Thank you, Anthony!
Isn’t KJVO traditions of man and idolatry ?
Yes and maybe. Depends on the person.
@@markwardonwords I am so glad I found your channel. When I was a new believer I read the NLT and I learned so much, then moved into KJV and before I knew it I was KJV only and it started tripping me up and I have been shamed for using the NASB 95, NKJV, and it almost made me feel like I wasn’t a “Christian” if I didn’t use the KJV. My thoughts are if God can use a donkey He can use a different translation to speak to someone. Thanks for your reply, I didn’t expect that. I really enjoy your videos and it has helped me to put the KJV down and read what I can understand.
I think part of it all is a pride issue. If folks like this turned and agreed with Mark they would be shunned in their circles
Ultimately they must do right as I must. But I am offering them a way to do right without losing face.
Mark "Edification requires intelligibility" I would add Matt 13:19 and 13:23 and the difference between understanding and not understanding..
“When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is what was sown along the path.”
(Matthew 13:19 ESV)
“As for what was sown on good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it. He indeed bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty.””
(Matthew 13:23 ESV)
I don't *think* this is mainly about textual-level understanding; I think it's about heart-level response. But this is worth more time thinking. Thank you for this reminder!
@@markwardonwords I agree but it emphasizes the importance of making the Gospel understandable. Funny thing is I was weaned on the KJV and have large amounts of it committed to memory. In fact, I tried other translations, but my brain would always fight me as I read and recalled verses, until I got the ESV.
Hold on, you have said: "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 archaized lexeme as a time (Mark 7:13). I pray that my brethren’s consciences will one day be liberated to read more than just the KJV." - If it is not a liberty issue, it is a sin.... so let's not be too flowery about it...
You cannot say the Critical Text is correct, and at the same time say you will work on a TR Bible. That is not logical to support a text type you feel is a corruption of the Word of God. It is like the ESV coming out with the Gideon's-ESV based on the TR then saying the changes in the ESV from other translation are based on the Critical Text because it is better. When it comes to "readability" I had to look up "lexeme."
Okay, so 5% is unreadable. Let's go with that logic. Based on my study 5% of the ESV is different in meaning than that CSB, one being the more correct. Thus we should be retiring any modern translation that is 5% different in meaning that the one we chose to be the correct one. Now, this of course is not allowed because Mark does not believe we should have "onlyism" with any translation. But this is were we have a huge logical issue, having to look something up in a dictionary is grounds for retirement of a translation, but a translation saying the opposite of another translation is fine... (for example Genesis 3:16 in the ESV, CSB, NLT and ISV)
"There are readable translations of the TR" -- no, not that agree with the KJV. Based on the Copyright law, 17 U.S.C 103, you have to have new authorship. Updating words simply does not get you there. "There must be major or substantial new material for a work to be considered copyrightable as a derivative work. The new material must be sufficiently original and creative to be copyrightable by itself." So no, that does not work unless you change the law. (this is also an issue with the NKJV discussed later in the video) You can't do a Bible without a copyright because you have to have faith the text is static which you cannot have without ownership.
The King James preface is devastating to a KJ Only position.... ya, I don't think so. Nor are the changes in words between 1611 and 1769.
I think one thing Mark is really missing here is a KJV-Only person believes they have the correct translation of the correct manuscripts, the fact there are "false friends" or "archaic words" really has no impact. KJV-Only people believe they have the Bible, the Word of God, Period, and what is being asked of them is to trade the Bible for modern translation which all conflict with each other.
It is disingenuous for Mark to say the KJV is the Word of God, because he does not believe it is. If the Critical Text, and OT textural variants that disagree with the Masoretic Text the KJV is based on are the correct Word of God, then the KJV is not the Word of God.
I sort of wonder if Mark has read much Ruckman. Ruckman’s claim to fame was his Biblical knowledge, his problematic statement that can be taken as re-inspiration are actually are minimal. Ruckman’s review of the AV (KJV) in his study Bible in no way state the KJV in re-inspired, but refinement of pre-existing Bibles.
Personally, I don’t care about disposition. My bet is Paul did not either…. “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.”
KJV-Onlyism promotes strife… well of course it does. If I believe a modern version has made changes in meaning in verses only based on the need to have sufficient “new authorship” to obtain a copyright, do you expect me to be nice about it?
Proud of my ignorance….. Ya, not sure I am that ignorant… I spent 40 hours on 1 John 5:7&8 and that was twenty years ago. (and there is better textural support for 1 John 5:7&8 than a lot of changes made by the critical text)
The NKJV…. Ya, there is a ton out there on issue the KJV people have with the NKJV. The idea KJV people are not aware of the existence of the NKJV is sort of silly.
Friend, your comments are too long for me to respond in detail. I'll just pick out one element: only textual absolutists are required to pick one and only one Bible translation (or text) and call it "the word of God." I stand with the KJV translators here, who were willing to call even "the meanest translation" God's word. I do not regard the differences between the TR and the CT as significant. But if someone does, I'm happy to work with them-if they'll obey what the Bible clearly reveals, that edification requires intelligibility.
@@markwardonwords Yes, but at least you know I am watching the entire video before making a snarky remark.
"I do not regard the differences between the TR and the CT as significant." - I would tend to agree (to an extent), but I am a moron when it comes to Greek/Hebrew. My issue is changes of meaning (not synonyms) in a verse when it is purported the same underlying texts is used.
Doesn't "exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine" indicate that a person's disposition must be patient and considerate? What is "longsuffering" about being a contentious jerk?
Speaking of 5%, what is a person to do if said person thinks that every translation is about 5% flawed? Would it not make sense to use at least two translations at that point, both of which are 5% flawed in totally different ways? Let's hear it for the parallel Bibles--as long as they don't overdo it with the number of versions included. (Or should that person push for the production of yet another English translation that fixes that 5%? That's how we keep getting endless modern translations: no one is ever happy with 100% of any extant version. You can pretty much always say that Translation X is a reaction against Choices A and B in Translation Y.)
@@MAMoreno Do you feel I am a contentious jerk?
I feel if you do a sentence diagram of that verse you will not the "longsuffering" relates in part to "rebuke"
I think you know my opinion that the latest versions of the Bible will be the most flawed because they are running out of changes that can make and still get the copyright.
Parallel Bible only work if they are in pretty much agreement and you are just looking a "a different way to say something." When you have the case of Genesis 3:16, you would be dealing with opposites if using the ESV and CSB.
I think you can get to one Critical Text version if you do a set up like the KJV, four or five teams, sub teams under them, and all textural scholars to be asked for input (see rules for translation for the KJV.) Five or six year process, and at the end of the say you have a pretty good compromise. (The KJV took six years, and rule No. 1 for the translators was to follow the Bishop's)
@@casey1167 I don't think that you're a contentious jerk, but the whole point of having a positive disposition in disagreement is to avoid being one.
I'd argue that a parallel Bible works well with translations that disagree. You can see right in front of you the places where there is no scholarly consensus on the meaning of a passage. The problem with the parallel Bibles currently on the market is that they either try to include too many translations at once or throw in inappropriate choices such as the Amplified Bible or the Message instead of sticking to the major versions.
You can't get to one Critical Text version because you can't get to one translation methodology that serves all needs in the church, let alone finding a way to offer all of the scholarly disagreements about ambiguous passages. In the first case, the NASB and NIrV fulfill very, very different roles, and neither one of them would be any good at doing what the other one does best. In the second case, the ESV and NRSV perfectly capture the huge rift in conservative evangelical vs. progressive mainline scholarship, as the two translations are otherwise essentially identical at times.
Mark, what do you do with a ruckmanite they are good great people, but they get extremely upset to the point of threatening others when you disagree...I would almost feel safer talking to a muslim extremist about the flaws of their prophet over a kjv only ruckmanite
This is sin, straight up. It's a work of the flesh (see Gal 5). And you deal with it the way you deal with sin in others. =(
@@markwardonwords I agree.. I had to get away from him..he was making me a hateful person..not outwardly but I was getting mad and not acting as a christian should so I had to respectfully say hey man.... I love you but I can't continue this because it is doing neither one of us any good.... it was a hard thing to do but I can't do it with the hardcore....he literally told me I didn't believe in the bible if I even brought up the word world vs age or hades vs hell..or easter being in acts in the kjv..he said it is the perfect word of God even better than the Greek... He thinks I am hell bound...and I pray for him.. one day I hope he comes around.
At about 25:45 you say that the simple recognition of false friends would drive one to "kill their [KJV Only] institutions if they saw them." I don't see how that is correct at all. It seems that the recognition of false friends merely is the recognition that one must work a little harder to understand the KJV than one has to work to understand modern versions.
You could be right!
@@markwardonwords Thanks for the response. Since I have your attention here's one more question, regarding your project to do a new translation of the TR: Why do you feel it would get any better of a reception than the NKJV or MEV? What would you do differently?
@@markwardonwords Thanks for the response. I have one more question, while I have your attention. Regarding your proposed project to do a new translation of the TR, why do you feel that the final result would be received any more warmly than the NKJV or MEV? What would you do differently?
Make certain that there’s buy-in from KJV/TR institutions and leaders before beginning the work.
@@markwardonwords Ah, okay, I see. Well that seems a tall order, but good luck. Personally, I shifted from the NIV to the NASB to the KJV, with supplementary use of the NKJV and MEV. I don't necessarily feel that we NEED a new translation of the TR, but at the same time the fact that anyone is even interested in translating the TR, when scholarly opinion is almost universally against it, is encouraging. I kind of wish the MEV would get greater traction.
I actually really like the KJV but I’ve stopped using it simply because of KJVonlysim.
I’ve given up on KJVOnlyists.
I’ve gotten to a place where I just don’t care wether they consider me a brother or not. And I feel, honestly, like it’s a waste of time to try to reason with them.
Prov 26:4 and 5. Sometimes you must conclude this. You are not required to go on arguing with a wall. But not everyone is so unreasonable; truly, Alton Beal is not. We had genuinely good conversations. And yet I don't really think I'm reasoning with him. I'm reasoning with him *for the benefit of the many young men trained by his school.* And they are listening. I get letters. Even those who don't fully agree with me have had some excellent conversation with me. I can think of one, for example, who is still a TR guy (which is fine!) but is using a KJV update in his church. Good things are happening. I get so, so many letters. I share not a few of them with my Patreon supporters.
Why does the person without children offer parenting advice? Why not have some kids for yourself?
This is an analogy? To Beal’s unfamiliarity with manuscripts?
To hold your position , you have to put aside JESUS' words: " a little LEAVEN fermenteth the whole lump."
It's a bit shilly in here
Please interact with the arguments made in the video.
You guys will spend most of your youth searching for the scriptures instead of searching the scriptures. It won’t end well…
Brother, it was precisely my searching of the Scriptures over many years in my youth that led me to realize that there were numerous words in the KJV that I thought I was understanding but, because of language change, I was not understanding. If you're willing to test yourself, I encourage you to watch ten of the videos in my Fifty False Friends in the KJV series:
ua-cam.com/play/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc.html
I feel certain you will learn the 1611 meaning of some English words that you were hitherto unaware of.
The NKJV IS NOT A TEXTUS RECEPTUS. Keep lying yourself
Yes-huh.
The NKJV version from the early 1980s solved all of your arguments and perceived issues and is not updated every 5-7 years to make more copyright money for Bible producers .( eg. The new new NIV. Translating vermin for rust and changing pronouns to meet copyright requirements of 10% ) .....so its time to drop your pedantic stances looking for a debate that doesn't need to exist .
No need for insults, my friend. The KJV-Only world has worked for decades to discredit the NKJV. I wish you were right; I'd love to see KJV/TR defenders opt for the NKJV. I think their objections are weak and contrived, as I've worked hard to show:
ua-cam.com/video/_2T5B4JRwe8/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/E-iDeztybRA/v-deo.html
If you haven't seen KJVO objections to the KJV already, those videos will give you a good idea of the kinds of things they say.