As a brother who grew up King James Only, your channel has helped me both open up to other translations, as well as help me better understand the King James. I will still continue to preach King James in my church (that is the expectation of my church family where I am at), but I have seen the benefit of using other translations in my personal studies. Additionally, in my talks with families that don’t have religion, using the NLT and NIV has really opened the door for them to at the very least give Christ a fair consideration. Prayers from an Oklahoman funeral director and brother in Christ.
Fun fact: This false friend exists in the old Dutch SV*. The explanation you have is 100% valid in Dutch too. *Except that in the Dutch SV, "creature" is used 4/4 times instead of 3/4.
When I was a wee lad, the word "creature" always had a negative connotation; i.e., as in "creature feature" or the "creature from the black lagoon." I really thought the Bible was talking about monsters - and was kind of disappointed when I finally discovered that it simply meant "created being."
@@markwardonwords Yup! Made my first profession of faith at six years old and immediately began reading my Bible not understanding anything that I was reading of course, but I was told that was what I was supposed to do, so I did it. I continued thinking "creature" meant "monster" until I was a late pre-teen!
@@Yesica1993 Well, when I heard the phrase "the Holy Ghost" I had the same literalist mindset - remember, nobody bothered to explain things to a six-year old and I walked around for a long time thinking that being a Christian meant being haunted!
@@therealkillerb7643 Aw, my heart goes out to 6 year old baby you! We always have to be careful with children and constantly ask them what they're thinking about things. Because they ARE always thinking about things. We grownups just don't realize it. And they don't know how to express themselves.
I really need to get a fluid head for my tripod… But I've been waiting for like two years for Benro to send me the tripod I ordered on Kickstarter. It's crazy!
@@markwardonwords "A wrap-up video listing the false friends I didn't get to!" Hmmm. "A" wrap up video, he says. "A" video. That implies a *_single_* video. Heh heh heh. "Boast not thyself of to morrow; for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth. " (Prov 27:1, KJ -V- B) 😁
The Book of Common Prayer helps contextualize this false friend. In the Communion rite, it refers to bread and wine as 'creatures:' "Hear us, O Father, we most humbly beseech thee; and grant that we receiving these thy creatures of bread and wine, according to thy Son our savior Jesus Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed body and blood."
I caught it because we're going through Romans 8 right now in my bible study group so I was just reading in my commentary about the translation of that word. :)
This was a very helpful one! I've heard the word creature in the KJV explained, but it seems to me that the explanations were more about the word including humans, not just animals, and not about including all of creation.
I have never once been disappointed by your videos my friend and today was no exception - great job and I loved the shout out to Al Wolters whose expertise in these matters (and, of course, biblical scholasticism at large) is unparalleled - well done :-)
So funny, my family lived at Tahoe many years. When you said, "Ne-VAH-da," I thought, "Uh-oh, he's going to look pretentious and unaware!" But then you fixed it right away! 😂 Of course, you knew...
@@triciamaddoxbehncke4191 I also translated at least partially from the TR, and I have a rendering of 1 Tm 4 that matches the explanation here: "...insisting on abstaining from foods which God has created...for _everything that God created_ shall be good, and nothing to be rejected, if it is eaten with thanksgiving..."
I cannot understand the King James Only guys. Language is always changing, so from time to time the translations has to be adapted. What were the goals of the original King James Bible? How can you achieve these goals with contemporary English?
@@markwardonwords " It ought to be that simple. " But where would be the FUN in that??? What would we do without the conspiracies? How would we vilify Rome if we can't blame them for all of these new translations?!?!? *_YOU JUST DON'T GET IT!!! _* On a serious note, I am persuaded that this movement has a lot to do with insecurity. It might even be called, "lack of faith", or, "walking by sight". If I have to trust God to preserve His Word without an Anointed Perfect Translation that I can put my hands on, well, I'm just going to have to trust Him, and that requires actual faith. Having an Anointed Perfect Translation is much more comfortable. There is no uncertainty. I can SEE it. I can TOUCH it. I can be assured by all the bellowing and pulpit pounding about it. No thinking is required. No *_faith_* is required.
Yes, this is accurate. Fr. Stephen De Young wrote his PhD dissertation on 1 John 2:2, exploring how the Second Temple period would have understood this verse as referring to atonement for the sins of the entire world, in a physical sense, much like the temple (or tabernacle) on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:16). I’ve noticed that the EOB consistently translates this word as “creation” in Romans 8:18-23. Christ’s redemption of the whole world marks a key difference between the Protestant dualism I once held and Orthodoxy’s view of creation’s redemption. Materiality itself is not inherently bad but has been restored by the grace of Christ’s work (Romans 8:21-22ish).
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi (Let the law of worship fix the law of belief): Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, WORLD WITHOUT END. Amen.
There seems to be a slight difference in my mind between "All creation groans," and "From the creation of the world,". The second 'creation' seems to be a verb of some sort.
@@markwardonwords It makes a bit of poetic sense considering the medieval conception of cosmology. I thought of the words of Ramandu in the Voyage of the Dawn Treader, that a ball of flaming gas is not what a star is, but only what it is made of.
Thanks for this Mark! By the way, I would love to hear or read your series, if possible - or at least get your references. I've been in a deep study on the importance of our identity in Christ, and I would love to learn more, brother! :)
Hi Mark, I picked up a used 1967 Scofield Reference Bible (Oxford Press). Within the KJV text, "word changes have been made when clarification is needed". Seems to be an effort to correct "false friends". Would you recommend this approach?
This is one that definitely gets misunderstood. Had a brother at my KJ church preach on this a few months ago and he made the statement, see this word creature here? That's us as humans. Definitely had the thought in real time, mmm, no. That's talking about all creation. It matters for the point Paul is trying to make.
Hey Mark. I think i found another significant false friend. Matthew 27:3. Judas did not repent. I think this is a very significant false friend as if you read it at face value you assume an incorrect outcome that Judas had. He was not repentant in the traditional biblical sense in the KJV. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.
I'm not sure that μεταμεληθεὶς in Matthew 27.3 can't be taken as "repented" in this context. The NRSV (including the 2021 edition) and Good News Bible (including the 1992 edition) still use the word "repented" here, which means that this matter falls into the realm of interpretation. See also the time that the LORD "repented" in 1 Samuel 15.35; this word is still used in the NABRE of 2011. It really comes down to two things: how many senses you permit for the word "repent" and how applicable those senses are to Judas or to the LORD.
Beautiful views of God's magnificent creation. Mark, what Oxford dictionary exactly is the one to which you often refer? I'd like to get one. Blessings and love to all the saints.
1:44 Creature is for all of Creation. I have the NKJV memorized for this passage so that word stood out to me while you were reading the passage before you specified that you were talking about that word.
Just curious, since you have an OED license...have you ever done an exhaustive search of words in the OED marked 'obsolete' that also appear in the KJV (any edition)?
I tried something like this but it was a dead end. The OED lets you search citations if I recall correctly, but even the advanced search options wouldn't let me specify obsolete senses of words where the KJV (or other Bible) is cited.
Hey Mark, I had a question I am curious what your answer would be, asking as someone who really wants the modern translations to be good and for me to be wrong. In what sense is the modern critical edition of the Greek NT *not* the "received" or "traditional" text?
Good question, and stated like a Christian, too. I would say that "the critical text" has been received by many millions of God's people around the world-who just pick up their Bibles, read them, and trust them without any awareness that there are textual variants in other Bibles in other languages (and possibly in their own languages). I would say that "the critical text" is traditional insofar as the vast, vast majority of its readings are shared with the Greek New Testament that is traditional in the European West. Also, it's traditional insofar as all traditions have to start somewhere, and many, many Christians around the world, Christians who got their Bibles only in the last 50 years, will some day soon call their Bibles traditional. I would say that "the critical text" is also traditional in that it contains only readings that Christians around the world have received and used in various places and at various times. There are no made up readings in it (minus one conjectural emendation in 2 Peter 3 in one critical text edition that no evangelical Bibles have picked up). But, yes, the critical text contains readings that were not included in the most powerful and widespread textual tradition in Western memory. Does that make sense?
We have been to Nevada many times, the high desert is very beautiful. Okay, now this is only the second time I have found the Authorized King James and the KJV versions are differing here a bit. The Humble Lamb says at the bottom in the notes, "6,7 sensual, fleshly, worldly" for the creature in the verses 20, 21, the rest seem to say creation instead. Enjoy your time in Nevada! We have been on archaeology digs there in the desert. Watch out for snakes, as there are a lot of rattlers there. 🙂
Well shoot. I did what you said, hit pause, got all proud of myself for finding it - I thought. So this is today’s humble thyself lesson. Glory will be revealed “to” us rather than “in” us which I think I still believe. I struggle with glory being revealed “in” anyone other than God but that, of course, is not the false friend. Just one quick question. Are you saying that we’re not going to get a “new” earth?
Creature means to me a living thing like a cat, a bear. I'm betting that creature In 1611 can also mean Creation. After finishing the video. I'm glad to know I was on the right track. Great video, beautiful land.
@markwardonwords This is surprisingly gender inclusive at the cost, some would say, of the connotations of sonship leading to inheritance. Romans 9:7 puts this differently, but referring to 'children' and 'seed'.
Hi Mark. Beautiful place! This "creature" issue was one of the first differences between the KJV and modern translations I noticed because it featured in a lot of the creation science books I read early on. Anyway, is this purely a false friend situation or also the KJV translators taking a more narrow interpretation of ktisis in certain contexts? The reason I say this is because we see "creature" three times in Romans 8:19-21 and then suddenly "creation" at verse 22 (You do mention this). There may well be an obsolete aspect of "creature", but the distinction of use between verses 19-21 and 22 suggests to me that the translators were going for some kind of semantic distinction (not just stylistic). The creation is personified (prosopopoeia) throughout Romans 8:19-22. But the way I read it, it seems that the KJV translators interpreted verses 19-21 as personifying the individual created thing as an exemplar (e.g. like "blessed is the man" which is a singular exemplar of any and all men or people). But at verse 22, the "whole creation" as a collective is personified. That seems to me why "the creature" and "the whole creation" are both used. Now, the question remains whether or not such a distinction is warranted hermeneutically, but isn't that what's going on since both "creature" and "whole creation" are used? Also, in Romans 1:25, can it be that the KJV translators used "creature" because the examples of the things people "worshipped and served" are the aforementioned "corruptible man", "birds", "fourfooted beasts", and "creeping things" (Romans 1:23)? Again, the KJV *possibly* narrowing the semantic scope (you could say it's an example of a dynamic translation in the KJV). As for 1 Timothy 4:3, can it be that the KJV translators again narrowed the semantic scope of ktisis as meaning animals given the assumption of a cross-reference to Acts 10:12-14 where animals are depicted? There is no doubt an archaic aspect of "creature" (as with "beast"), but it seems like there's more going on below the surface whenever ktisis appears in the KJV (which will likely resurface outside of KJV translation debate as a hermeneutical debate concerning the correct semantic scope of ktisis in any given passage).
You very well could be right. This is what KJV-Onlyists (I know you're not one) should have done with my work from the beginning. I did give consideration to this possibility, but let's not forget that the OED itself cites Rom 8:19 (was it?) as a sample usage for the sense I adduced. And this question may be irresolvable. Your guess as to their purpose in varying their word choice in Rom 8 (3x creature, 1x creation) is as good as mine.
@@markwardonwords I love trying (as much as I can) to resolve the unresolvable, and I think this is a case of "creature" in the KJV being an archaism AND/OR a hermeneutical choice, depending on the passage. I think all of the following propositions are true: 1. "Creature" in 1611 could have meant either animals or all created things. So you're right about this false friend. 2. "Creation" in 1611 also meant all created things. 3. "Creature" in 1611 was the more appropriate term when referring to a singular exemplar. 4. "Creation" in 1611 as well as today is the more appropriate term when referring to the whole of creation. The choice of "creature" in Romans 8:19 could be due to "creature" being a better choice to serve as a singular exemplar. And as the OED says, the "creature" in Romans 8:19 includes non-animal things. So in Romans 8:19 in the KJV, the choice of "creature" is affected by both archaism AND hermeneutics. But in some examples like Romans 1:25 and 1 Timothy 4:3-4, the choice of "creature" may be due to the assumption from context that animals are referenced. You point still stands - that people can get confused thinking that "creature" in the KJV always means animals when in fact it can refer even to non-animal things (as in Romans 8:19). But in some passages like Romans 1:15 and 1 Timothy 4:3-4, the choice of "creature" may be due to hermeneutics rather than archaism.
To add to my point above, even the ESV and NKJV use "creature" at Romans 1:25, apparently agreeing with the KJV interpretation that the aforementioned animals are the immediate referent.
Hey Mark, long time viewer here. Is there a method of submitting false friends to you, an email or something? I found one in Titus that I think you will be fascinated by. In my opinion, the majority of contemporary English translations actually get it wrong, following what the King James sounds like it is saying to contemporary readers. Only one contemporary translation gets it right, I believe, while KJV got it right in 1611, but it is now obscured due to language change. Is there a better place to go into details than a UA-cam comment?
@@markwardonwords Alrighty, here it goes. Sorry in advance for the long comment :-) The false friend I found is in Titus 2:15 (if you want to feel like your on the other side of one of your videos, maybe pause this comment and look it up to see if you can spot the false friend yourself!) This one is actually another usage of a false friend that you already have on your list. The word "let." You have it already in the sense meant in 2 Thes 2:7, the archaic usage meaning "to prevent." However, there is another archaic use of "let," and that is using it as a "third person imperative," meaning a command given to someone you are not directly speaking to. For example of this usage, consider the Christmas carol "Joy to the World." When we sing "Let earth receive her king!" and "Let every heart prepare him room," we aren't actually saying, "Allow and do not prevent the earth from receiving her king!" We are actually commanding, albeit in the third person, the earth (and presumably all those dwelling on it) to receive their rightful king. We see this usage also in the scriptures, perhaps nowhere more famously than in Matthew 16:24. KJV says, "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself..." Because contemporary English does not have a way to exactly translate the third person imperative, many modern translations will keep the KJV's wording (see ESV/NKJV), while others will say things like, "He must deny himself" (NASB/NIV). But it is important to notice that Jesus isn't saying, "Disciples, do not prevent others from denying themselves" (as our contemporary definition of "let" might imply). Rather he is saying, "I command him to deny himself." The KJV said it in a way that made perfect sense at the time, and contemporary translations sometimes will stick with it because we don't really have a perfect way to translate it in contemporary language. We see the same usage of the word "let" in Titus 2:15. I have heard many a Christian (reading from the KJV or otherwise) say, "The Bible tells us, do not let anyone disregard you!" And indeed, one could understand the wording of the KJV to be saying that, "Let no man despise thee." But that is NOT, in fact, what Paul was saying to Titus. He was using the third person imperative. He was saying something more akin to, " I command all to not despise (or disregard) you." Or as the NASB 2020 has it, "No one is to disregard you." This is the first example that I have come across where the false friend has actually tripped up even many modern translators. Only NASB, and really only the 2020 update of the NASB (95 and 77 both phrase it like the KJV) makes the real meaning clear. Some translations even put the wrong, "false friend" KJV translation into the text in contemporary English! For example, NLT says, "Don't let anyone disregard what you say," as though the command was second person (commanding to Titus) as opposed to third person (commanding those being spoken about). Likewise the NIV says, "Do not let anyone despise you." In my judgment, and I'd be happy to hear your thoughts as well, this is a case of even modern translation committees falling for a false friend from the KJV. If anyone disagrees with me, let him voice his objection with all speed!
@@kentyoung5282 Boy… do you have direct evidence that people are misunderstanding this third-person imperative? I'd say that the construction is a little twee, a little archaic, but still present. english.stackexchange.com/questions/17791/is-this-grammatical-construction-an-imperative-for-the-third-person
Hmm. Your "let no man disregard you" gives me real pause. I think you're onto something here. It really does sound like he's telling Timothy, "Don't permit anyone to disregard you." Wow. I wonder what the real difference is, given that Titus is the recipient of the letter… Thinking. Again, you may be onto something!
Indeed, I think the KJV translators' "Latinity" is showing here: creatura in Latin means 'creation' in the sense of 'a thing created' which could mean the whole universe. My experience with KJV-onlyists accords with yours on this point: they have a bad tendency to somehow misunderstand both Jacobean English (which is really an inexcusable consequence of our modern educational system) AND the underlying Greek text--a marvelous (in the Jacobean sense) feat. In any event, this matter would be settled if only we put Shakespeare and Milton in children's hands and copybooks well before sixth grade.
You are far removed from your proper era. Clearly, with your KJV voice, you definitely belong in a previous era along the side of King James and his Bible translators! Well done! 😎
Beautiful out west. Enjoy your time with your family. Thanks for taking us with you. As for your false friend here, I don't have a problem with this word needing an update, but the theological aspect...I will agree to disagree. It's not a problem when we look into the original tongues. This is solved with the simple exegesis you offer here. The problem most believers have is that they do not exegete the text. I guess that is our job. Blessings to you Mark. Thank you for your time. Have a blessed and safe trip home.
What's especially strange is that Galatians 2.6 was actually clearer in older translations! Coverdale's 1535 version reads thus: "As for the that semed to be greate, what they were in tyme passed, it maketh no matter to me. For God loketh not on the outwarde appearaunce of men. Neuertheles they which semed greate, taught me nothinge."
@@MAMoreno Good catch! You made me get out my "New Testament Octapla." Tyndale has " "Of then which seme to be great.... God loketh on no mans person (same as KJV) neverthelesse they which seme great, added nothinginge to me." Rheims "But of them that seemed to be something... God accepteth not the person (same as KJV) .... something, added nothing." Great Bible of 1540 is quite different. "Of them which seemed to be somewhat... God loketh on the outwards appearaunce of no man.... Nevertheless they which semed greate....." Just for a few. (Boy, does the "spellcheck" go crazy on this!)
@@markwardonwords I would love a full audiobook of the KJV in Original Pronunciation, but for now, I have to settle for little excerpts by Crystal and others. Two things stand out when I hear it: one, it's absolutely beautiful, and two, it's anything but posh.
Interesting... Mark, you mentioned a textual variant that is theologically significant: 2nd Peter 3:10. I see you certainly reject the Byzantine reading here. Do you also reject the New Heavens and New Earth as well? Or is it merely a refurbished earth that gets "scoured" first?
I hope you know that when I post corrections to your pronunciation or grammar that I am doing it out of a desire to make you an even better public speaker! (Such as when I correct your "an one" to "a one"), or the below comment regarding the pronunciation of 'pedant.'
@@markwardonwords Thanks for the citation to Gal 6:1. It came across (in several of your videos that I have watched) as if you didn't know the grammatical/pronunciation rule for when to use "a" vs "an" before a vowel or a consonant sound. It might be good to clarify that you are quoting when you use it, so we know it is a quote, and not a grammatical/pronunciation error on your part. It does make me wonder what the grammatical/pronunciation rule was back in 1611 and when it changed. One odd effect of your KJV Onlyist videos and your false friends videos is that they are making me more interested in reading and appreciating the KJV again. Thinking about the Bible in this way adds an additional level of "fun" to reading the Bible. It also got me thinking that the KJV translators use of Shakespearean/Elizabethan English in the KJV has "Shakespearianized" that version of the Bible for all time, and lends some drama and 'theatre' to the Bible that KJV aficionados find missing from the modern translations. The KJV also sort of grafts the 'beauty' and drama of 1600s Renaissance England onto the ancient world of the Old Testament, and also onto the 1st Century Roman Empire of the New Testament. The KJV gives us the wonderful effect as if the Bible has been combined with Shakespeare's Anthony and Cleopatra, Julius Caesar, Coriolanus and Titus Andronicus; so that we have a new creation that has fused the greatest scripture in the world with the greatest literature in the world. No wonder people are slow to give it up for a modern translation (which is easier to understand, but less theatrical, dramatic, and 'beautiful').
@@markwardonwords I think it means creation, as would have been understood in 1611. Sidenote. I went on a hunt for a false friend and I found one. Communicate in Philippians 4:14 is different today than back then, but I saw that it was already on your list when I check your site. Your just to quick on the draw for me.😂
@@markwardonwords I'll need to rethink my understanding of creature. I haven't used the KJV in decades but it is still the translation I grew up on. Thanks for the book recommendation. I'll read it.
I don’t know if you are aware of this, but the tecarta Bible app has a KJV translation in which you can turn on a setting called “show translation footnotes.” Doing so adds “*” to words such as creature and notes that the word today means creation. I haven’t checked all of your false friends, but I have noticed that many are given an asterisk and a modern word is noted. As someone who uses the KJV, it’s a tool that is quite useful. I can’t say it’s perfect, but it is what I think is a perfectly satisfying middle ground for keeping the KJV but also getting notified of false friends.
@@markwardonwords I know that there is always pushback against footnotes, and I will admit that even the system tecarta uses is a bit heavy handed at times for my liking, but it does the job of triggering me to think, “is this something I should pay attention to” and in turn catches false friends from time to time. I personally would like to see this method used more regularly as it does solve the very real problem of false friends and dead words.
I'm just skipping around UA-cam, not familiar with your channel, but I have to say I really get a kick out of your KJV voice. I don't read the KJV but I would buy an audio book of you reading it
The King James may obscure the doctrine in this passage but it’s ok because the theological point can be found in other places. Besides, the fundamentals are still intact.
The KJV is a good translation. And this is a HUGELY important point - " it’s ok because the theological point can be found in other places." The King James *_itself_* corrects itself.
My ONLY complaint with most modern translations (I prefer the NKJV and the 1995 NASB) is their lack of denoting plurality in pronouns (ye/you, thee/thou).
One good thing (of course ther is more), once again another "false friend" gets updated to words that match and endorse The New World Translation. No exceptions yet. :)
I wonder how many False Friends are in our modern translations as well? Especially our older ones like NJKV, NIV84, NASB77, etc. English has changed a lot since 2015, let alone since the mid-80s. I study primarily using the LSB (grew up and went to seminary using NASB77), use the ESV for go-to-meetin' (as the church I'm the AP for uses ESV in the pew Bibles, Hymnals, children's curriculum, give to new members, etc., so we preach using it), but have done most of my memorization using NKJV in association with AWANA as a kid in the late 70s. If I was stuck on a deserted Island with only one bible translation allowed - I'd probably take the NKJV simply because it's got the NU readings in the margin, and the one of the editors/translators for the OT was one of my professors in seminary. And one thing that isn't talked about much is how it sounds when read aloud to the ear. The NKJV just sounds the best when read out loud. ESV is a solid second place for how it sounds when read aloud. NASB/LSB just sounds kind of broken at times and almost word salad like, but the LSB sounds nice when used for OT Poetry. (H)CSB/NIV/NET/NLT sound like reading a newspaper, and not holy writ. Its subjective, but I feel important. And often overlooked.
"Want" persists in some modern versions of Ps 23.1, though it's less a false friend, as "want" _can_ still mean lack, it's just not very often used that way.
Brother I find that the vast majority of your false friends illuminate so much of the biblical text in the AV, that it’s absurd to say “most of them don’t effect theology”, they most certainly effect interpretation and that’s SUPER important.
@@markwardonwords in my background from Dr. Ruckman every verse that has been “changed” DID have a bearing on theology, we made it so. We had so much doctrine made off of misunderstanding of false friends (which is a problem begin with, to make every verse have a bearing on theology), because when modern translations change the wording of the AV to something else, we would especially make the AV give you something special and secret that you can’t find in the modern version (since they “changed” it), hence necessitating ones use only of the AV. Basically when the modern translations were just updating false friends, they actually were hiding special truth from you that you can only get in the AV. That’s what we were taught. I couldn’t tell you how shocked I was when I came across your videos and saw that was all a lie. And I and Dr. Ruckman were deceived and propagating misunderstanding of scripture because of language change.
@@AnthonyMarcus0115 This is an EXCELLENT point. I have to say what's fair and right: my false friends don't usually bear theological significance. Now, I still want to understand them and not misunderstand them. But if I were to use KJV-Onlyists' strategies back against them, I would insist that every tiny misunderstanding is massive. You are so, so right.
First, this is more confusing than I believe you intended. Your recital doesn't match the text on screen nor the KJV text of my own bible. Watch this and compare yourself. And 'creature" means creation mixed in an individual and group sense. But to your point, yes this is very confusing to read for the typical contemporary reader. One should not have to deal with such difficulties of comprehension. It is challenging enough just to follow Christ Jesus in today's siren-filled culture. To preach KJV-onlyism to parishioners already struggling with remaining faithful and obedient is irresponsible at best and certainly inconsiderate. Just because a clergyman had KJV-onlyism foisted upon them, certainly doesn't excuse their intractability. I suspect they perpetuate KJV-onlyism as a method of maintaining superiority and control over their parishioners, cautioning them that they need the guidance of the clergy to understand the scriptures "properly." When all they need is a sincere desire guided by the Holy Spirit and a vetted modern translation matching their reading level. Blessings.
It's not quite true that anyone can understand the Scriptures fully without aid of Biblical Tradition or guides. Of course, the Scriptures were meant to be read and understood by the reader; but they were also written quite commonly for a particular group of readers or a specific audience. For example, the meaning of brother is extended to include relatives (Gen. 14.16), fellow countrymen (Judg. 14.3), or members of the same caste (Num. 8.26); it can be used even to address strangers (Gen. 29.4) or to denote likeness, e.g., "I am a brother to dragons" (Job 30.29). In fact, the Bible explicitly says the priestly caste is there for the sake of interpretation: "The Levites...instructed the people in the Law while the people were standing there. They read from the Book of the Law of God, *making it clear and giving the meaning* so that the people understood what was being read." (Nehemiah 8:7-8) This is not to say that you shouldn't read the Bible, or that KJV-onlyists are correct; far from it. However, God places us in a communal body (the Church) so we may build each other up and help each other understand in the Body of Christ, not live and interpret independently. The Holy Spirit desires for us to be instruments of salvation--that's why Jesus commanded the disciples to evangelize in His Name. That means often God will make someone necessary to your understanding or your growth in Charity. Isn't that what family members frequently are, people you're forced to help in order to grow in charity?
@@whitebeans7292 Well of course you are right about much. There are certain limitations. For example my brother in law cannot read beyond a 2nd grade level. He would need assistance with mere mechanics before he could expect the assistance of the Holy Spirit. One would also need a sincere desire to understand. Some readers come to the scriptures with a desire to find fault and reject or dismiss the content altogether. The priestly caste also illegitimately introduced additional rules and requirements and abused their position of counsel, never revealing to those they were intended to serve that they had made amendments to the original teaching and law. Yes, and "shalom shalom" can both denote "hello, goodbye" as well as "perfect peace." Isaiah 26:3. And all of this is fine to discuss, but I have never attended seminary. I have only been studying the scriptures for 10-12 years. We live in a very blessed but troubled time. We are quite blessed to have so many translations, both dynamic and literal as well as resources to help us understand scriptures without the explicit need for a clergyperson to lead us. It is a good thing if you can find one you trust and who you feel comfortable with, as well as one with whom to worship the Lord God through His Son Jesus. But, mediocre literacy coupled with a sincere desire to dig deeper in God's word coupled with guidance by the Holy Spirit will suffice to give us all we need to serve God through Christ. The rest is just additional, much like icing on a cake. Not essential, but enjoyable. Shalom shalom.
@@RustyMadd I certainly agree that we are blessed in modern times to have available to us so many resources for studying Scripture and understanding it. However, it is untrue that a sincere desire will allow one to come to all Truth on one's own. If this was true, there would certainly not be so many factions among well-intentioned people--and yet, there are! St. Paul teaches: "Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God." And Peter says: "Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right." And if the Lord requires of us to submit ourselves to mere human institutions; how much more does he require us to submit ourselves to the apostles, teachers, and elders of the Church! The Bible teaches that "Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ (Ephesians 4:11)." If we don't submit to the evangelists, pastors, or teachers, then we cannot reach that unity of faith and knowledge of God which is required to enter the kingdom of heaven.
I'd rather 10,000 difficult words than 10,000 missing words. English was richer in the KJV and Shakespeare era, which lends itself to better expression in the thorough languages of Hebrew and Greek. But even then, those are trivial problems compared to the verses taken out of the modern Bibles simply because of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. I think the weight placed on those two manuscripts is the Achilles heel of modern translations, as they are not as great as they are made out to be. Replacing modern terminology for archaic terminology is not the biggest issue since even the KJV has undergone updates of that specific nature without relying on the modern critical text. I wish I was wrong, because man, I have a really nice NASB from Allan, but the words taken from it due to two manuscripts makes me not trust the translation and stick with the KJV instead because it uses the traditional text (and I usually dislike tradition, but it was not properly challenged by Westcott and Hort).
My friend, the New King James Version and the Modern English Version both use the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts as the King James. And they translate those texts into fully intelligible contemporary English, which means they meet the principle of 1 Corinthians 14, edification requires intelligibility. I recommend the NKJV and MEV to you.
@@markwardonwords I believe the MEV uses the Majority Text which is a little different from the Traditional Text, excluding some verses that are in the Traditional yet Minority Text, which I personally agree should be there (or at least, I don’t think the evidence against it is sufficient for me to doubt). The NKJV isn’t the worst but still references the modern critical text in the footnotes, which sows doubt in what is being read. I think that would be valid if the manuscript evidence logically qualified that conclusion, but I personally don’t see that coming from Vaticanus or Sinaiticus. That’s just me. I wouldn’t be totally against them updating the KJV again, but only in cases where it is utterly deemed archaic terminology, not merely difficult, as difficult can be good in language as it draws out a more profound meaning.
@@HeavyHeartsShow I really appreciate your straightforward reply. Usually at this point in the conversation I am ignored-or attacked. The MEV does use the TR, not the Majority Text. No prominent translation uses the Majority Text. If you object to the textual footnotes in the NKJV, you might just recall that the KJV had such foonotes as well! byfaithweunderstand.com/2018/04/13/eleven-places-where-the-1611-kjv-has-textual-critical-notes/
@@HeavyHeartsShow It is possible that pointing out textual variants will lead some believers to uncertainty. But it's also possible that failing to point them out will lead others to uncertainty when they encounter unbelievers online. I can see how someone could conclude that the NKJV has too many textual footnotes. But there's another way to look at it even in that case. A convinced TR proponent could say, "The NKJV is doing me a big favor! It's showing people all the places of corruption in the critical text! People will finally see for themselves how bad it is!" I doubt people pay much attention to the footnotes. My concern is the main text: is the English of the KJV now sufficiently intelligible to be used as a person's or church's only Bible? I think not. I've made a careful case for why I think that way. At the very least, I'd love to hear back from my KJV/TR brothers: a) How are people supposed to look up words they don't realize they're misunderstanding (because of language change)? and b) Exactly when and how will we know when the KJV is no longer sufficiently intelligible for use in pulpits?
As a brother who grew up King James Only, your channel has helped me both open up to other translations, as well as help me better understand the King James. I will still continue to preach King James in my church (that is the expectation of my church family where I am at), but I have seen the benefit of using other translations in my personal studies. Additionally, in my talks with families that don’t have religion, using the NLT and NIV has really opened the door for them to at the very least give Christ a fair consideration. Prayers from an Oklahoman funeral director and brother in Christ.
This is very encouraging. Thank you for this note, brother. May the Lord bless you.
Greetings from another Oklahoman! Coincidentally, my mother used to work for a funeral home in Norman years ago. God bless you!
@@AndrewKeiferYes may God bless you and use your openness and reasonability!
Glad to see you continuing this series, Brother Mark. It is very much needed in our time.
More to come!
I memorized 1 Timothy in KJV and always read that passage as saying that there are no “unclean” animals anymore. Thank you for the video!
Excellent!
Fun fact: This false friend exists in the old Dutch SV*. The explanation you have is 100% valid in Dutch too.
*Except that in the Dutch SV, "creature" is used 4/4 times instead of 3/4.
Fascinating!
Interesting observation. I have a copy of the SV as a nod to my Dad's Dutch heritage, but because my Dutch isn't particularly good, I hadn't noticed.
I wish more people understood that God will restore his good creature, I mean his good creation, not utterly destroy it ❤
The march to 100 continues! Keep up the fight against returning to Babel! Thank you Mark.
We're almost there!
When I was a wee lad, the word "creature" always had a negative connotation; i.e., as in "creature feature" or the "creature from the black lagoon." I really thought the Bible was talking about monsters - and was kind of disappointed when I finally discovered that it simply meant "created being."
Are you 100% serious?
@@markwardonwords Yup! Made my first profession of faith at six years old and immediately began reading my Bible not understanding anything that I was reading of course, but I was told that was what I was supposed to do, so I did it. I continued thinking "creature" meant "monster" until I was a late pre-teen!
@@therealkillerb7643 Aaaaawww, that is adorable! And totally understandable.
@@Yesica1993 Well, when I heard the phrase "the Holy Ghost" I had the same literalist mindset - remember, nobody bothered to explain things to a six-year old and I walked around for a long time thinking that being a Christian meant being haunted!
@@therealkillerb7643 Aw, my heart goes out to 6 year old baby you! We always have to be careful with children and constantly ask them what they're thinking about things. Because they ARE always thinking about things. We grownups just don't realize it. And they don't know how to express themselves.
I like the pan at the end where you show a beautiful part of the creature to us!
I really need to get a fluid head for my tripod… But I've been waiting for like two years for Benro to send me the tripod I ordered on Kickstarter. It's crazy!
@@captainnolan5062 Nice pun 😄
Thank you, Mark. Never say never... I can hear 101 galloping over the hills, soon it will be snapping at your ankles!
I've got a plan for that! A wrap-up video listing the false friends I didn't get to!
@@markwardonwords "A wrap-up video listing the false friends I didn't get to!"
Hmmm. "A" wrap up video, he says. "A" video. That implies a *_single_* video. Heh heh heh.
"Boast not thyself of to morrow; for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth. " (Prov 27:1, KJ -V- B)
😁
Without overthinking.... a "creature" is a created thing.
Good guess! What do you think now that you’ve watched the video?
creation is a created thing
We used to have a creepy show locally on Saturday nights called, "Creature Feature"...........so that is my "mental picture" when I hear the term.
Thank you for sharing both the glorious landscape and the very helpful False Friend!
My pleasure!
The Book of Common Prayer helps contextualize this false friend. In the Communion rite, it refers to bread and wine as 'creatures:'
"Hear us, O Father, we most humbly beseech thee; and grant that we receiving these thy creatures of bread and wine, according to thy Son our savior Jesus Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed body and blood."
Nice! If someone notices!
I caught it because we're going through Romans 8 right now in my bible study group so I was just reading in my commentary about the translation of that word. :)
✔
This one literally made my mouth drop open. Thank you, Mark. I have this passage memorized in KJV English and always misunderstood it.
Join the club!
This was my very finding that prompted me to preach through the entire book a few years ago. I love it all!
Gracefully keeping us humble, as always. Thanks!
And thanks for the beautiful shots of God's creation in Nevada!⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐🙏📖
Very helpful. Nearly certain i have misunderstood some of those examples!
Great to hear!
Love this cast. It actually brings s few things home.
Thank you.
Creator versus the Created
Thank you, Brother Mark🌹🌟🔥🌟🌹Created being.
✔
I never noticed this one. This video is extremely helpful! Thank you sir.
Glad it was helpful!
This was a very helpful one! I've heard the word creature in the KJV explained, but it seems to me that the explanations were more about the word including humans, not just animals, and not about including all of creation.
Right!
I have never once been disappointed by your videos my friend and today was no exception - great job and I loved the shout out to Al Wolters whose expertise in these matters (and, of course, biblical scholasticism at large) is unparalleled - well done :-)
Thanks again!
So funny, my family lived at Tahoe many years. When you said, "Ne-VAH-da," I thought, "Uh-oh, he's going to look pretentious and unaware!" But then you fixed it right away! 😂 Of course, you knew...
Loved this video! So helpful! The NKJV uses "creation"... which is also translated from TR isn't it?
Yes! But this is not a TR vs. Critical Text thing. This is solely an English thing.
@@triciamaddoxbehncke4191 I also translated at least partially from the TR, and I have a rendering of 1 Tm 4 that matches the explanation here: "...insisting on abstaining from foods which God has created...for _everything that God created_ shall be good, and nothing to be rejected, if it is eaten with thanksgiving..."
I cannot understand the King James Only guys. Language is always changing, so from time to time the translations has to be adapted. What were the goals of the original King James Bible? How can you achieve these goals with contemporary English?
It ought to be that simple.
@@markwardonwords " It ought to be that simple. "
But where would be the FUN in that??? What would we do without the conspiracies? How would we vilify Rome if we can't blame them for all of these new translations?!?!? *_YOU JUST DON'T GET IT!!! _*
On a serious note, I am persuaded that this movement has a lot to do with insecurity. It might even be called, "lack of faith", or, "walking by sight". If I have to trust God to preserve His Word without an Anointed Perfect Translation that I can put my hands on, well, I'm just going to have to trust Him, and that requires actual faith.
Having an Anointed Perfect Translation is much more comfortable. There is no uncertainty. I can SEE it. I can TOUCH it. I can be assured by all the bellowing and pulpit pounding about it.
No thinking is required. No *_faith_* is required.
Yes, this is accurate. Fr. Stephen De Young wrote his PhD dissertation on 1 John 2:2, exploring how the Second Temple period would have understood this verse as referring to atonement for the sins of the entire world, in a physical sense, much like the temple (or tabernacle) on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:16). I’ve noticed that the EOB consistently translates this word as “creation” in Romans 8:18-23. Christ’s redemption of the whole world marks a key difference between the Protestant dualism I once held and Orthodoxy’s view of creation’s redemption. Materiality itself is not inherently bad but has been restored by the grace of Christ’s work (Romans 8:21-22ish).
This is the best video of the series yet!
Many thanks!
I love the KJ voice
Great example
I've had some people tell me that if God used a word in his Word (the KJV), then it would be wrong for us to change it to anything else! SMH
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi (Let the law of worship fix the law of belief):
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit,
as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, WORLD WITHOUT END. Amen.
The creatures are the animals that have to live in this fallen world.
(Pause ON) A creature is an animal or a scary being if you watch Creature Features. (Pause OFF)
Thanks, Dr. Mark! Now turn off the screens and go enjoy your family and the beautiful CREATION!
Deal!
There seems to be a slight difference in my mind between "All creation groans," and "From the creation of the world,".
The second 'creation' seems to be a verb of some sort.
In my mind, the distinction is between what was created, and possibly an event signifying its completion.
Thanks for the video.
You are welcome!
I've always read "creature" as a created thing with consciousness, and can refer either to human or animal depending on the context.
Good guess! What do you think now that you’ve watched the video?
@@markwardonwords It makes a bit of poetic sense considering the medieval conception of cosmology. I thought of the words of Ramandu in the Voyage of the Dawn Treader, that a ball of flaming gas is not what a star is, but only what it is made of.
@@michaelkelleypoetry Nice connection. I love that book. Just read it yet again.
Your Brit accent is actually getting pretty good. 😄
I probably shouldn't be encouraged …
Thanks for this Mark! By the way, I would love to hear or read your series, if possible - or at least get your references. I've been in a deep study on the importance of our identity in Christ, and I would love to learn more, brother! :)
Most of that material I delivered at a church in Ohio and put up on UA-cam. Search my channel for "identity."
@@markwardonwords Wonderful! Thanks, Mark! :)
Hi Mark, I picked up a used 1967 Scofield Reference Bible (Oxford Press). Within the KJV text, "word changes have been made when clarification is needed". Seems to be an effort to correct "false friends". Would you recommend this approach?
O yeah, you're right. Thanks!
You're welcome!
This is one that definitely gets misunderstood. Had a brother at my KJ church preach on this a few months ago and he made the statement, see this word creature here? That's us as humans.
Definitely had the thought in real time, mmm, no. That's talking about all creation. It matters for the point Paul is trying to make.
✔
Hey Mark. I think i found another significant false friend. Matthew 27:3. Judas did not repent. I think this is a very significant false friend as if you read it at face value you assume an incorrect outcome that Judas had. He was not repentant in the traditional biblical sense in the KJV. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.
I'm not sure that μεταμεληθεὶς in Matthew 27.3 can't be taken as "repented" in this context. The NRSV (including the 2021 edition) and Good News Bible (including the 1992 edition) still use the word "repented" here, which means that this matter falls into the realm of interpretation. See also the time that the LORD "repented" in 1 Samuel 15.35; this word is still used in the NABRE of 2011. It really comes down to two things: how many senses you permit for the word "repent" and how applicable those senses are to Judas or to the LORD.
Beautiful views of God's magnificent creation.
Mark, what Oxford dictionary exactly is the one to which you often refer?
I'd like to get one.
Blessings and love to all the saints.
Oxford English Dictionary. Comes in 20 volumes. There is a two-volume edition with micro-print.
@@markwardonwords
Yowza.
Or rather yowzeth.
20 volumes....
Thanks.
@@markwardonwords Where can one get the two volume micro print edition?
@@DrGero15 www.amazon.com/dp/019861117X?tag=3755-20
Check eBay, though. Mine was at a Goodwill!
1:44 Creature is for all of Creation. I have the NKJV memorized for this passage so that word stood out to me while you were reading the passage before you specified that you were talking about that word.
Ha! Good!
Just curious, since you have an OED license...have you ever done an exhaustive search of words in the OED marked 'obsolete' that also appear in the KJV (any edition)?
Too laborious. Can’t just run the search automatically. And there would likely be a lot of false positives, because many words have only senses.
I tried something like this but it was a dead end. The OED lets you search citations if I recall correctly, but even the advanced search options wouldn't let me specify obsolete senses of words where the KJV (or other Bible) is cited.
I also can attest to the sagacity of our friend known as Mycroft! 😉
Ha! Yes!
Hey Mark, I had a question I am curious what your answer would be, asking as someone who really wants the modern translations to be good and for me to be wrong. In what sense is the modern critical edition of the Greek NT *not* the "received" or "traditional" text?
Good question, and stated like a Christian, too.
I would say that "the critical text" has been received by many millions of God's people around the world-who just pick up their Bibles, read them, and trust them without any awareness that there are textual variants in other Bibles in other languages (and possibly in their own languages).
I would say that "the critical text" is traditional insofar as the vast, vast majority of its readings are shared with the Greek New Testament that is traditional in the European West. Also, it's traditional insofar as all traditions have to start somewhere, and many, many Christians around the world, Christians who got their Bibles only in the last 50 years, will some day soon call their Bibles traditional.
I would say that "the critical text" is also traditional in that it contains only readings that Christians around the world have received and used in various places and at various times. There are no made up readings in it (minus one conjectural emendation in 2 Peter 3 in one critical text edition that no evangelical Bibles have picked up).
But, yes, the critical text contains readings that were not included in the most powerful and widespread textual tradition in Western memory. Does that make sense?
@@markwardonwords Yes that is a fair assessment, thank you!
A creature is a created being. That's my guess.
Sometimes it is, of course. But sometimes not.
@@markwardonwordsyup I put in my guess like you requested before you gave the answer
Brother, even from the middle of the wilderness, your videos look really clean.
Super jealous! (in a good way)😊
Many thanks!
We have been to Nevada many times, the high desert is very beautiful. Okay, now this is only the second time I have found the Authorized King James and the KJV versions are differing here a bit. The Humble Lamb says at the bottom in the notes, "6,7 sensual, fleshly, worldly" for the creature in the verses 20, 21, the rest seem to say creation instead. Enjoy your time in Nevada! We have been on archaeology digs there in the desert. Watch out for snakes, as there are a lot of rattlers there. 🙂
Dude, do you do an audio Bible? If not you could.
Many thanks!
A creature is a thing that has been created. "The creature" is the whole of that which is not God.
Well shoot. I did what you said, hit pause, got all proud of myself for finding it - I thought. So this is today’s humble thyself lesson. Glory will be revealed “to” us rather than “in” us which I think I still believe. I struggle with glory being revealed “in” anyone other than God but that, of course, is not the false friend.
Just one quick question. Are you saying that we’re not going to get a “new” earth?
I'm saying we're getting a renewed earth, a restored earth-so renewed, so restored that it can be called "new."
It's called Nevada, the second way you pronounced it, in most places my friend ;)
Merriam-Webster says it's both, but that the first way, ne-VAH-duh, is used "chiefly by outsiders." And that's what the people there told me.
Creature means to me a living thing like a cat, a bear. I'm betting that creature In 1611 can also mean Creation.
After finishing the video. I'm glad to know I was on the right track. Great video, beautiful land.
Right! You nailed it!
A creature is anything created, No?
Good guess! What do you think now that you’ve watched the video?
@@markwardonwords I believe it to mean creation
Wait! The KJB has 'children of God' for huioi?
Yes. In approximately 47 passages, according to Logos.
@markwardonwords This is surprisingly gender inclusive at the cost, some would say, of the connotations of sonship leading to inheritance. Romans 9:7 puts this differently, but referring to 'children' and 'seed'.
Born of natural means
The council of Nicaea discussed whether Jesus was a creature I wish she created
Or created God in the flesh
Creature=the total of creation
Hi Mark. Beautiful place! This "creature" issue was one of the first differences between the KJV and modern translations I noticed because it featured in a lot of the creation science books I read early on. Anyway, is this purely a false friend situation or also the KJV translators taking a more narrow interpretation of ktisis in certain contexts? The reason I say this is because we see "creature" three times in Romans 8:19-21 and then suddenly "creation" at verse 22 (You do mention this). There may well be an obsolete aspect of "creature", but the distinction of use between verses 19-21 and 22 suggests to me that the translators were going for some kind of semantic distinction (not just stylistic). The creation is personified (prosopopoeia) throughout Romans 8:19-22. But the way I read it, it seems that the KJV translators interpreted verses 19-21 as personifying the individual created thing as an exemplar (e.g. like "blessed is the man" which is a singular exemplar of any and all men or people). But at verse 22, the "whole creation" as a collective is personified. That seems to me why "the creature" and "the whole creation" are both used. Now, the question remains whether or not such a distinction is warranted hermeneutically, but isn't that what's going on since both "creature" and "whole creation" are used? Also, in Romans 1:25, can it be that the KJV translators used "creature" because the examples of the things people "worshipped and served" are the aforementioned "corruptible man", "birds", "fourfooted beasts", and "creeping things" (Romans 1:23)? Again, the KJV *possibly* narrowing the semantic scope (you could say it's an example of a dynamic translation in the KJV). As for 1 Timothy 4:3, can it be that the KJV translators again narrowed the semantic scope of ktisis as meaning animals given the assumption of a cross-reference to Acts 10:12-14 where animals are depicted? There is no doubt an archaic aspect of "creature" (as with "beast"), but it seems like there's more going on below the surface whenever ktisis appears in the KJV (which will likely resurface outside of KJV translation debate as a hermeneutical debate concerning the correct semantic scope of ktisis in any given passage).
You very well could be right. This is what KJV-Onlyists (I know you're not one) should have done with my work from the beginning.
I did give consideration to this possibility, but let's not forget that the OED itself cites Rom 8:19 (was it?) as a sample usage for the sense I adduced. And this question may be irresolvable. Your guess as to their purpose in varying their word choice in Rom 8 (3x creature, 1x creation) is as good as mine.
@@markwardonwords I love trying (as much as I can) to resolve the unresolvable, and I think this is a case of "creature" in the KJV being an archaism AND/OR a hermeneutical choice, depending on the passage. I think all of the following propositions are true:
1. "Creature" in 1611 could have meant either animals or all created things. So you're right about this false friend.
2. "Creation" in 1611 also meant all created things.
3. "Creature" in 1611 was the more appropriate term when referring to a singular exemplar.
4. "Creation" in 1611 as well as today is the more appropriate term when referring to the whole of creation.
The choice of "creature" in Romans 8:19 could be due to "creature" being a better choice to serve as a singular exemplar. And as the OED says, the "creature" in Romans 8:19 includes non-animal things. So in Romans 8:19 in the KJV, the choice of "creature" is affected by both archaism AND hermeneutics. But in some examples like Romans 1:25 and 1 Timothy 4:3-4, the choice of "creature" may be due to the assumption from context that animals are referenced. You point still stands - that people can get confused thinking that "creature" in the KJV always means animals when in fact it can refer even to non-animal things (as in Romans 8:19). But in some passages like Romans 1:15 and 1 Timothy 4:3-4, the choice of "creature" may be due to hermeneutics rather than archaism.
To add to my point above, even the ESV and NKJV use "creature" at Romans 1:25, apparently agreeing with the KJV interpretation that the aforementioned animals are the immediate referent.
Hey Mark, long time viewer here. Is there a method of submitting false friends to you, an email or something? I found one in Titus that I think you will be fascinated by. In my opinion, the majority of contemporary English translations actually get it wrong, following what the King James sounds like it is saying to contemporary readers. Only one contemporary translation gets it right, I believe, while KJV got it right in 1611, but it is now obscured due to language change. Is there a better place to go into details than a UA-cam comment?
Can you comment here?
Commenting here really is best. I’m sorry I can’t give out my email!
@@markwardonwords Alrighty, here it goes. Sorry in advance for the long comment :-)
The false friend I found is in Titus 2:15 (if you want to feel like your on the other side of one of your videos, maybe pause this comment and look it up to see if you can spot the false friend yourself!)
This one is actually another usage of a false friend that you already have on your list. The word "let." You have it already in the sense meant in 2 Thes 2:7, the archaic usage meaning "to prevent." However, there is another archaic use of "let," and that is using it as a "third person imperative," meaning a command given to someone you are not directly speaking to.
For example of this usage, consider the Christmas carol "Joy to the World." When we sing "Let earth receive her king!" and "Let every heart prepare him room," we aren't actually saying, "Allow and do not prevent the earth from receiving her king!" We are actually commanding, albeit in the third person, the earth (and presumably all those dwelling on it) to receive their rightful king.
We see this usage also in the scriptures, perhaps nowhere more famously than in Matthew 16:24. KJV says, "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself..." Because contemporary English does not have a way to exactly translate the third person imperative, many modern translations will keep the KJV's wording (see ESV/NKJV), while others will say things like, "He must deny himself" (NASB/NIV). But it is important to notice that Jesus isn't saying, "Disciples, do not prevent others from denying themselves" (as our contemporary definition of "let" might imply). Rather he is saying, "I command him to deny himself." The KJV said it in a way that made perfect sense at the time, and contemporary translations sometimes will stick with it because we don't really have a perfect way to translate it in contemporary language.
We see the same usage of the word "let" in Titus 2:15. I have heard many a Christian (reading from the KJV or otherwise) say, "The Bible tells us, do not let anyone disregard you!" And indeed, one could understand the wording of the KJV to be saying that, "Let no man despise thee." But that is NOT, in fact, what Paul was saying to Titus. He was using the third person imperative. He was saying something more akin to, " I command all to not despise (or disregard) you." Or as the NASB 2020 has it, "No one is to disregard you."
This is the first example that I have come across where the false friend has actually tripped up even many modern translators. Only NASB, and really only the 2020 update of the NASB (95 and 77 both phrase it like the KJV) makes the real meaning clear. Some translations even put the wrong, "false friend" KJV translation into the text in contemporary English! For example, NLT says, "Don't let anyone disregard what you say," as though the command was second person (commanding to Titus) as opposed to third person (commanding those being spoken about). Likewise the NIV says, "Do not let anyone despise you."
In my judgment, and I'd be happy to hear your thoughts as well, this is a case of even modern translation committees falling for a false friend from the KJV.
If anyone disagrees with me, let him voice his objection with all speed!
@@kentyoung5282 Boy… do you have direct evidence that people are misunderstanding this third-person imperative? I'd say that the construction is a little twee, a little archaic, but still present.
english.stackexchange.com/questions/17791/is-this-grammatical-construction-an-imperative-for-the-third-person
Hmm. Your "let no man disregard you" gives me real pause. I think you're onto something here. It really does sound like he's telling Timothy, "Don't permit anyone to disregard you." Wow. I wonder what the real difference is, given that Titus is the recipient of the letter… Thinking. Again, you may be onto something!
Indeed, I think the KJV translators' "Latinity" is showing here: creatura in Latin means 'creation' in the sense of 'a thing created' which could mean the whole universe. My experience with KJV-onlyists accords with yours on this point: they have a bad tendency to somehow misunderstand both Jacobean English (which is really an inexcusable consequence of our modern educational system) AND the underlying Greek text--a marvelous (in the Jacobean sense) feat. In any event, this matter would be settled if only we put Shakespeare and Milton in children's hands and copybooks well before sixth grade.
I don't know. The contexts seems to explain everything. If it's creation or nature is within the context.
And yet that didn't work for the intelligent woman I referenced in the video, the textbook author.
I guessed it was creation or world before I saw the answer. But I guessed the word was kosmon not ktisis.
You are far removed from your proper era. Clearly, with your KJV voice, you definitely belong in a previous era along the side of King James and his Bible translators! Well done! 😎
Creature = Creation
Right!
Were you reading the verse in a British accent?
That was just camera tricks. Low budget.
I think I read somewhere that there are about 700 or so old English words in the KJV, so you have 615 to go😂
Yes, but many/most of these (?) are "dead words," words we know we don't know like "besom," "bolled" and "bewrayed." Those are less of my concern.
Beautiful out west. Enjoy your time with your family. Thanks for taking us with you.
As for your false friend here, I don't have a problem with this word needing an update, but the theological aspect...I will agree to disagree. It's not a problem when we look into the original tongues. This is solved with the simple exegesis you offer here. The problem most believers have is that they do not exegete the text. I guess that is our job. Blessings to you Mark.
Thank you for your time. Have a blessed and safe trip home.
Creature meaning all creation?
And I think I got that from reading modern versions only ..
Yes!
Have you considered "somewhat" as a false friend, as it is found in Galatians 2:6?
or the rest of the scripture that says "God accepteth no man's person." what does that mean today?
What's especially strange is that Galatians 2.6 was actually clearer in older translations! Coverdale's 1535 version reads thus: "As for the that semed to be greate, what they were in tyme passed, it maketh no matter to me. For God loketh not on the outwarde appearaunce of men. Neuertheles they which semed greate, taught me nothinge."
@@MAMoreno Good catch! You made me get out my "New Testament Octapla." Tyndale has " "Of then which seme to be great.... God loketh on no mans person (same as KJV) neverthelesse they which seme great, added nothinginge to me." Rheims "But of them that seemed to be something... God accepteth not the person (same as KJV) .... something, added nothing." Great Bible of 1540 is quite different. "Of them which seemed to be somewhat... God loketh on the outwards appearaunce of no man.... Nevertheless they which semed greate....." Just for a few. (Boy, does the "spellcheck" go crazy on this!)
Well, it's an interesting accent you're adopting, but you might want to check with David Crystal.
I already did. I know I'm off. ;) I can't do that accent he and his son do. It's amazing.
@@markwardonwords I would love a full audiobook of the KJV in Original Pronunciation, but for now, I have to settle for little excerpts by Crystal and others. Two things stand out when I hear it: one, it's absolutely beautiful, and two, it's anything but posh.
Interesting... Mark, you mentioned a textual variant that is theologically significant: 2nd Peter 3:10. I see you certainly reject the Byzantine reading here. Do you also reject the New Heavens and New Earth as well? Or is it merely a refurbished earth that gets "scoured" first?
Not prepared to speak in detail at the moment. I refer you to Al Wolters' article on the text-critical issues in that passage.
@@markwardonwords Lol ok. I'll read it.
I hope you know that when I post corrections to your pronunciation or grammar that I am doing it out of a desire to make you an even better public speaker! (Such as when I correct your "an one" to "a one"), or the below comment regarding the pronunciation of 'pedant.'
The "such an one" is a KJV reference (e.g., Gal 6:1).
"Pedant" was just wrong. Thank you!
@@markwardonwords Thanks for the citation to Gal 6:1. It came across (in several of your videos that I have watched) as if you didn't know the grammatical/pronunciation rule for when to use "a" vs "an" before a vowel or a consonant sound. It might be good to clarify that you are quoting when you use it, so we know it is a quote, and not a grammatical/pronunciation error on your part. It does make me wonder what the grammatical/pronunciation rule was back in 1611 and when it changed. One odd effect of your KJV Onlyist videos and your false friends videos is that they are making me more interested in reading and appreciating the KJV again. Thinking about the Bible in this way adds an additional level of "fun" to reading the Bible. It also got me thinking that the KJV translators use of Shakespearean/Elizabethan English in the KJV has "Shakespearianized" that version of the Bible for all time, and lends some drama and 'theatre' to the Bible that KJV aficionados find missing from the modern translations. The KJV also sort of grafts the 'beauty' and drama of 1600s Renaissance England onto the ancient world of the Old Testament, and also onto the 1st Century Roman Empire of the New Testament. The KJV gives us the wonderful effect as if the Bible has been combined with Shakespeare's Anthony and Cleopatra, Julius Caesar, Coriolanus and Titus Andronicus; so that we have a new creation that has fused the greatest scripture in the world with the greatest literature in the world. No wonder people are slow to give it up for a modern translation (which is easier to understand, but less theatrical, dramatic, and 'beautiful').
Could you do one on "unicorn?"
"Unicorns" is in the KJV?!
@@Yesica1993 And in at least one case, the KJV translators offered "rhinoceros" as an alternative translation...
Creature: a created living being?!?
Prob will be embarrassed. But trying to play the game as you wish;)
Good guess! What do you think now that you’ve watched the video?
My guess of creature. Is possibly an unsaved individual. I'm about to find out though once I unpause the video.
Good guess! What do you think now that you’ve watched the video?
@@markwardonwords I think it means creation, as would have been understood in 1611. Sidenote. I went on a hunt for a false friend and I found one. Communicate in Philippians 4:14 is different today than back then, but I saw that it was already on your list when I check your site. Your just to quick on the draw for me.😂
Something created
Good guess! What do you think now that you’ve watched the video?
@@markwardonwords I'll need to rethink my understanding of creature. I haven't used the KJV in decades but it is still the translation I grew up on. Thanks for the book recommendation. I'll read it.
I don’t know if you are aware of this, but the tecarta Bible app has a KJV translation in which you can turn on a setting called “show translation footnotes.”
Doing so adds “*” to words such as creature and notes that the word today means creation.
I haven’t checked all of your false friends, but I have noticed that many are given an asterisk and a modern word is noted.
As someone who uses the KJV, it’s a tool that is quite useful. I can’t say it’s perfect, but it is what I think is a perfectly satisfying middle ground for keeping the KJV but also getting notified of false friends.
NICE! I had not noticed this.
@@markwardonwords I know that there is always pushback against footnotes, and I will admit that even the system tecarta uses is a bit heavy handed at times for my liking, but it does the job of triggering me to think, “is this something I should pay attention to” and in turn catches false friends from time to time.
I personally would like to see this method used more regularly as it does solve the very real problem of false friends and dead words.
I'm just skipping around UA-cam, not familiar with your channel, but I have to say I really get a kick out of your KJV voice. I don't read the KJV but I would buy an audio book of you reading it
Wow, thank you!
The King James may obscure the doctrine in this passage but it’s ok because the theological point can be found in other places. Besides, the fundamentals are still intact.
The KJV is a good translation. And this is a HUGELY important point - " it’s ok because the theological point can be found in other places."
The King James *_itself_* corrects itself.
@@Packhorse-bh8qn And it's interesting to note that it needs correcting!
Yes.
My ONLY complaint with most modern translations (I prefer the NKJV and the 1995 NASB) is their lack of denoting plurality in pronouns (ye/you, thee/thou).
But when context isn’t sufficient (and it almost always is), modern translations have ways of clarifying. Check Luke 22:31 in the NIV, and you’ll see.
@markwardonwords good call. Having seen that, my mind briefly wandered to the sense of "all of Peter" - oops!
Humans
Good guess! What do you think now that you’ve watched the video?
One good thing (of course ther is more), once again another "false friend" gets updated to words that match and endorse The New World Translation. No exceptions yet. :)
Are you the same guy who made the video Why Bible Typography Matters.
Yes!
I wonder how many False Friends are in our modern translations as well? Especially our older ones like NJKV, NIV84, NASB77, etc. English has changed a lot since 2015, let alone since the mid-80s. I study primarily using the LSB (grew up and went to seminary using NASB77), use the ESV for go-to-meetin' (as the church I'm the AP for uses ESV in the pew Bibles, Hymnals, children's curriculum, give to new members, etc., so we preach using it), but have done most of my memorization using NKJV in association with AWANA as a kid in the late 70s. If I was stuck on a deserted Island with only one bible translation allowed - I'd probably take the NKJV simply because it's got the NU readings in the margin, and the one of the editors/translators for the OT was one of my professors in seminary. And one thing that isn't talked about much is how it sounds when read aloud to the ear. The NKJV just sounds the best when read out loud. ESV is a solid second place for how it sounds when read aloud. NASB/LSB just sounds kind of broken at times and almost word salad like, but the LSB sounds nice when used for OT Poetry. (H)CSB/NIV/NET/NLT sound like reading a newspaper, and not holy writ. Its subjective, but I feel important. And often overlooked.
"Want" persists in some modern versions of Ps 23.1, though it's less a false friend, as "want" _can_ still mean lack, it's just not very often used that way.
@@fnjesusfreak In that particular case, I would consider it archaic because of the syntax. I would update it like so: "I shall not be in want."
@@MAMoreno I went with "I shall lack for nothing."
What will you do in 2025?
Bible stuff! Bible translation, Bible tech, etc.
Brother I find that the vast majority of your false friends illuminate so much of the biblical text in the AV, that it’s absurd to say “most of them don’t effect theology”, they most certainly effect interpretation and that’s SUPER important.
Not every verse in the Bible has a direct bearing on theology.
@@markwardonwords in my background from Dr. Ruckman every verse that has been “changed” DID have a bearing on theology, we made it so. We had so much doctrine made off of misunderstanding of false friends (which is a problem begin with, to make every verse have a bearing on theology), because when modern translations change the wording of the AV to something else, we would especially make the AV give you something special and secret that you can’t find in the modern version (since they “changed” it), hence necessitating ones use only of the AV. Basically when the modern translations were just updating false friends, they actually were hiding special truth from you that you can only get in the AV. That’s what we were taught.
I couldn’t tell you how shocked I was when I came across your videos and saw that was all a lie. And I and Dr. Ruckman were deceived and propagating misunderstanding of scripture because of language change.
@@AnthonyMarcus0115 This is an EXCELLENT point. I have to say what's fair and right: my false friends don't usually bear theological significance. Now, I still want to understand them and not misunderstand them. But if I were to use KJV-Onlyists' strategies back against them, I would insist that every tiny misunderstanding is massive. You are so, so right.
@@AnthonyMarcus0115 Neognosticism; no surprise.
First, this is more confusing than I believe you intended. Your recital doesn't match the text on screen nor the KJV text of my own bible. Watch this and compare yourself. And 'creature" means creation mixed in an individual and group sense. But to your point, yes this is very confusing to read for the typical contemporary reader. One should not have to deal with such difficulties of comprehension. It is challenging enough just to follow Christ Jesus in today's siren-filled culture. To preach KJV-onlyism to parishioners already struggling with remaining faithful and obedient is irresponsible at best and certainly inconsiderate. Just because a clergyman had KJV-onlyism foisted upon them, certainly doesn't excuse their intractability. I suspect they perpetuate KJV-onlyism as a method of maintaining superiority and control over their parishioners, cautioning them that they need the guidance of the clergy to understand the scriptures "properly." When all they need is a sincere desire guided by the Holy Spirit and a vetted modern translation matching their reading level. Blessings.
It's not quite true that anyone can understand the Scriptures fully without aid of Biblical Tradition or guides. Of course, the Scriptures were meant to be read and understood by the reader; but they were also written quite commonly for a particular group of readers or a specific audience. For example, the meaning of brother is extended to include relatives (Gen. 14.16), fellow countrymen (Judg. 14.3), or members of the same caste (Num. 8.26); it can be used even to address strangers (Gen. 29.4) or to denote likeness, e.g., "I am a brother to dragons" (Job 30.29).
In fact, the Bible explicitly says the priestly caste is there for the sake of interpretation: "The Levites...instructed the people in the Law while the people were standing there. They read from the Book of the Law of God, *making it clear and giving the meaning* so that the people understood what was being read." (Nehemiah 8:7-8)
This is not to say that you shouldn't read the Bible, or that KJV-onlyists are correct; far from it. However, God places us in a communal body (the Church) so we may build each other up and help each other understand in the Body of Christ, not live and interpret independently. The Holy Spirit desires for us to be instruments of salvation--that's why Jesus commanded the disciples to evangelize in His Name. That means often God will make someone necessary to your understanding or your growth in Charity. Isn't that what family members frequently are, people you're forced to help in order to grow in charity?
@@whitebeans7292 Well of course you are right about much. There are certain limitations. For example my brother in law cannot read beyond a 2nd grade level. He would need assistance with mere mechanics before he could expect the assistance of the Holy Spirit. One would also need a sincere desire to understand. Some readers come to the scriptures with a desire to find fault and reject or dismiss the content altogether. The priestly caste also illegitimately introduced additional rules and requirements and abused their position of counsel, never revealing to those they were intended to serve that they had made amendments to the original teaching and law. Yes, and "shalom shalom" can both denote "hello, goodbye" as well as "perfect peace." Isaiah 26:3. And all of this is fine to discuss, but I have never attended seminary. I have only been studying the scriptures for 10-12 years. We live in a very blessed but troubled time. We are quite blessed to have so many translations, both dynamic and literal as well as resources to help us understand scriptures without the explicit need for a clergyperson to lead us. It is a good thing if you can find one you trust and who you feel comfortable with, as well as one with whom to worship the Lord God through His Son Jesus. But, mediocre literacy coupled with a sincere desire to dig deeper in God's word coupled with guidance by the Holy Spirit will suffice to give us all we need to serve God through Christ. The rest is just additional, much like icing on a cake. Not essential, but enjoyable. Shalom shalom.
@@RustyMadd I certainly agree that we are blessed in modern times to have available to us so many resources for studying Scripture and understanding it. However, it is untrue that a sincere desire will allow one to come to all Truth on one's own. If this was true, there would certainly not be so many factions among well-intentioned people--and yet, there are!
St. Paul teaches: "Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God."
And Peter says: "Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right."
And if the Lord requires of us to submit ourselves to mere human institutions; how much more does he require us to submit ourselves to the apostles, teachers, and elders of the Church! The Bible teaches that "Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ (Ephesians 4:11)."
If we don't submit to the evangelists, pastors, or teachers, then we cannot reach that unity of faith and knowledge of God which is required to enter the kingdom of heaven.
I'd rather 10,000 difficult words than 10,000 missing words. English was richer in the KJV and Shakespeare era, which lends itself to better expression in the thorough languages of Hebrew and Greek. But even then, those are trivial problems compared to the verses taken out of the modern Bibles simply because of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. I think the weight placed on those two manuscripts is the Achilles heel of modern translations, as they are not as great as they are made out to be. Replacing modern terminology for archaic terminology is not the biggest issue since even the KJV has undergone updates of that specific nature without relying on the modern critical text. I wish I was wrong, because man, I have a really nice NASB from Allan, but the words taken from it due to two manuscripts makes me not trust the translation and stick with the KJV instead because it uses the traditional text (and I usually dislike tradition, but it was not properly challenged by Westcott and Hort).
My friend, the New King James Version and the Modern English Version both use the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts as the King James. And they translate those texts into fully intelligible contemporary English, which means they meet the principle of 1 Corinthians 14, edification requires intelligibility. I recommend the NKJV and MEV to you.
@@markwardonwords I believe the MEV uses the Majority Text which is a little different from the Traditional Text, excluding some verses that are in the Traditional yet Minority Text, which I personally agree should be there (or at least, I don’t think the evidence against it is sufficient for me to doubt). The NKJV isn’t the worst but still references the modern critical text in the footnotes, which sows doubt in what is being read. I think that would be valid if the manuscript evidence logically qualified that conclusion, but I personally don’t see that coming from Vaticanus or Sinaiticus. That’s just me. I wouldn’t be totally against them updating the KJV again, but only in cases where it is utterly deemed archaic terminology, not merely difficult, as difficult can be good in language as it draws out a more profound meaning.
@@HeavyHeartsShow I really appreciate your straightforward reply. Usually at this point in the conversation I am ignored-or attacked.
The MEV does use the TR, not the Majority Text. No prominent translation uses the Majority Text.
If you object to the textual footnotes in the NKJV, you might just recall that the KJV had such foonotes as well! byfaithweunderstand.com/2018/04/13/eleven-places-where-the-1611-kjv-has-textual-critical-notes/
@@markwardonwords That is fair to point out about the footnotes.
@@HeavyHeartsShow It is possible that pointing out textual variants will lead some believers to uncertainty. But it's also possible that failing to point them out will lead others to uncertainty when they encounter unbelievers online. I can see how someone could conclude that the NKJV has too many textual footnotes. But there's another way to look at it even in that case. A convinced TR proponent could say, "The NKJV is doing me a big favor! It's showing people all the places of corruption in the critical text! People will finally see for themselves how bad it is!"
I doubt people pay much attention to the footnotes. My concern is the main text: is the English of the KJV now sufficiently intelligible to be used as a person's or church's only Bible? I think not. I've made a careful case for why I think that way. At the very least, I'd love to hear back from my KJV/TR brothers: a) How are people supposed to look up words they don't realize they're misunderstanding (because of language change)? and b) Exactly when and how will we know when the KJV is no longer sufficiently intelligible for use in pulpits?
@markwardonwords