Leaving KJV-Onlyism; Reconstructing Faith
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 вер 2023
- Friend of the channel Michael Britt tells his story of leaving KJV-Onlyism and reconstructing his faith in Scripture.
🎁 Help me end Bible translation tribalism, one plow boy at a time:
✅ / mlward
✅ buymeacoffee.com/mlward
📖 Check out my book, Authorized:
amzn.to/2r27Boz
🎥 Watch my Fifty False Friends in the KJV series on UA-cam:
bit.ly/50FalseFriends
👏 Many thanks to Jonathan Burris of @pastorburris for editing this video as a volunteer support to my little ministry!
👏 Many, many thanks to the Patreon supporters who make my work possible!
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, Joe Siler, Mark Sarhan, Melissa F, Rachel Schoenberger.
Mark, thanks for the interview. And I’m so, so, so comforted and blessed to read the positive comments on this video. It’s such a welcome departure from some of the other forums in which I’ve participated. Awesome!
I quietly delete the really nasty ones. I don’t think there were any this time around, though.
I went to college with Mike. Glad to hear his story. There are quite a few of us with various shades of this experience.
Yes, I've run into an inordinate number of them from Heartland. It feels to me-and Tim Berg and Peter Montoro have said this, I think-that HBBC guys are particularly prone to being pulled out of KJV-Onlyism precisely because they are being given some good exegetical training. Do you concur?
@@markwardonwords I suspect that's accurate. I remember some times in classes we were taught things, and it almost seemed like we all knew that it was a bit out there, but we were all in on the joke, including the teacher. But the emphasis on sticking to the Book, made some doctrines stand out by omission from scripture.
@@markwardonwords This was definitely the case for me. The hermeneutics class I took at HBBC was paradigm shifting for me. Growing up in an IFB church, I heard many popular IFB preachers and admired them for all of the interesting connections they made--pulling verses and phrases from all over the Bible and drawing fascinating conclusions. I distinctly remember hoping that I would one day be able to preach like that. Heartland's hermeneutics and homeletics classes splashed cold water on that dream with the mundane idea that we needed to look for the biblical author's intended meaning. This was also given with Pastor Davison's intimidating charge that if you are going to preach "Thus saith the Lord..." then you had better be certain you know what the Lord saith. Ultimately, these ideas really challenged the way I looked at what the Bible says about its own preservation and made room for the uncomfortable facts I had been discovering that didn't fit within KJVOnlyism.
@@HaroldBradleyIII I am not sad but overjoyed when I see KJV-Only institutions succeeding on such a central and important matter. That, to me, is what really matters. Other things will fall in line if preachers represent the authorial intent of the biblical writers.
@@markwardonwordsMark could you interview women on this and how it affected them? Most of ones I saw from women's pov were atheist or agnostic.
I appreciate this conversation. We, as scholars, are here to help the Church.
✔
This is an awesome message brother. I feel so much for Michael, and I know how he feels, and more so what he has experienced. I too came out of king James Onlyism, relatively recently, my Bible college and church association was KJO, and I have been rejected and 'preached' against by some of them, ignored by others, politely side lined by most. My decision to 'apostatise' (as I have been told) came after two years of self study and deep thought into the translations of the English Bible (your work helped immensely. A gentleman at my church challenged me to read the ESV and others, and then to tell him why they're corrupt etc. so I did. I started with the usual list of missing verses etc, and even fell over the first one that said, 'they've taken the name of satan out of the Bible!' so much of the party line was just simply not true, or misunderstood! So many of Michaels points I agree with and have used myself, especially the point that they're 're-tranlsating' the KJV themselves when they preach and then explain the Elizabethan words in plain English. Now, at the church I Pastor, we use the ESV, I have managed to transpose? the church from the KJV, not to say that it can't be used, a number of the congregation still do, and the NKJ, NIV, and even the NLT, but the Bibles we've given to all the children, kids, and teens are ESV, for unity in the language (we have a lot of Africans and other nationals who have immigrated here). I preach from the ESV, yet when I say a scripture verse off the top of my head, it's KJV, and I have no problem with that. The fellowship in which my Bible College is, and where I 'belonged' for so many years, 30 or more (wow) was thoroughly KJV, the Church I minister at now is an Old Baptist Union Church, and they are so loving and compassionate, my previous fellowship has basically stonewalled me, yet I still love them. My pastor (KJV) accepts my position, on occasion he has messaged me "Bro I don't get this text, what do you think?' and on two occasions I have simply told him what my Bible said... God bless you all.
I feel for you, Steve! God help us all to love those who malign us!
I can not express how much this means to me. This is the clarity I needed. Praise the good Lord
✔
Just curious. Did he send his diploma back?
As always great stuff, Mark!
Thanks for listening!
It's disheartening that being a graduate, they would say to return your diploma for changing your view on Kjv onlyism. Wow
It's like they believe when you get to heaven, God will say, "Well done, my good and faithful believer of the King James Bible, enter in to thy rest"
Acts 2:6 - When this sound occurred, a crowd came together and was confused because each one heard them speaking in his own language.
Ha! Right!
I remember when I was about 19 years old I was very KJV Only.
If it wasn’t for my dad, I would possibly still be KJV Only. I remember talking to my dad about the Bible, what we were talking about exactly, I don’t remember. But my dad mentioned a different translation of a word and I asked him where he got the other meaning of the word. He told me he got it from reading the NIV.
At that point I was only concerned with warning my dad about the “horrific changes” that the NIV made to the biblical text. I responded: “You have to be careful with those other versions, the NIV takes out the miracle of the virgin birth.”
To that my dad replied: “Can you show me where it takes out the virgin birth?” So I gladly looked up Matthew 1:23 in the NIV on my phone to warn my dad. To my shock and surprise, all at once I realized that I was lied to by those “scholarly Facebook memes.” There is no omission of the virgin birth or the Deity of Christ. And just because 1 John 5:7 was not found in any early manuscript does not mean that the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be found anywhere else in the Bible.
It wasn’t long after that that I read the KJV Translators to the Reader preface. I was blown away by the historical irony to say the least.
Love this story!
There is an omission of the virgin birth in the NIV
m.ua-cam.com/video/N9IdW8Nuge8/v-deo.html
It is clear the NIV is corrupted it even calls Jesus Lucifer in the book of Revelation
It takes out the PROPHECY of the virgin birth in Isaiah! Wow!
@@RememberGodHolyBible I’d take another look at Isaiah 7:14 in the NIV.
@@connerstephens4547 Yes the NIV says "the virgin" playing into the god "Mary", as opposed to the right reading which is "a virgin".
The NIV is an antichrist Bible. Which is evidently manifest in many places, from the underlying text, to 1 John 4:1-3, to 1 John 5:7, to 1 Corinthians 12:3. If you attack the KJV and cling to the Catholic Bibles you are not saved, no way. Jesus said that he would reveal himself to those that love and keep his words. If you don't believe we have God's wordS, that no Bible is perfect, then the Lord has not saved you. If you believe every Bible is perfect, when they say all different things, and the Catholic Bibles remove verses and words, and change doctrine, then you are at least EXTREMELY confused if not unsaved.
Please see the Real Bible Version Issue EXPOSED video on UA-cam, and also see the Truth is Christ UA-cam Channel. David Daniels also did thorough research and presented it in a series of videos debunking the Sinaiticus. The evidence FOR the KJV and against the Catholic Bibles are overwhelming. If you want the truth and the true information, it is out there. I can send you specific things besides this if you are genuinely interested.
Can you please tell me your guests youtube or podcast channel.
Equipoise
facebook.com/TheEQP/
I really enjoy the Equipoise podcast. It’s one of my faves.
Thank you for the name of the podcast.
God bless brother. KEEP GOING ON.
Pray for me!
I just opened facebook and literally saw this question in a group I'm in called "Jordan Peterson Biblical Studies Discussion Group". They asked "I have a question for those who are devoted to the Word..What translation of the Bible has not been touched, or changed or influenced by the papacy ? The Armenian? The king James? Jewish versions? I would like to find the purest unadulterated version."
Why is this seem like such a burning question for so many people right now? I find it very interesting.
Question: Why are you in Jordon Peterson's Biblical Discussion Group?
The idea of a version of the Bible that "has not been . . . influenced by the papacy" is a historical absurdity. As much as Restorationists want to invent a Christian history without Roman Catholicism as one of its key expressions, it can't realistically happen.
I enjoy Peterson's perspective on Biblical writings. I've been to church my entire life and some of the things he speaks about I've never heard. He's really good at getting to the truths of some of these lessons. One thing I heard him say one time has really stuck with me. He said, the new testament is psychologically sound. I don't know why, but that resonated with me and stuck with me. I just joined the group not long ago, but you can tell it's people who have very interesting questions and views about God and the Bible.
Question, have you watched much of his stuff? I absolutely cannot wait to read his next book, "Those Who Wrestle with God."@@carmensiekierke3579
The Pope assembled the Bible 💫
@@Kefa... Athanasius was not a pope of Rome (though he was the Bishop of Alexandria, who was also sometimes called a pope).
Brother Mark, another terrific video Sir. I'd like to "usher" you toward Michael J. Vlach and his video "David's Throne and the Coming Reign of Jesus. Very helpful
I will check it out! I put it in my queue!
@@markwardonwords terrific! Dr. Vlach is formerly of Master's Seminary. Enjoy
Brilliant discussion!! I too used to think that the KJV was the only trusted word of God in English but through study and research I have also come to the conclusion that God's word is meant to be understood and if a translation is difficult to understand it can lead to frustration or worse it leads to erroneous ideas/understanding about God's message.
Right! Unnecessary frustration!
This is exactly my story. As I was looking at the attacks and the defenses just no one talked about the KJV the way it was talked about in my upbringing. It wasn't attacked by atheists, nor was it used in serious apologetics. That allowed me to see that there were great godly men alive today who don't use the KJV. It's how I was open to the evidence against my closely held position by men like Mike Winger, James White, and Mark Ward.
Yes-I've often wondered when the KJVO argument that "God has used the KJV!" will give way to recognition that God is mightily using other translations.
I really like the spirit of the interview and approach to this topic. I attend a kjvo church even though I prefer modern versions so I understand much of the experiences expressed in this interview.
✔ Thank you for the kind comment!
666, yes, I'm sure you would like the spirit of this interview.
Brother, many of us, when we left the TR position made comments we regret now, as blasphemous of God's Word and inconsistent with Christian live. Thankfully God washes us clean.
Amen, Kevin!
What a great interview!
My pastor loves the KJV and uses it, but others in the church use whatever translation they like. But I have heard him expound on a verse for 10 minutes when I can look at the translation I’m using, usually NLT, and it says what he’s spent 10 minutes explaining and defining. God’s Word is not supposed to be difficult to understand.
I had this argument as a kid with my grandad who preached from the AV/KJV and I told him it is not the job of the preacher to explain and translate the meaning of the long/old/rarely used English words so the hearer understands (when a modern translation that makes sense is available) when the preacher's job is surely to explain the meaning and application of the verse/chapter. Why if a colour TV is available would you insist on using a black and white one to watch snooker?" He agreed with the TV analogy but thought it applied to the AV! Thus ended the argument (as I went away confused)
@@ianholloway3778 I like the tv analogy. I’ll have to remember that.
Thank you, Gentlemen. Excellent discussion.🌹⭐🌹⭐🌹
Thanks for listening!
I'm reasonably optimistic that KJVOnlyism won't exist (at least in the US) in another 40-50 years. Two reasons: 1) Anecdotally, it seems to me that the leaders of the movement are aging quicker than they are being replaced. 2) the general decline of Christianity in the US is likely to have a long term purging and unifying effect.
I am seeing the same things. I pray you're right. And sometimes I wonder if I should just stop my work and let it take its course. But I'm not certain it will take that course, and meanwhile I want to see as many families and churches and individuals rescued from this trap as possible.
This has become a wedge and maybe a permanent division between me and another sister in Christ. It bleeds into other aspects in our companionship in that I can't help but feel constantly judged and questioned in my salvation.
You guys must be some sort of special apostates to become cheerleaders for all these perverted bibles. With one search you can see how many times Jesus, God and important verses about salvation have been changed or utterly removed. Example Acts 8:37, what does your apostate bible say? Nothing because it's probably not even in there lol. Keep looking smart to the ignorant, you sure look dumb to many though.
I was sometimes told I wasn't a good Baptist when I left the TR position. I came to the conclusion that IFB King James Only types have abandoned long held Baptist principles, 2 excerpts from Philadephia Confession of Faith proves my point, the first plants the flag of final appeal in matters to the original tongues, the second prpclaims soul liberty, which KJO's must practically deny:
Chapter 1 section 8
The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.
Chapter 21 2
2. God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his word, or not contained in it. So that to believe such doctrines, or obey such commands out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the requiring of an implicit faith, an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience and reason also.
(James 4:12; Rom. 14:4; Acts 4:19, 29; 1 Cor. 7:23; Matt. 15:9; Col. 2:20, 22, 23; 1 Cor. 3:5; 2 Cor. 1:24)
As I've often said, I wish confessionalist KJV defenders would be MORE and not less confessional: "they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come."
Great premiere! Thanks Mark. The chat was a bit unhinged but I guess it's to be expected 🤣
I had to miss the chat today. Will take a look!
You didn't miss much, ahaha! Judging from the positive comments section I've seen this is just a minority of rando's saying ignorant things. I'm guessing it comes with the territory given the work you do? Thanks again for sharing this conversation! @@markwardonwords
I held a KJVO position most of my life, mainly out of just because it was the norm for me and I thought it was the best, not that it was re-inspired or anything. I didnt have any ill feelings towards other versions or people who used them, but I was very elitist in my thinking..."you can have those watered down versions if you want" type of mindset.
Ironically, when I started studying textual criticism, for the sole purpose of defending the KJV against others for an ongoing debate/conversation I was having with a friend of mine....let's just say it didnt take me long to grow from a textual absolutist to a textual confident position 😂
I still love the KJV, but these days I tend to prefer the ESV and the NASB.
I just picked up a CSB recently, but I havent read it enough to form a solid opinion on it yet
Glad to hear this! And I'm so glad you landed in textual confidence and not textual skepticism.
@@markwardonwords yep!
I think because my KJVOism was so tame and mild in the first place that seeing the data didnt shake me any, in fact, in alot of ways it made my faith much stronger!
You should do an interview with Pastor Jonathan Burris. He has a UA-cam channel and was fired from his church for departing from KJV onlyism. Check him out.
He's a good friend! He edits my videos! Yes, this may happen.
@@markwardonwords awesome!
somebody in the body in christ dont cause division
Humility is such a beautiful thing ❤
there is a fake humility, Colossians 2:23 KJV
Yes, in keeping man-made rules - like KJV-onlyism - Thanks for pointing this out. 😀 @@RememberGodHolyBible
I hope the guy that leaves KJV discovers LSB
I can sympathize with the realization that you've been spending years parroting bad arguments that have no actual substance. It's easy enough to feel embarrassed and resentful afterward. The recurring temptation is to regard everyone in the movement as a bunch of fools because they've made you feel like a fools, thereby projecting your own self-loathing onto them. It obviously goes without saying that this approach is _not_ the ideal Christian way of reacting, but a bruised ego must always be kept in check lest we tear down people along with ideas. (And unfortunately, the KJVO world trains a person to do just that, so this impulse is just one more bad idea to unlearn.)
Amen. Super insightful, M.A.
Now as an apologist, and particularly as an evidentialist, the slander of Westcott and Hort shows an ignorance of their opposition to Tubingen, something that ought to be studied as good apologetic methodology.
2.The anti-intellectualism in the KJO circles worries me, because it is easy to treat these secondary points as if they are primary. Heresies as Lewis notes come in pairs, theolgicsl traditionalism is as dangerous as theological progressivism. Wallace discusses training rather than teaching, he is probably right.
3. And, my experience in Fundamentalism is they don't do apologetics, and there is a correlation between King James Onlyism and a failure of people to perform their epistemic duties to be Bereans.
2. Yes!
3. Right.
I'm with you, Kevin. I need to know more myself about Westcott and Hort. I've begun to do a little work! And Tim Berg, my friend, is doing more.
I wonder how KJVO wives do when their husband's abandon a KJVO position?
ua-cam.com/video/YTeLw8JQG_A/v-deo.htmlsi=qiUt4Pn-fVchcp_k
English is the Latin of the ruckmanist. I see no issue in reading KJV and KJV only, because the sound gospel is in there, undistorted. But some KJV-onlyists have made an idol out of a translation. That's not healthy.
I agree that the idolatry in some is not healthy. I don't see a need to insist that individuals stop reading the KJV exclusively if they're not making it into a doctrine and pressing that doctrine on other people's consciences.
👍
Paul said I preach Christ and him crucified. A lot of these KJV only people preach to crucify others.
That is unfortunately common. It is not universal, but it surely occurs.
Very simple.
Geneva Bible onlyism. LOL
I’m in!
Actually, the Geneva Bible has a comment that hints at what the verse means.
2 🐐
The KJV is literally off by about 5% (because of linguistic drift, lack of textual criticism, and lack of breadth and depth of understanding we now have of ancient languages)... and bad KJV only preachers build doctrine on that 5% to make the rest of us feel like tards.
KJV 1Kings 7:23
And he made the Sea of cast bronze, ten cubits from one brim to the other; it was completely round. Its height was five cubits, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference.
Circumference = Pi*Diameter ~3.1415926*Diameter... except in KJ only imaginary land where a complete circle is 3 times the diameter.
The brim has a thickness to it…
Biblical came later on💫
KJV-Onlyism? The KJV simply uses language that requires better reading comprehension. The translations that come after just get worse and worse to a point of an entirely different passage being written... These translations become interpretations. That's the issue at hand. It's not a trap... It's not bad. It's simply for people who want the closest translation possible to the Hebrew and Greek. This is a weird Hill to die on.
The KJV is an excellent translation-but if you’re going to read it exclusively, you need to understand that it was translated into a form of English no one quite speaks or writes anymore. So there are going to be some places where you think you understand but, because of language change, you’re going to miss the intent of the KJV translators. For help discerning when this is the case, I encourage you to check out my “Fifty False Friends in the KJV” series on UA-cam for help reading the KJV! ua-cam.com/play/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc.html
@@markwardonwords Using your logic The Bible should eventually contain words like Rizz, Woke and all nomenclature introduced today so as to make it easier for people to read.
This is wrong.
I'm not going to look into more of what you think about the KJV when clearly you see where I stand on the KJV...
Do you suggest we change the commandments as well?
Should we change Thou Shalt Not Covet to...
"You should not want other peoples stuff."
This is not intelligent... Can't you see?
Our language is systematically being dumbed down. This is part of why people felt the need to change the KJV in the first place. It is a subtle way to re-interpret and redefine.
@@iamjustjoseph There's a difference between following the rules of standard American English as found in modern style guides and shoving a bunch of hip, contemporary slang into a translation. There's a huge gap in accuracy between the NLT, which tries to avoid sounding like a translation, and the Message, which sounds like an undercover narcotics officer posing as a high school student.
@@iamjustjoseph This is not an accurate description of my viewpoint. I don’t want slang. Just current, intelligible English. I want “broom” and not “besom.” That’s all.
Mark Ward, you come against God's true Greek texts,
"The Textus Receptus". And you believe the erroneous Alexandrian of Egypt texts, which comes from the critical text , which the erroneous modern translations come from.
It's amazing how many people go by the erroneous modern translations.
I'm not a KJV only, I have other Textus Receptus Bible's.
John MacArthur doesn't teach the Biblical truths, he is a Calvinist's who MUST believe that God is a sinful dictator who is the author of every bad and evil things.
Does the NKJV depart from the Textus Receptus at 2 John 1:7?
2 John 1:7
Beware of Antichrist Deceivers
For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. (NKJV)
2 John 1:7
For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. (KJV)
That is a fair question. I discuss it in some detail here (and read all the way into the comments): byfaithweunderstand.com/2019/08/18/are-there-critical-text-readings-in-the-nkjv-after-all-a-nerdy-and-detailed-response-to-a-set-of-fair-questions/
@@markwardonwords Thanks, Mark!
Indeed, the NKJV agrees with the Critical Text here (and with the Vulgate, for that matter, which uses the word exierunt) against the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus. Instead of translating eisēlthon ("gone in"), it translates exēlthon ("gone out"). But considering that the following word in either text is eis ("into"), the two readings appear to be synonymous despite using opposing prefixes. (The only possible distinction could be that exēlthon more strongly implies that the deceivers were former members of the church, but that interpretation could be accepted or rejected with either reading.)
It's possible that the translator consulted the RSV or the NASB to get a feel for how to update Second John into modern English and did not double-check the Greek to see exactly why "entered" became "gone out." Or maybe "out" was deemed to be a useful word to supply for the audience regardless of the underlying Greek reading. The NKJV does not slip into alternate readings from either the Nestle-Aland text or the Hodges-Farstad text elsewhere in this letter, so it's an unusual anomaly at most and not an attempt to turn the NKJV into a Trojan horse for modern textual criticism.
And one more thing: this minor variant (or any other like it in the NKJV) is less extreme than the variants we see in some of the Reformation-era English versions thanks to notable differences between the TR editions of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza. For instance, an entire verse, Luke 17.36, does not appear in several of the early versions based on Tyndale's work. (And even the KJV marks that verse as questionable in a marginal note!)
@@MAMoreno As pretty much always, I'm with M.A. I don't think viewing this as a CT reading that has been snuck into the NKJV is a charitable or accurate view. And if TR defenders are going to get that picky about something that has little to no bearing on interpretation, they're going to have to account for greater differences among TR editions.
There's also an argument to be made that translating the verse this way increases the concordance between First and Second John. Consider this passage:
"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world" (1 Jn. 4.1 KJV).
The word translated as "gone out" in this verse is exelēluthasin in Greek (and exierunt in the Vulgate), making it very similar to the Nestle-Aland reading in 2 Jn. 1.7. So even if the TR/Majority reading is correct in the second epistle, it's almost certain that the same author would be communicating the exact same idea about the people he calls "false prophets" and "deceivers." John sees these enemies of the gospel as people who have "gone [out] into the world" in both passages.
Therefore, using the words "gone out" in both places communicates the consistency of thought in John's epistles, no matter which prefix he actually used before -ēlthon in the second letter. So even though it looks like the NKJV followed the Critical Text in this one isolated incident, there are legitimate interpretive reasons for choosing the English gloss "gone out" regardless of the base text.
My story is quite the opposite. I used to believe in many translations. I had a parallel Bible with 4 different translations so I could learn as much as possible. I went to a church that used contemporary versions. I attended a Christian highschool that used other versions. I went to a Bible school that used other versions.The more I studied, the less I liked the modern translations. They would have Jesus moved with indignation instead of compassion. They would say Jesus did not think godliness could be grasped. They would have Jesus telling a lie. It was not the TR vs Critical Text. It was what the versions said themselves that turned me away from them. I knew nothing about the TR or Critical Text untill after I left the multiversion, anything goes as long as you call it a bible farce. It is not surprising to see people running to these other versions. The Bible tells us not to be deceived, but in the last days even the elect may be deceived.
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 While the NKJV is based on the TR, it does rely on the CT also. This is expressed not only in the text, but majorly in the footnotes and is even mentioned in the preface. I am not as familiar with the MEV, but from one of your videos I found it does not always adhere to the TR either. These are facts that cannot be disputed due to overwhelming evidence.
@@timlemmon2332 My friend, I've had real trouble getting anywhere in this discussion. But I think maybe you and I could make some progress. Where, specifically, do the NKJV or MEV fail to translate the TR? Aside from the marginal notes?
@@markwardonwords Titus 3: 10. They both read more like the modern CT versions than the KJV/TR. There is a difference between someone divisive and someone who is an heretic.
The MEV also follows the modern versions in Philippians 2:6. Although your rendition of this verse in your parallel KJV/CT Bible, it would seem the Critical Text is supposed to read like the KJV. If this is the case then the other versions are a poor translation of the CT. If they are poor translations of the text, why should I bother with them?
@@timlemmon2332 Not being snarky, but very serious: can you read Hebrew or Greek?
I love the KJV but I love the ASV 1901 also. ASV 1901 translates the Tetragrammaton as Jehovah. I love that instead of LORD.
I see benefits to both approaches!
I tend to take a mediating approach. But I think William Tyndale's compromise - use the traditional rendering, "Lord", but put it in small caps so people know it stands for the tetragrammaton - is my usual preference.
The downside of that approach is that it can cloud the reason why the New Testament uses the title "Lord" (kyrios) so often. The best approach might be the one that was attempted by the HCSB: present it as an actual name when the context emphasizes that it's being used as a distinctive from other nations' false gods, but employ the traditional LORD in other cases.
@@MAMoreno That's a major reason why I don't prefer it.
I just came out of KJV onlyism. It’s so liberating and my joy has returned in my Christian life. KJV onlyism is not a healthy way to view scripture and biblical scholarship and worldview. KJV onlyism isn’t logically and scholarly defendable.
I welcome you to this particular aspect of Christian freedom-and I urge you to be gracious to those you left behind. Don't criticize them or their doctrine publicly until you have put some years in between you and them, and maybe not even then. What do we have that we have not received?
@@markwardonwords Amen brother! Thank you for the wise advice. Lord Bless You!🙏
The modern Bible versions say the opposite of the KJV in certain verses. For example, the KJV calls those who worshipped idols “superstitious,” whereas the NKJV calls idol worshippers “religious.”
“Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.” (Acts 17:22 KJV)
“Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, "Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious.” (Acts 17:22 NKJV)
The Zionist disciples of Satan were able to change their Bibles to make Israel a "spreading vine" in the NIV and even a "luxuriant vine" in the NASB and ESV in Hosea 10:1. God, however, states that "Israel is an empty vine" in his KJV Holy Bible at Hosea 10:1.
“Israel is an empty vine, he bringeth forth fruit unto himself: according to the multitude of his fruit he hath increased the altars; according to the goodness of his land they have made goodly images.” (Hosea 10:1 KJV)
“Israel is a luxuriant vine that yields its fruit. The more his fruit increased, the more altars he built; as his country improved, he improved his pillars.” (Hosea 10:1 ESV)
So we know from that issue that the KJV is God’s word or the modern Bible versions are God’s word. They cannot say the opposite of one another and both be God’s word. This is a foundational issue. This is a major issue. There is no middle ground here. "Choose ye this day whom ye will serve." Joshua 24:15.
Edward Hendrie
Author of "HOAX of Biblical Proportions"
Can you read Greek or Hebrew?
Superstition is a kind of religion
self idolatry < Catholic ❤
You are correct. The idolatry of the Catholic Church is much greater than any other.
@@jessbecause7 🥱
The KJV is written at a 5th grade reading level. It’s not hard to understand. The NIV, for comparison, is written at a 7th grade reading level.
I discuss this very claim in a video I had a lot of fun making. I'd value your thoughts after you watch the video! Feel free to comment there or here. ua-cam.com/video/-gnyPMuulaY/v-deo.html
Critical Catholics manuscripts only
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 you all use the codex vaticanus and the codex sinaticus you are all useless in preserving God's Holy Word. Just stop lying.
I know you translated the Critical Text in the format of the KJV for comparison, but I think if you wanted to reach out the the KJV only crowd, revise the KJV/Textus Receptus, keep the "majestic" Elizabethan when possible, don't make any unnecessary changes to pronouns because it's fuel for critics. Just correct the words that no longer make sense in modern English and put in the correct modern equivalent. Basically take the concept that was the 21st Century King James and do it right(I personally feel like it misses on 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 like the NRSV does and I would imagine that's part of the reason it's never really caught on)
I know you have issues with KJV and they're 100% fair. When I was 12 years old in a southern baptist church, my biggest complaint was that I could read the words but I couldn't make sense of what it was telling me. I just think this is a better path to win over people.
This is a possible future project. Many obstacles stand in the way. =|
You are all brain washed in critical text onlyism 😅
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.
Go to Church, join it, listen to it, then the Bible came way later.