Do Modern Bibles Change God's Word by 10% to Get Copyrights?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 жов 2024
- Answering a question I get frequently.
🎁 Help Mark Ward bring the Bible to the plow boy in his own English!
✅ / @markwardonwords
✅ / mlward
✅ buymeacoffee.c...
👏 Many, many thanks to the UA-cam channel members and Patreon supporters who make this work possible!
▶ UA-cam:
Larry Castle, Sarah Leslie, Christopher Scaparo, Drane Pipes, David H, Jesse and Leigh Davenport, Meghan Brown, Justin Bellars, Lynn Hartter, Alan Milnes, Rich Smith, Lynn Stewart, Matt Stidham, Karen Duncan, Gregory Brown, Brad Ullner, David Podesta, Frank Hartmann, Andrew Brady, Tricia Maddox Behncke, Caleb Richardson, PAClassic87 95, James Duly, Deep Dive Discipleship, Todd Bryant, M.A. Moreno, whubertx, Joel Richardson, Orlando Vergel Jr, OSchrock, Eric Couture, Bryon Self, Average Gun Guy, Brad Dixon, Derek Ralston, Brent Zenthoefer, Reid Ferguson, Dale Buchanan, James Goering, David Saxon, Travis Manhart, Josiah Dennis, judy couchman, Kimberly Miller, Jonathan Clemens, Robert Daniels, Tiny Bibles, ThatLittleBrownDog, Gregory Chase, Robert Gifford, GEN_Lee_Accepted, Lanny Faulkner, Benjamin Randolph
▶ PATREON:
Paul Gibson, gnomax, Nathan Hall, D. H. Wallenstein, Keith Martin, Beth Benoit, Cody Hughes, Arvid D, Frank Hartmann, Thomas Jacobs, David Stein, Andy B, Deborah Reinhardt, Desert Cross Tortoise Fox, Robert Daniels, Rick Erickson, Lanny M Faulkner, Lucas Key, Dave Thawley, William McAuliff, Razgriz, James Goering, Edward Woods, Thomas Balzamo, Brent M Zenthoefer, Tyler Rolfe, Ruth Lammert, Gregory Nelson Chase, Caleb Farris, Jess English, Aaron Spence, John Day, Brent Karding, Steve McDowell, Adam Avaritt, James Allman, Steven McDougal, Henry Jordan, Nathan Howard, Rich Weatherly, Joshua Witt, Matthew Lindquist, Luc + Eileen Shannon, Easy_Peasy , Jeremy Steinhart, Steve Groom, Corey Henley, Luke Burgess, Joel, Joshua Bolch, Tyler Harrison, Angela Ruckman, Nathan N, Bryan Wilson, David Peterson, Eric Mossman, Jeremiah Mays, Caleb Dugan, Donna Ward, James D Leeper, Nate Patterson, Dennis Kendall, Michelle Lewis, Lewis Kiger, Dustin Burlet, Michael Butera, Miguel Lopez, CRB, Dean C Brown, MICHAEL L DUNAVANT, Jess Mainous, Brownfell, Joshua Barzon, Benjamin Randolph
▶ BUY ME A COFFEE:
Stephen, Joshua, Cody, Evan, Robert, Joel, Brian, Michael, Stacey, Justin, Jason, Jimmy, Nathan, Kim, Carl, Tom, Zach, Frank, Jenna, DH, Robert, Papa D, Ben, Anirudh, John, Alan, Ben, Phil, Cody, Adam, Kayla, Sarah, Darlene, Caleb, Scott, Anonymous (18x)
I deal with the 10% change idea in the business world too.
I'm a graphic designer/art director so I work with copyright material a lot. It too me a long time to convince my coworkers and bosses "As long as we change it 10% we can use it" was wrong. No. That's not how that works. It doesn't even make sense. How would you quantify that? If the image is 100 pixels wide and I crop 5 pixels off the left and right, did I change it 10%? Or what if I change it from color to black and white? Then I've edited every pixel.! 100% of the image! I'll make the image black and white and crop it so I can say it's 110% different!
The same can be applied to text-based works. If I take a popular novel and change 10% of the words to better fit how I wanted the story to end; can I publish it as a new copyright? Or maybe I translate it to a new language. Then again I've changed 100% of the text.
It doesn't take an intellectual property lawyer to know those examples don't make sense. A "10% change" is just something that sounds reasonable to people with little or no experience actually handling copyrighted material.
Excellent comment. Thank you for this.
I was raised KJVO until reaching college. This was certainly a major point repeatedly brought up within those churches! Wonderful people, and I still visit and enjoy those churches and they are my church family and brothers and sisters in Christ for sure. But more and more I see "modern pharisee-ism" in many ways within those groups regarding the KJV and other areas.
I’ve always wondered about that “10% change for copyright” claim I see get thrown around so much. Thanks for addressing it.
There simply is no 10% rule. The law is only the "new authorship" is copyrightable. Also, you can not violate the copyright owned by another Bible publisher. So, you have the 500 verse or half a book limitation on direct copying.
Another KJVO trope has been trampled! Thank you, Mark!
👐
@@markwardonwords 😆😆😆
I've heard this claim a lot and found it very confusing, especially with regards to its origin. However, I think I might have figured it out. I was listening to Andrew Case's Working for the Word podcast not too long ago, and he has been in the process of critically examining whether corporate copyright and licensing policies are legitimate, especially how they can negatively impact the ability to do evangelistic work using modern translations in conjunction with modern technology (e.g., phone apps needing to jump through many hoops to use the ESV). In the latest podcast, he read an essay by Maurice Robinson called Bondage of the Word - Copyright & the Bible presented at ETS in 1996, where Robinson raises the point that modern copyrighted translations typically deviate from some public domain predecessor by a relatively small amount, using percentages like 5% and 10% as simple examples. He is essentially arguing the inverse, that modern translations really are not changing all that much, and that the bar to obtaining copyright is really too low, though he would rather that work be public domain anyway. However, I have a suspicion that this essay made the rounds in the following decades, and its technical nature made it particularly susceptible to misinterpretation and telephone game-type propagation and expansion of those errors.
Obviously, if Dr. Robinson's essay is the original source for this sort of thing, then he's not really at fault for the gross misuse of his work, but it would explain a lot, including the relatively recent spread of this fallacious argument (since it seems to have come about much later than most standard KJVO arguments). I can see the force of his argument, though I think there are some possibly superior licensing options now that weren't so common when the essay was written. If I were a Bible translator, I would want to reserve the right to restrict my work's use in things like novelty Bibles (I think the fact that the "God Bless the USA Bible" had to be KJV is particularly telling), but now there are more permissive licensing terms like Creative Commons that may retain some control while being more in line with Bible publishers' stated ideology than the standard full assertion of copyright.
Excellent. Very possible.
Found your page after watching your best bible translations video with Sean McDowell. After binging a lot of your content, I have been incredibly encouraged. About to buy a CSB Bible after watching your video on it. God bless brother.
Wow, thank you!
I got a CSB after that video. I'm really liking it.
Your informed opinions are a real breath of fresh air, Sir. On the strength of this first video of yours that I chanced upon, I'm subscribed and have hit the "like" button and that alert bell thing. Looking forward. Up, too. God bless you.
Welcome aboard!
Your videos are so stinking beautiful.
Thank you so much!
My main problem with most modern translations is the constant updating. I agree that language changes, but it hasn't changed nearly as much as some of them are updated. That's one reason I like the NKJV. Stability means a lot. Constant updating makes me question the whether the translators or publishers have faith in the text.
The KJV was updated several times before the “inspired version” stuck. But, to some extent I agree with you. I think the tendency today is to dumb down the language more and more to the lowest common denominator. The “most literal” LSB changed Timothy’s “sincere” or “genuine” faith to “unhypocritical faith.” That’s just gross. I always thought the NASB had a nice flow to it (despite claims of being “wooden”) but the “more literal grammar” of the LSB made run on sentences where there were none in the NASB and where there were, they ran them on out to the point of being obnoxious to follow. I went back to the NASB as my preferred text. If I could have it my way Nelson would just add a NKJVCT version keeping the NKJV language as exact as they can but follow the critical text in translation as I think it’s the best flowing and beautifully translated version there is….I'm just not a fan of the TR.
I agree completely. While the ESV isn't my favorite translation (well down the list) I was quite pleased when they announced they were declaring it to be a "fixed text" (fixed: unchanging). I really appreciated that. Of course because of outrage that came out of nowhere they walked that back.
I love the NKJV for all the same reasons. I know language changes, but it hasn't changed since 1982 (NKJV), definitely hasn't changed since 1995 (NASB) etc.
@@452Rob I'm right there with you. The NASB2020 allegedly is like that: dumbed down. It's one thing to translate the bible into "modern English", where it has proper grammar and no false-friends. It's quite another to use the most vulgar, infantilized possible. That's what a children's bible is for. Furthermore, there are already translations that do that (NIV), so why do this with the NASB? And I don't trust the LSB at all. I have lots of reasons for disliking it, but the last straw for me was Luke 23:45 using the word "obscured".
@@452Rob While "unhypocritical" sounds bad in English, it's a very literal translation (practically a transliteration) of ἀνυποκρίτου (an-[h]ypokrit-ou).
It’s mostly about marketing and competition
Gotta love his humor. Emanuel Transmission.😅
My mind initially went in a slightly different direction, but this one's good!
Not to be confused with Otto Mattik.
The copyright arguments have been debunked countless times. Thanks for your presentation and reinforcement of the facts. You quite often put your arguments in a careful and respectful, with is much appreciated.
It is rare but I do personally know someone who wanted to include a whole book or the Bible as part of his published book, not wanting to use older language nor pay copyright he just translated it all himself. But it is a very rare individual who can do that.
Cancelling missionary funds based on disagreement over Bible translation is a bit too much, mainly when it involves foreign missions. Those people will most likely read a Bible (if any) that was translated into their own language, and I am sure God is more than able to work with that.
@@jw2442 what?? No! Those people have to learn English so they can read the KJB in their (new) language.
If 1611 (okay, 1789) English was good enough for the apostles and the early church, surely it’s good enough for modern times.
Beautiful said!! Indeed, very blessing to have a Holy Bible in our hands. How awesome! Praise God for that. 🤟👍
Thanks Mark! This is engaging and helpful as always!
Glad it was helpful!
I thoroughly appreciate the argument (s) made here - I especially loved how you compared and contrasted the differences between "literary" renditions of ancient Epics as compared to Scripture and the fidelity to the 'original' text etc - well done!
Your statements concerning the KJV argument "if it ain't broke don't fix it" vs. "slightly broken is better than untested" is quite interesting to me (roughly 14:40 minutes) - I thoroughly appreciate your channel my friend and continue to look forward to all that the LORD is continuing to do in and through your submission and service to Him and His Kingdom
PS: I think you make a great case for Andrew Case raising some good points but perhaps being an untempered perspective
I also appreciate how you came to a defence of the integrity of most modern, contemporary translators etc- thank you
Great video Mark. I have heard this claim before but had no idea if it was true or not. I’d love to hear more on the “too many translations” arguments. In my Sunday school class the teacher asked us to read aloud the response from the Psalm we were studying and all of our Bibles translated the phrase differently and made it impossible for us to repeat it in unison. And I thought in that moment “it would be great if we only had ONE English translation that was the standard”. Thanks for all you do!
The best solution might be having one translation for a certain purpose. For instance, the class could adopt the NIV, CSB, or CEB as the official translation for Sunday School lessons, even if it's not the only one consulted or referenced. It helps if the Sunday School material already has a base translation that everyone can use. And this translation need not be the one used by the pastor in the pulpit, nor the one used by the youth group a few doors down.
Speaking of different translations of classics like the Iliad and the Confessions of Augustine:
I recently delved into the different translations of the Brothers Karamazov.
Apparently there's considerable (even heated) debate between which English translation of the Brothers Karamazov best expresses Dostoevsky's Russian. Dostoevsky's Russian is a bit difficult to translate since, for one thing, Dostoevsky wasn't an elegant stylist but had a more jagged and edgy kind of a style which doesn't easily transfer over into English, and since for another thing his Russian contains 19th century Russian but also Old Church Slavonic which sounds somewhat ancient and more traditional to Russians then and now, thus making it even more difficult to translate. From what I can gather, it's perhaps like how the KJV would sound to us.
In any case, there are many English readers today who prefer the older translation by Constance Garnett produced in the late 19th/early 20th century since they like the prim and tidy English Victorian style, even though Dostoevsky doesn't sound like an English Victorian in Russian.
Next there are others who prefer a very literalistic, word for word translation like the commonly used especially in academic circles Pevear and Volokhonsky (P&V) translation. However P&V detractors snub P&V as "more transliteration than translation".
There are also those who prefer a more idiomatic translation like the one done by Ignat Avsey because it captures the meaning better and it is "literarily truer" to Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov even if it doesn't use word for word equivalence in syntax etc. like P&V do.
There are even those who think P&V isn't "literal" enough and so choose David McDuff's translation instead.
Still there are those who prefer more of a balance between the "literal" and the "literary" and so choose a translation like Michael Katz's recent The Brothers Karamazov.
By the way, all these terms like "literal" and "idiomatic" that I've used above aren't terms I'm putting into their mouths or otherwise foisting onto the Dostoevsky debates; rather these are precisely the terms used by the English readers debating which translation of The Brothers Karamazov they prefer!
In short, it's super iinteresting to me how similar these debates over Dostoevsky's Brothers Karamazov (and the Iliad and Confessions and I'm sure many other works) are to our debates over Bible translations. And I'm certain there's a good lesson to be learned from all this, but I'll leave it here for now. 😊
This is phenomenal. Wish I'd had this before shooting my most recently shot video (out in a month or two). Excellent.
@@markwardonwords Thanks, Mark! 😊 If you think it'd be helpful for people, I found a good article on the website We Love Translations that more or less summarizes everything I found as well. The article is called "What’s the best translation of The Brothers Karamazov?" on We Love Translations. It's a very ugly and ungainly website, but anyway it has the relevant information about all these translations of The Bros. K. (as well as other classics like Crime and Punishment). Hopefully it's useful or helpful to others when thinking about Bible translations too!
It's important to realize that copyright deals with *copying.* If I've never heard of (much less read) Harry Potter, and on my own come up with a series of books featuring kids in a boarding school for magicians, it may end up very similar to HP, but I still haven't copied HP and therefore haven't infringed Rowling's copyright--and if I'm not mistaken, something very similar to this really did happen.
Or for a more relevant example, if I start from Scrivener (chosen because it's in the public domain) and translate into English without reference to any other English translation, it doesn't matter how similar my translation may be to the NKJV; I haven't infringed its copyright.
Where this charge gains some credence is when, rather than a "clean-sheet" translation from the Greek, I'm instead updating an existing English translation.
That's certainly the theory of copyright law. However, unless you have proof that you didn't reference other English translations you'll have a hard time winning a copyright case if your translation somehow ends up almost identical to the NKJV. In the absence of hard evidence for an independent translation process a court would have to decide on the basis of how similar the text is.
Thanks Mark. One of the best videos you have produced. I think a nice summation of your work is at 14:37 of your video: I honestly believe that the strongest point the KJV-Onlyists have in their favor is a variation of the if-it-ain’t-broke-don’t-fix-it principle. I’d put it this way: slightly broken is better than untested. I get the appeal of that viewpoint on the KJV. I just think that multiple centuries of language change have broken our ability to understand the KJV sufficiently that we can no longer justify pulpit use.
Thank you for answering this question. I've heard this said so many times and never heard anyone refute it so I just kinda thought it was true. I thought there was some kind of copyright law that made them have to be a certain percentage different. I confess that I always found that claim quite strange and I did think about how different wording would come about naturally simply by the translation process. But again, I've never heard anyone discuss this other than asserting the claim. Very helpful.
I must admit, having heard this copyright claim for many decades, that I wondered about the LSB changing the word 'Lord' to 'Yahweh' just as an easy way to get a copyright on their version. It is, after all, so close to the NASB.
What I would challenge you to do is put the NASB1995 and the LSB side by side starting in Gen 1, and mark every time there is a change of meaning (not wording but meaning) between the two translations. I think you would be shocked how many changes there are and how consistent the changes are on a Chapter by Chapter basis.
I looked at the changes in Genesis in the CSB2017 to the CSB2020 and compared to the NASB1995. Of the 40 changes in the CSB2017 to CSB2020 in Genesis, twenty-three times it went from agreement with the NASB1995 to a different meaning.
@bereang The Lockman Foundation is the copyright holder of both the LSB and NASB. Even though the LSB is published by 316 Publishers and translated by scholars from the Masters Seminary and University, the Lockman Foundation is the ones that have the copyright. So in terms of LORD in the NASB and Yahweh in the LSB, that would not have been an issue for copyright is that is what it was about.
@@edwardgraham9443 I am not stating that change is related to copyright, I am stating from a copyright standpoint only the "new authorship" is copyrightable.
I would point out that if you look at the changes between the CSB2017 and CSB 2020, the NASB1977 and NASB1995 (the two I have spent time on) you will fine the changes between the revisions is consistent throughout the entire Bible. If you were just fixing some issues the expectation would be some chapters, and maybe even some books would go completely unchanged.
Thank you, Brother Mark. Always helpful and insightful.🌹⭐🌞⭐🌹
You are so welcome!
Hey Bro. Mark! I know this is anecdotal, but I remember this criticism being brought up by KJVO proponents back in the 80s in response to the release of the NKJV and as a reason to avoid it. In the early 90s PCC invited one of the NKJV translators to lecture on their translation process, and he completely dispelled the idea that his committee was in any way motivated by attempting to avoid infringing upon a non-existent copyright of the KJV.
What Bibles on Bible Gateway are in the public domain?
Most of the Bibles on Bible Gateway are not in the public domain, although some are. Complete copyright information for each Bible version can be found on that Bible's Version Information page, which you can reach by clicking on its name on this page. A condensed copyright notice is also located at the bottom of any Bible passage page on Bible Gateway.
The following Bibles in our library are in the public domain:
American Standard Version (ASV)
Darby Translation (DARBY)
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
King James Version (KJV)
World English Bible (WEB)
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
Reina-Valera Antigua (RVA)
Biblia Sacra Vulgata (VULGATE)
World English Bible
I LIKE the ESV updated edition. I just wish they had focused on some of those things back in 2001. Hindsight is always 20/20. All the main English translations relate the same Gospel and the SAME revelation taken as a whole. We all have favorite verses, but we should be diligent to build a broader knowledge of Scriptural support for our theology and a greater understanding of God’s Word.
Fantastic video! I really appreciate the mention of St. Augustine's Confessions. I'm currently reading it for Great Lent (Eastern Orthodox). Your kjvparallelbible website is excellent. I even recommended it to a deacon at my parish, and he shares my enthusiasm. It would be wonderful to see the CT version in a book format, with the original KJ wording provided in the footnotes. Keep up the great work!
Berean Std Bible is open for use.
As was mentioned by the missionary in the question he asked, KJV O people seem to purposefully forget that the KJV is copyrighted. True, it is in the public domain in the United States, but it is still under copyright in its country of origin and I'd think that the place of origin carries more weight. Additionally, the fact that it is in the public domain in the United States, only means that it was once under copyright laws in the United States and only not soo long ago entered the public domain like may classical books that were written many many years ago and still exists. This attack on modern translation just doesn't fly as the Bible they revere (bordering on idolatry) has the same "issues" they are criticising modern translation of.
Well, you are missing the forest here.....
1. The rules for copyright under the crown are completely different than 17 U.S.C 103.
2. The rules for translation of the KJV were to revise the Bishop's, copy and paste as much as possible. In fact, under US law, the KJV could not get a copyright if the Bishop's Bible was also under copyright. There simple are too many passages with little or no change, and long passages with no new authorship.
@@casey1167Hi you never answered my question to ask your sister “who knew Greek” I think a couple months back LOL. Are these “little changes “, you claim are as such in Romans 16:1 Bishop uses “minister” but the KJV uses “servant “, even the Latin vulgate uses Ministerio(Romans 16:1, John 2:5,2:9, Bishops apply minister, Latin vulgate applies ministris,ministri , )thus making all who disagree a heratic or a devil worship worshipper LOL even tho Deacons are to be husbands of one wife? God forbid I tell just the truth with translations and verses to explain, but who care because the KJVONLY has been trained to hate us LOL.
@@fernandojrapodaca Well, I missed your question, though not really following how that relates to the copyright issue which is the topic here.
But, in Romans 16:1, is this not really the same issue as the translation of "Master" when referring to Christ of didaskalos?
@@casey1167 “the little or no change “, is the problem the KJV uses “servant “ and it should be minister according to Bishop, Latin Vulgate and many modern English translations use. Let use another verse and translation and see if it “little or no change”, Genesis 9:20 the transliteration is ADAMAH,iyish and the KJV translates this as HUSBANDMAN, but the Wycliffe translates as “erthe tilleris”, even the KJV translates 2 king 25:12 as Husbandmen but all the other modern translations say plowmen, farmer if you let the context prove itself it is a “Farmer” and not a husbandman, and you should really study the other verse diakonos with other translations it mean deacon and not servant (pais)Mathew 8:6, or doulos of Mathew 8:9 wich the KJV translates as servant and not DEACON or MINISTER.
@@casey1167 US copyright laws are irrelevant to the KJV. In fact, the United States didn't even exist when the KJV was first published. It was even due to King James' persecution of those who rejected the KJV (and it was a lot of people who rejected it as a Catholic Bible) that these people fled England, boarded the Mayflower and landed in America. So technically, one could say the United States of America came about because of the of the rejection of the KJV Bible. It must also be stated they those who came to America on the Mayflower DID NOT bring the KJV Bible with them, but the Genever Bible.
Thank you, Mark!
Another great video! Also, dig the sweater!
Thanks!
Excellent video…thank you
Glad you enjoyed it!
Here’s a sincere question about moderns translations. I’ve been reading about the Council of Nicea and the discussions happening during the conference. When talking about Jesus being the “only begotten” the discussion was always centered on how Jesus was the “only begotten,” “begotten” and how God was the “unbegotten God” and even using the Greek words found in Matthew chapter 1; “Abraham begat Isaac, Isaac begat Jacob and Jacob begat Judah......” Even “begotten” illustrations they used such as ‘a beam of light coming from the sun,’ or ‘an unlit torch being lit from a previously lit flame,’ along with more like illustrations. Regardless of the conclusions, it is clear the usage of “only begotten” involves “begetal overtones” as one modern writer describes it. Question; Why do so many modern translation remove “only begotten” and define it as “unique or only” when it wasn’t viewed that way in earliest biblical and “Founding Church Fathers” days? The same with “arche” in Revelation 3:14. During the Council of Nicea the discussions all centered around “beginning” and another Greek word “anarche” - ‘without beginning.’ It’s clear they understood Revelation 3:14 as “beginning.” Question; Why do many modern translations change the word from “beginning” to ‘chief’ ‘ruler’ or such word, when no one at the time of Council of Nicea (and earlier) discussed it with that understanding? Thank you very much! :)
Answering your question about "begotten". Greek Scholars in the late 1800s and early 1900s thought the Greek word μονογενης was being mistranslated as only begotten and thought it actually meant only unique or one and only. In the last decade, new scholarship has shown it was actually "only begotten" and those scholars in the 1800s were mistaken. So in new translations, you should see them switching back to "only begotten" like in the Legacy Stand Bible that came out a couple years ago.
Also the Greek word for "begotten" and "begat" are not the same word but they are similar.
About your question on the Greek word άρχή. The word has multiple meanings and can be translated as beginning or ruler depending on the context of the passage. I'm not sure what translations you are talking about when you mention them changing the word to "ruler" in Revelation 3:14. I looked at 14 major new translations and could only find one version that translated it as ruler (the NIV).
@@Strongtower Thank you for your reply. You're right, I probably should have been more clear and mentioned "begotten" and "begat" weren't the same Greek words (in which I was aware of for 50 or so years now). It's just that they both are used in the sense of 'begetting' and not simply being used as "only" or "unique" as many modern translations have been changing and updating the Greek "monogenes" as. Even the Founding Church Fathers, during the Council of Nicaea discussed "monogenes" in the light of how it applies to Jesus in a 'begettal' usage and never as meaning "only" or "unique" as many translations/translators changed it to. Most modern translations completely remove "only begotten" in the 6 places it appears in the King James version.
@@Strongtower Yes NIV is one of translation that changes "beginning" to "Ruler" (not my favorite translation, anyway). Literal Standard Version has "Chief." Many translations footnotes will describe the "true" meaning along the lines of "ruler" "chief" ect... The Founding Church Fathers during the Council of Nicaea were discussing "arche" (beginning) and "anarche" (without beginning) and nothing at all on "ruler" "chief" et... Thus their understanding had nothing at all to do with "Ruler" or the likes.
"Mark 7:13 KJV - Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye."
So good... mic drop
I think of this verse so often.
My reply to the "we should wait until God tells us to update our Bible translation" is "Okay, so we need to pray to God that he move us to know if we should move on. 1st we need to be fully intellectually honest and find *each and every legitimate concern* with the KJV and present the list to God in order that we get the full answer. That way we avoid the faithless way of ignoring what's inconvenient to our view."
If you have faith in God, seeking truth in the uncertainties shouldn't cause you fear.
(I speak from experience that both being KJVonly and not looking into variations in the manuscripts were caused by my lack of faith in God. And I say people should do better than I did and look at themselves to see if they need to repent of it.)
For me, I love Bible Translation which use Public Domain License (Such as KJV and ASV). For Modern English Translation that use Public Domain License, I use
- World English Bible (NT use Majority Text)
- New Hearth English Bible (NT use NA/UBS Greek Text)
More power to you! Truly!
Well done.
Hi Mark. As a lawyer (not a liar), I can guess where the "10%" myth comes from. It appears to be a conflation of the law of derivative works with the law of fair use which generally allows about 10% of a copyrighted written work to be quoted. It is true that the law of derivative works requires a new copyrighted work to be different enough from a prior work. But there's no fixed percentage. This is because the law of derivative works applies to more than just written works. It also applies to things like artwork where you can't really put a percentage to the change. So the 10% figure from the law of fair use has no bearing on the law of derivative works. Now, the question is whether the law of derivative works has any bearing on the quality of modern Bible translations. I think it's not so much a quality issue (as it's pure speculation whether the law informed modern translation choices), but rather the "kind" of translation that the modern world cannot produce due to this law. The KJV for better or worse was commissioned by the supreme sovereign of the land who by decree was able to license the KJV translators to follow all the English translations that already existed, including the Bishop's Bible (which was to be the main source) as well as the Tyndale, Matthew’s, Coverdale’s, Whitchurch’s, Geneva translations (where they were better than the Bishop's) as well as new translation choices. So it's not just the law of derivative works by itself, but the fact that English translation copyrights are held across various holders (e.g. Biblica, Crossway, Lockman) means you can't have one party make a dream Bible that takes "what works" from previous Bibles and combine them all into one, without at least "worrying" about potential copyright issues. This law shouldn't have any noticeable effect on clearly "new" translations, but it would seem to play a factor in making what is possible for revisionary versions. But from a KJVO perspective, the law of derivative works should have no bearing on works like the NIV and the ESV because by the KJVO's own admission, those works are "so different" from preexisting works.
From a lawyer's standpoint how does:
17 U.S.C 103,
instruction on FormTX.
Impact the ability for a modern translation not to have forced errors in order to obtain a copyright?
@@casey1167 17 USC 103 says that a new copyright does not cover the portion of a derivative work that is based on a preexisting work. So if you were to make a new translation based on Tyndale (keeping Tyndale's rendering in some parts and making your own translations in other parts), and someone else copies your new version but only the Tyndale renderings, then you don't have the right to sue for infringement. So 17 USC 103 does not require deliberate changes to be made to publish the work, if that's what you're asking.
@@masaomorinaga6412 But the only portion you can apply for copyright on is those changes you are making.
Thus, let's say we all agree Daniel is 100% correctly translated in the NKJV, the only way for the next Bible publisher to copyright Daniel in their Bible would be to make changes that were deficient translations or in error?
@@casey1167 If the book from Daniel were to be 100% copied from the NKJV, that portion would not only be disqualified from exclusive protection under the new copyright, but Thomas Nelson would most likely take issue with it. With this "translation and copyright" issue, we need to be accurate with our claims. It would not be accurate to say that the law on derivative works caused the NIV and ESV translators to change words deliberately because the NIV is a completely new translation and the ESV is based on the RSV (to which Crossway has the rights). But it would also be naive to say that copyright has no bearing at all on what translation could hypothetically be produced. A hypothetical new version with all new material except for the book of Daniel taken from the NKJV probably would not be permitted.
@@masaomorinaga6412 Well, I actually 90% agree with you in what you are saying above, though I would have some reservation on some points.
While correlation between the law/rule and resulting translation can be inferred, it can not be stated as fact. Though if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, flies like a duck, swims like a duck, tastes like a duck.....
I frankly don't buy the "new version" argument. The idea they just went to the Greek and Hebrew and did a translation is without referencing to other translations is far fetched. The inclusion of the last twelve verses of Mark in Bibles where they state they do not believe it is scripture would strongly point to revision, not re-translation.
But to circle back to your statement on Daniel, if agreement is made the NKJV is the best possible translation of Daniel, and it is agreed copying would not be permitted (and I would say emphatically it is not permitted based on the copyright protection on the first page of the NKJV) than scholars such as Dr. Ward should state as such and leaders in the Church should only promote what they feel is the "best" translation.
My assertion is the Copyright law dictates a "best translation" in every passage of scripture. Maybe not for the entire Bible, or book of the Bible, or even entire chapter, but there must be a "best" translation for every passage.
I try to verify arguments, before responding to them . The first thing I did when I heard the copyright argument was to look at my Nelson Imperial Reference KJV Bible to see if there was a copyright. There was. So it isn't just that there are different ways of saying the same thing, but you can also add cross references or study notes and get a new copyright, even on a King James Bible.
An excellent practice!
Christian-school teacher here. I work at a school that uses the curriculum of Accelerated Christian Education (ACE). Hence, my school uses these bite-sized textbooks called Packets of Accelerated Christian Education (PACE) to teach students. These PACE's have verses in KJV which students are required to memorize. It saddens me when students admit that they cannot understand certain verses because of the archaic language used. I remember I had to discuss what "peradventure" meant. To remedy the problem, I would use the ESV or the NIV to explain the verses better.
I often wonder if Copyright laws are the reason why the verses remain in KJV, considering that newer translations might require payment of royalties.
I don't think copyrights are *the* reason, though they are a contributing reason. The fact is that there are contemporary translations that are copyright-free, like the Berean Standard Bible I mentioned. I think, instead, that PACE is playing to its audience (I myself used PACE books in seventh grade) and meeting their expectations. Also, if you look at the copyrights page of the ESV and NIV and other major evangelical translations, they have very generous permissions built into their Bibles.
I do my work in part to change the default expectation that the KJV be used in circumstances like the one you describe. This change will be very slow.
Finally, I have found a fastidious Bible scholar! I am so relieved to find another epistemologist!
I had read a blog post entitled "THE LAST NECESSARY TRANSLATION?" by Kevin RK Davis, what your thoughts on this question are?
Coincidentally I was messing with Copilot when I started this video and asked it the question:
You
Please list any Bible Verses that were translated differently due to copyright, Use the various NIV, NASB, LSB, KJV, NJKJV, NLT, and CSB versions in the review.
Copilot
I’m sorry, but I can’t provide the specific information you’re looking for. While it’s true that different Bible translations can vary in their wording due to differences in translation philosophy and copyright considerations, I don’t have the ability to provide a comprehensive list of verses that were translated differently across all the versions you mentioned (NIV, NASB, LSB, KJV, NJKJV, NLT, and CSB).
However, I can tell you a bit about how these versions differ in general:
NIV (New International Version): This version blends accuracy and readability for a global English-speaking audience1.
NASB (New American Standard Bible): This version prioritizes literalness for depth of study while updating the language1.
LSB (Legacy Standard Bible): Information about this version wasn’t found in the search results.
KJV (King James Version): This is a classical, word-for-word translation using early 17th-century English1.
NJKV (New King James Version): This version maintains traditional language; updates archaisms of original King James1.
NLT (New Living Translation): This is a thought-for-thought translation to convey ideas in everyday language1.
CSB (Christian Standard Bible): This version uses optimal equivalence; it balances literary precision and readability1.
For a more detailed comparison of different Bible translations, you might find resources like the Bible Translation Comparison Chart or Compare Bible Verses in All Translations helpful. These resources allow you to compare different Bible translations side by side, which can give you a better understanding of how specific verses are translated across different versions. Please note that you should always refer to the actual Bible translations for the most accurate information.
_____
I did ask it other related questions but this is the gist of it and you can do that yourselves if your board enough. I wouldn't consider it worth too much but it does claim that wording is impacted.
I'd note that even if that's the case, it's not equivalent to meaning.
I do think copyright plays into somethings
I did an additional search while writing this
research to just Bible translations
Copilot
Here are some instances of copyright issues related to Bible translations:
Bible Copyright Licensing Issues: Michael Paul Johnson discusses the complexities of Bible copyright licensing, including the problem of unknown copyright owners1.
Why are Modern Bible Translations Copyrighted?: Many modern Bible translations are copyrighted because producing a Bible translation is an extensive and expensive project. Publishers retain rights to their translations to ensure that translators are fairly reimbursed for their hard work2.
Public-Domain Bible Threatened With Lawsuit: There have been instances where creators of public-domain Bibles have been threatened with lawsuits by copyright holders of other Bible translations3.
Please note that these cases involve copyright issues related to Bible translations rather than lawsuits between publishers. However, they highlight the importance of copyright in the publishing industry. It’s also worth noting that downloading or distributing the entire text of a copyrighted Bible translation is not permitted2.
Learn more
1
mljohnson.org
2
support.biblegateway.com
3
falkvinge.net
4
pressbooks.pub
5
billmuehlenberg.com
6
biblegateway.com
+1 more
You
are there any instances of lawsuits involving specific verse wording
Copilot
I couldn’t find specific instances of lawsuits involving the wording of Bible verses in the search results. It’s possible that such cases are not widely reported or may not be available in public records. If you have a particular case in mind or need more detailed legal research, it might be best to consult legal databases or a professional in the field.
___________
Basically I think this topic would require much deeper research than you could speculate over just because you can't easily find information on it, as much of it would be just private legal communications.
Regarding the UK copyright: Does this apply only to the 1769 version or also to the 1611 version
It applies to every edition.
Wow. What a gangster thing to say at the very end. 😂
If I'm not mistaken the British Crown still has a copyright on the Authorized Version they just don't enforce it.
They collect royalties and import taxes on it. It's one of their income streams. To me, that's a form of enforcement of the copyright.
I also think that publishers in the UK have to obtain permission the publish. I can only name four publishers in the UK, Cambridge University, Oxford University, Trinitarian Bible Society and Schuler.
Dr. Ward at 23:28-46: "Don't stay on your roof and wait for a divine rescue that has already come. Just come downstairs and read a translation into your own English. Then, if you do drown, you'll at least understand more of God's word while the water clogs your lungs."
Response: "You leave 'em laughing when you go" (Both Sides Now by Joni Mitchell).
My preference would be to:
1. Head up to the attic that has a roof window;
2. Read Genesis, Chapters 6-9 from the NKJV;
3. Send out a dove;
- and then -
4. Wait for 40 days with an emergency food supply.
Yes!!
Thanks, but I was remiss. I should have added, 'if the New King James Bible was good enough for Noah, then that's good enough for me.'
How long should a modern translation wait to be updated? Every 50 years maybe?
How often do you think would be right?
@murrydixon5221 I think every 50 years unless a new manuscript was found to add to the Bible in a major way. I think language may change enough in 50 years to justify it.
@Rod-Wheeler I could agree with that Rod, even though I believe the publishers need to do do a far, far better job at justifying it then what they are currently.
All of the major modern translations (NIV, NASB, NLT, ESV, AMP) are updating much quicker than that. These are not 400 year old translations.
Why do you think all the updating?
@murrydixon5221 it's ridiculous. They "finalized" the ESV in 2016 and people had a hissy fit about that so they had to pull back the statement. See: Crossway Statement on the ESV Bible Text. People want a Bible that is stable. I've been in situations where three NIV Bibles all had different wording. That doesn't instill faith in a translation.
50 years is about right. The ASV originally came out in 1901. The complete RSV was published in 1952. The ESV was initially released in 2001.
That's good, just like know if there's a way to support your friend with out putting him in trouble? Then you talked some on the LSB, Ken Han has interviewed the lead translater on his channel that may be up to seeing if you have not seen allready. One that some people do not like is when the Spirit speake it can be one word with all mening laid in it a completed thought, now write a book with all the meaning for each person in mind, That's why one needs to pray before reading!
Is every new KJV Bible copy produced and distributed for free?
I wouldn't think so since there are always costs associated with printing and distributing Bibles.
I’m extremely amused by the statement of various KJV-Only-ites (whom you quote) they’re saying that they need to wait for a special sign from God before they can presume to update the KJV translation so that it will convey its complete meaning within the “heart language” of present-day speakers of English.
Just _*what*_kind of sign, I must wonder, are they waiting for?
Fiery letters in the sky, signed “Yours truly, The Holy Spirit?”
The archangel Gabriel coming down?
And just help with such a divine announcement read, anyway? What wording, I wonder, do thr6 reckon they’ll see on the holy heavenly memo?
Do they really, truly think that an angel, the Holy Spirit, or Jesus will blaze across the sky (or visit them in their living rooms), saying:
“It’s time, boys - NOW change ‘besom’ to ‘broom.’ Yesterday “broom” was uninspired and forbidden -
today, ‘broom’ is God-breathed amd commanded - tomorrow, return here at this time for the next word on the list.”
Another thing I hear from KJV Onlyists is that they say modern bibles make Jesus a liar in John 7:8 because they say they take out the word “yet”. I just recently came out of KJV only so statements like this make me worried. I’m sure there’s a good way of refuting this argument. Be interested in feedback regarding this verse.
The argument in this case is fairly simple: Is it more likely that a scribe would change οὔπω ("not yet") to οὐκ ("not") in order to make Jesus look bad, or is it more likely that a scribe would change "not" to "not yet" in order to make Jesus look good? The second option seems far more likely, so we would need some other evidence to explain how the word "not yet" became confused with "not." Furthermore, considering that οὔπω ("not yet") appears later in the same verse, it's little wonder that a copyist would end up placing it in the previous clause to smooth out a potentially embarrassing reading.
James Snapp generally prefers the Byzantine readings over Alexandrian and Western readings, but even he defended οὐκ ("not") in this case: www.thetextofthegospels.com/2019/05/john-78-not-not-yet-or-nothing.html
Still, if you think it's more likely that the οὐκ reading is a deliberate corruption by heretics (or even an unfortunate accident by a careless scribe), there are a few translations that stick with the "not yet" reading in John 7.8: the NKJV, LSB, MEV, GW, NCV, and EHV, among others. (The ones I listed are readily available in print.)
Jewish views of attendance was such that showing up late was the same as missing the feast altogether. Jesus went late so as far as the Jewish view was he didn't go at all.
Could it be the sign they are looking for is in the data?
Apropos of nothing in the video but have you met or spoken to or communicated with, the guy behind Ready to Harvest? His video on the differences between Oriental Orthodox and Orthodox seems really right up your language nerd alley.
James White is a big fan of the 10% theory. I didn't realize this was just a KJVO conspiracy.
I'm disappointed that you didn't make an April Fools Video on Monday proclaiming yourself convinced of KJV-onlyism and getting rid of your other Bibles. hahah. 😂
Thank you for another enlightening and challenging video!
Gail Riplinger's New Age Bible Versions says "New versions are forced to scramble phrases in order to secure a copyright, which, according to the derivative copyright law requires 'substantial changes.'" (p. 76) I cannot find anything about "10%" in the current edition. I don't know where that number came from. Possibly one of her speeches? 🤷♂️ I doubt it came from someone else, but maybe.
@@honsvillethe NABV one?
Of course it's Gail Anne "God And" Riplinger, who basically puts forth her "New Age Bible Versions" as a 67th book of the Bible.
@@fnjesusfreak I know people say that a lot. I've never gotten that impression from her. She only said that because she says God helped her in her research just like any Christian author is.
@@BibleVersionConspiracy That's what she SAYS was the reason she signed it "G. A. Riplinger". And it's actually worse than the truth. Because the real reason was just that she knew she wouldn't be taken seriously as a woman...so she goes and says it was really written by God (which would give it equal authority to the Bible), replacing a harmless use of initials with blasphemy!
@@fnjesusfreak Where does she say it was inspired or on an equal level with the Bible? Or are you just gathering this from the implications of what she said? Do you believe she had a supernatural encounter with something claiming to be God? I'm not trying to be a jerk, I would just really like to know what you think.
i love translation quirks, even within dutch translations. I think most are probably accurate but stale. Dutch translate generally to be accurate but it's so stale. I like the HSV the best so far from Dutch translations. Reading it feels like it's being written into your mind or something. It's probably most like the NKJV. Wouldn't it be fun if the CoE would commit to a new translation? Probably would be called the KCV or KHV i assume.
The CoE seems to have backed off committing to a new translation after the Revised Version flopped in the 1880s. However, the CoE's website often uses the NRSV and ESV, the two most "official" updates in the traditional line of English Bibles.
Mark, on this topic I wanted to ask: What was the impetus for re-doing the NASB four years ago? I personally prefer the NASB1977 to the NASB1995, but I've grown used to the '95. Why do it again in 2020? Are they just going to redo it again in another 15 years?
One possibility is that they realized how dated the NASB '95 sounds to younger readers. Another factor would be the opportunity to reflect changes in the Nestle-Aland text from the 26th edition to the 28th. (It's worth pointing out, however, that they rejected a major change in Jude 1.5.) A more cynical possibility is that they wanted to renew interest in the NASB after the ESV had swept in and taken a big chunk of its user base.
And then there's the alternative update, John MacArthur's LSB from 2021. I'd list possible reasons for its existence, but I'd be leaping right to the most cynical option.
@@MAMoreno Just curious, who does the "they" refer to on your reply NASB or the Nestle-Aland text. Thanks (I still have and use the NASB '95 edition.)
@@19king14 The NASB translators rejected the Nestle-Aland 28th edition reading.
@@MAMoreno OK.. Thanks!
@@MAMoreno I appreciate your perspective. I am concerned because it's one thing to provide a bible in a language I can understand. It's another thing to dumb it down for me. Anyway, English hasn't drifted since 1995, except for the introduction of new slang. But slang isn't supposed to be in the bible because it's super short lived. I notice the NASB95 doesn't have the word "peeps" in it, for instance (even though it was translated in the 90s). It would be equally foolish to translate the NASB with terms such as "yeet, sus, bougie, salty and cap". Again, there's a difference between a translation in the common tongue that normally literate people can read, and it's quite another to "update" the bible every few years for... other reasons, that don't seem relevant.
I'm sorry, but I don't think the Mach-e is a Mustang.😢
Ha! To each is or her own! Didja get your book? ;)
@@markwardonwords yes, thank you ! I was going to send you an email but I forgot. Thank you 😁
You should have said your missionary friend was in Wakanda 😆
As far as the copyright issue, to be honest that's one of the weaker KJVO arguments out there. To tell the truth, I don't think I've ever heard it before seeing your video on this.
I would say the copyright issue is the strongest issue for KJVO. If the only copyrightable portions of a version are those with "new authorship" then evaluation of this "new authorship" should be evaluated not only between the version in question and the KJV, but the version in question to all other versions extant under copyright.
@Outrider74 - the copyright claim shows up constantly in online KJV-only defense. It is a huge (and false) tool that KJV onlyists use to cast aspersions on other translations.
@@dondgc2298 Really? Have you read FormTX? 17 U.S.C 103 ?
Are there any resources you'd recommend for Spanish Bible translations?
Can you be more specific?
Bible Gateway has some Spanish translations you can check out.
I suspect it is the additional commentaries and artwork within the text which is copyrighted. The original text is long been in the public domain. I'm not sure any minor variations within the translation would rise to the level of a new work, able to be copyrighted. I could be completely wrong. I hope I'm not though.
Weare reading translations not the Bible in their original language.... So there will be differences in use of text
Does the NKJV have a copyright?
The standard copyright restriction for Bible translations, including the King James Version, allows unrestricted use for anything less than 250 verses (some allow as many as 1,000 verses), provided that an entire book of the Bible is not quoted and such quotes do not account for more than 20% of the work
The KJV is protected by royal prerogative rather than copyright. Royal prerogative predates copyright. Copyright merely supercedes royal prerogative. The KJV's royal prerogative remains protected under s.171(1)(b) of the UK's Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
I can imagine this idea came from the KJV itself. People asking if they could just publish their own KJV changing only the th's into s's, the word charity into love, and a handful of other top-level obvious things and being told that it would not be different enough to able to be copywritten as a different work. This idea is then spread around a bit and becomes, the other translations change things intentionally only to meet this requirement.
That certainly could be!
Well, actually you can change the KJV all you want and publish is in the USA, you just could not get the copyright on your Bible unless you followed the law of 17 U.S.C 103.
We use the ESV at our local Christian School, having used the NIV 1984 until 2011. The differences between the 1984 and 2011 NIV were very noticeable in memory verse work. The students I teach who were given a 2001 ESV notice the changes when another student with a 2016 ESV reads aloud. When they ask me how could two ESV Bibles say different things, but both are ESV...well, there's the problem with so many revisions. Their reaction is usually "How can we ever know what the Bible really says?"
on google you can automatically see at least 10 or so different translations of any verse. I'm sure I could even find 30 of them if I wanted to. some are god translations and some are not. my 2 favorites are NASB1978. and NIV 1984.
"How can we ever know what the Bible really says?"
The question there is fundamentally flawed. It assumes that there is one possible English translation which is what the Bible "really" says, and the rest are just close. The reality is both the 2001 and 2016 ESV are what the Bible really says, one is just slightly simpler to understand for the average English reader
As an example, the majority of changes in the ESV between its 2011 and 2016(current) versions is simply that they changed the word "epileptics" to the phrase "people who have seizures." Both tell you very clearly what the original Hebrew or Greek verse was talking about, one is just slightly less specific to more clearly reflect the ambiguity of the original language term (epileptics aren't the only people who have seizures!)
Justin, you are EXACTLY right. Well done.
However, Jonathan Jankovich, you are right to point out that a lot of people who don't understand the basics of translation (which is most Christians, so how can I blame them?) are troubled by translation changes and comforted by a translation that doesn't change. Comments like this over the years have made me much more sympathetic to the idea that major translations should not be revised, or not often.
Mark: this is off-topic for the current video… Would you please do a video about the use of the non-biblical name “James” and why English translations persist in using it in some places, while using the more correct “Jacob” in others? Thanks.
I've written on it… I will definitely consider this. Good thought.
It's an old trend, dating at least back to Wycliffe's Bible from the 1380s. "James" is what happens when you drag "Jacobus" through Old French.
@@MAMoreno A GREAT way to put it! Love this!
I don’t like the copyright statement in Bibles. I totally get having a copyright disclaimer for commercial/sale purposes. But for personal use and worship use - all bibles should state “express full permission is granted for quoting in any form for personal use or worship use”.
You took 23 minutes to not answer the question. Obviously a new translation seeking to be copyrighted must be different to previous copyrighted versions. If this was not the case the copyright would be meaningless and no publisher would pay royalties for using a translation. Publishers and ministries have a financial incentive to own a Bible translation. It should therefore be of concern that translations could be proliferated for financial reasons instead of a particular need for more translations.
Copyrights for Bibles were popularized by the American Standard Version of 1901. Its reason for getting a copyright was to protect the work of the translators from knockoffs claiming to be their work. Since the Revised Version of 1885 (the British edition of what became the ASV) had listed the alternative translations suggested by the American branch of its committee in an appendix, some publishers had opted to make an "American Edition" of the RV without permission or supervision from the translators. Thus, it was deemed necessary to copyright the official American edition.
So the issue isn't so much that someone will come along and release a translation that's essentially the NIV under a different name. Rather, the big concern is that someone will come along and release an essentially different translation under the NIV name.
@@MAMoreno Thanks. If a publisher wants to quote the NIV in their commentary series and doesn't want to pay Zondervan a licence fee or royalty, what is stopping them from publishing a new NIV that is essentially the same with a new title? Surely there is a similarity test at some point.
@@kurt8286 Possibly, but also consider that there is a certain level of honor and honesty that you can expect from a translation committee for the Bible. (Perhaps less so from unscrupulous publishers.)
In the video, Mark Ward mentions asking him questions. I have a question I’d like to ask him. But how do It? How do I write to him? Does he have an email address? Is there a website or facebook page or something I am. Supposed to go? Please let me know if you know.
Ask here, my friend! Others may answer.
I have heard that KJV has removed spcial verses or words from the geneva is this true?
There were some rules on certain terms like "church" and "baptism" (instead of "assembly" and "washing" for example).
Not from the Geneva Bible, no. William Tyndale's 1526 New Testament used terms that were less High Church in their slant, but those words were replaced in revisions predating the KJV. The Great Bible of 1539 included longer New Testament readings from the Vulgate, but again, that material was cut before the KJV committee's time.
While this issue was only perceived peripherally by me;
it is interesting nonetheless.
I would like to raise the topic of translators inserting words in the Bible
because they did not understand God's intention.
For example:
Psalm 111:5a He has given (food) to those who fear Him...
the word should be prey.
To spiritual prayer warriors, who take up the Sword daily and attack the enemy, according to the Word of God, this makes complete Biblical and logical sense and is profoundly important.
Just because translators lack understanding as to the 'why';
I feel a disservice is done by basically making up a word/meaning to replace
their lack of comprehension about what God is saying.
I greatly desire a translation that is correct.
God says what He means and means what He says.
Either way, you can only change it up so many times before it messes with doctrine.
Sounds like he's joined a circle of friends that are against the KJV, and for one new bible or another,
and to stay in good standing has to figure out how to reject, and refute a perfectly good comment
on non KJV.
My friend, are your opponents allowed to have honest opinions and no agendas aside from those they have already revealed? My agenda is to promote careful Bible reading by advocating for Bible translations into the vernacular. I am also against the divisive and false doctrines of KJV-Onlyism.
@@markwardonwords
Of course you go for the "intolerance stick" to beat KJVO critics. Careful Bible reading is desirable,
but, for us to follow rationalist and literature critics to "decide" what does and doesn't belong in our bibles
doesn't fit the definition of that. I'm with the Bible experts who examined the Westcott Hort Greek text and
rejected it. Westcott and Hort despised the TR, and Tischendorf stood to make a bundle on it.
I'm all in for passadena, thanks.
@@regtaylor1163 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
Why is it so important for me to switch?
@@regtaylor1163 I didn't say "switch," my friend. I still use the KJV myself-pretty much every day. Just don't insist on the exclusive use of the KJV for others. And for yourself, make sure you have the freedom in your conscience to read translations into your English. Understanding God's word is that important.
HI Mark, excellent series. Please please could you do an episode on the meanings of 'adelphoi'. I believe the word 'brethren' that is used to translate it in English is now a false friend. It implies maleness to today's hearers when the original may have meant more 'siblings'. This is a very important change in our language, one that has a profound impact for 50% of the population! It really needs to be looked at in detail, with an open mind to let the text speak as it does, without the baggage of complementarianism or egalitarianism.
Adelphoi can indeed mean "brothers" specifically or "siblings" generally, much like hermanos in Spanish. If you have fifteen sisters and one brother, you have adelphoi. Get rid of the one brother, and you have adelphai.
Since English doesn't have a word that means "brothers and possibly sisters," some translations have decided to retain the archaic "brethren" instead of a modern alternative. When people hear "brethren," they're likely to take it as a religious term that functions in much the same way as "comrades," not as a gendered term per se. (Note that no one who uses the word "brethren" today seriously uses the word "sistren" as well.) It's imperfect, but all options are imperfect here.
The most common alternatives are "brothers" (e.g. ESV) or "brothers and sisters" (e.g. NRSV). The first option assumes that Paul and other speakers who use adelphoi metaphorically are really addressing the men in the room and regarding the women in the assembly as an afterthought, which doesn't sit well with what we see in passages like Romans 16.1-15 and Philippians 4.2-3.The second option assumes that Paul and the other New Testament authors were progressive enough to see men and women as being roughly on equal ground, but if that were the case, why didn't the writers use a construction such as "adelphous kai adelphas" (Mark 10.30)?
Other options don't really work, either. Sometimes, a translation aiming for inclusive language will use "friends" or "beloved," but do they carry the same impact as a familial term? Rarely will a translation resort to "siblings," as it sounds too antiseptic and impersonal. If you go to a church service, you will hear people addressed as "brother" and "sister," not as "sibling." And even when addressing the congregation, a speaker is most likely going to say "brothers and sisters" (or "brethren").
Some excellent points MA, which I agree with. However as you say, 'brethren' often includes women (eg Matt 23:8). But the younger generation hears just 'brothers' when the word 'brethren' is used, meaning in many places women feel excluded, such as in Matt 23. Is Jesus only a teacher to men, or is brethren a false friend, and as such should be updated?
@@Sarah-e5s2s The NASB 2020 may have the most suitable solution: it translates the word as "brothers _and sisters_ ," placing the last two words in italics to indicate that they may or may not be implied by the word _adelphoi_ in any given context.
That's one way of doing it but to the casual reader it implies that adding the 'and sisters' part is optional, where it really isn't (I understand that's not how they meant it). If adding sisters to the translation of adelphoi were optional this would create some substantial problems- such as Romans 1:13 - I would not have you ignorant brethren (so it's ok if the women Paul is writing to are ignorant or unaware?). 1 Thess 1:4 - are women not chosen and not loved too? 1 Phil 3:1 - only men are allowed to rejoice in the Lord? Italicising half the population feels a bit like making them subordinate rather than striving for accuracy! There has to be a better way!
@@Sarah-e5s2s The thing is that Paul's letters sometimes default to speaking directly to the men without any notice, whereas he always notes when he's addressing the women in particular. (Consider the distinctly male-oriented terms in the vice list of 1 Corinthians 6.19-20 or the subsequent warning against joining with a female sex worker.) It may be an unconscious bias, but it is there in places.
Additionally, since Paul did not explicitly write "adelphoi kai adelphai" when he could have done so, it's hard to make a strong case that he truly meant "brothers and sisters" rather than "brothers (and sisters)." He most certainly did intend for women to hear the letter, and he does address the women directly at times, so "brothers" by itself is an inadequate translation, but "siblings" may suggest that he saw men and women as equals in the church, which doesn't really seem to be the case. It might best be said that's he's too complementarian for some modern egalitarians and too egalitarian for some modern complementarians. See Dale B. Martin's discussion of the matter on p. 199 of _The Corinthian Body_ (Yale University, 1995).
18:22 "There is a sense in which copyright concerns play an unfortunate role in the creation of new translations. (The CSB exists.. )" 19:15 "Copyright does not enter their minds." Which is it? I am not going to judge any one individual or group working on any translation but to imply copyright plays absolutely no role in the development of new translations is stretching it. Christian publishing is worth millions.
Even if you don't accept the AV, there are more than enough intelligible translations out there already.
He's talking about copyright entering the publishers' minds vs. copyright entering the translators' minds. The translation committee itself isn't there to circumvent copyright law. It's there to produce a faithful English version of the Bible using their preferred translation philosophy.
Christian publishers are a business and it is part of their business strategy. The translation philosophy will be set by the publisher to cater to a specific market. Unless Mark has direct access to the translators brains, to say that copyright and the desires of the publisher plays absolutely no part is false.
King James was the patron of the AV translation and the various Christian publishers of today are the "patrons" of these modern day translations. This is a reality.
Promo*SM
Why do this video unless you know the answer to the question..... Does a new or revised edition have to meet at least 10% change from previous copyrighted efition. ?
Mark, while this claim about copyrights is false, there are some very disturbing problems with copyrights on modern bible translations. Andrew Case has addressed this both in writing and on his podcast and I would encourage you to engage his work on Bible copyrights sometime.
Andrew Case is basing his argument on arguments made by Maurice Robinson years ago, as Case freely admits: sellingjesus.org/articles/copyright-and-the-bible
The problem with this argument is that it downplays (and indeed handwaves away) the reason why modern Bible versions were copyrighted in the first place. In 1901, the main issue that led to the copyright on the ASV was not the committee's desire to restrict who could use the ASV, but their concern that someone could put out a book claiming to be the ASV that was actually filled with alterations that were not approved by the translators. This very problem had arisen in the twenty years between the publication of the British edition (the Revised Version) and the U.S. edition (the American Standard Version).
Even today, there's no guarantee of what you're getting when you buy a KJV. The only force stopping publishers from altering the KJV to their hearts' content is the so-called invisible hand of the free market: if it gets out that a company is selling an unreliable KJV, the King James Only movement will throw a fit and try to boycott it. Even so, the KJV's public domain status in the United States ensures that there is no stable and consistent KJV text. A Zondervan KJV, Thomas Nelson KJV, and Tyndale KJV may have notable variants in the text, from different spellings and punctuation to altogether different readings.
Nor is there any label on most editions to tell you if you're getting a text equivalent to the one found in an 1860s Oxford printing or an 1870s Cambridge printing, which might at least give you some heads-up on which variants you can expect. (The rare exceptions tend to be publishers who follow the so-called Pure Cambridge Edition.) By contrast, you know when you buy a 2011 NIV that you're getting the exact wording of the 2011 NIV (unless there's some printing error, obviously). You also know that you're _not_ getting the wording of the 1978 NIV or the 1984 NIV. But if we dropped all editions of the NIV into the public domain tomorrow, then by next year, you might find yourself buying an NIV that follows the 1973 NIV New Testament in one place and the 2002 TNIV New Testament in another.
@@MAMoreno Andrew Case addresses this and there are solutions to that issue that don't require the copyright restrictions that are used today. Additionally as Andrew Case has noted, some versions (like the ESV) have copyrights that are even more restrictive that the law actually permits.
@@miketisdell5138 While Case, Robinson, and other contributors to Case's website have some worthwhile points, I find this position too extreme. Robinson's argument against the NKJV and NASB may have some merit: they are adapting public domain translations, so perhaps there should be limitations on how much of their work should be protected by copyright. At the very least, though, they should be able to protect the name of the translation, the preface, and the footnotes.
Criticism of something like the NIV or CSB, though, is less justified. It's not as if they're the only translations in modern English, so why must every translation be equally available to everyone? The only real problem is the absurd extensions copyright laws have received in the years since the ASV's release (thanks in large part to the Disney company's insistence on holding onto Mickey Mouse long after Walt's death). Surely the 1966 Jerusalem Bible, which is as old now as the ASV was when it entered the public domain, should already be freely available.
I'm trying to listen to this debate Andrew is having-with kind of no one, which is one of his probably justified complaints. He feels like no one is engaging him, and I understand that feeling. I've been slowly processing some of his arguments. This is semi-public, but you guys are my friends (as is Andrew, with whom I texted today when an atheist named us both on his channel!)… Here's what I'm thinking: I readily grant that our system seems wrong when applied in other countries, but I wonder where the line should be drawn in Christian publishing between those who can expect a salary and those who need to get some kind of patronage or support. Would editors need to be supported, or could they be paid? If paid, then who pays them and how? What about compositors? Designers? Freelance proofers? Web devs? Social media marketers? I know this is pragmatic, but I look at what people produce when professionals are not involved, and it's ugly and poorly done. Beautiful Bibles, in particular, matter a lot to me-because aesthetics (and the form of layout) matter a great deal for meaning. How many beautiful Bibles would there be under the model proposed by Andrew and others? I admit to not having quite enough to know what they'd say… I fully intend to do so!
Also (thoughts in process here): it sure seems to me that the no-copyright landscape would give us more God Bless America Bibles: ugly, crass, money grabs (I'm not saying Lee Greenwood is grabbing money, but Trump most certainly is). The GBA Bible is literally ugly. Typographically horrendous. No competent people worked on any portion of that Bible (save perhaps the cover design?). Copyright ensures that the valuable name of the ESV (or NIV or NASB or CSB) can't be tarnished by association with foolishness and ugliness like that. And I think it was M.A. who said that the actual text of the KJV is "protected" from change by likely public outcry-in a way that the ESV and CSB and NIV would not be. I like the fact that copyright protects these valuable properties-valuable not just in financial terms but valuable for the church-from vitiation.
@@MAMorenoTo state in it in one sentence: Lack of copyright means lack of quality control.
I hate it when people try to pretend that changing words is irrelevant.
Let's look at the example you used, which was "Isaiah 45:16".
The word "ashamed" has been changed to "shame" in this example.
Now people such as yourself proclaim there is no difference here because they are so similar, but to be honest, they are both different words right off the bat, meaning they are "different."
For example, let's show clearly why this is an important "distinction."
1. Shame is generally used as a noun, whereas ashamed is typically used as an adjective.
2. Shame is the actual feeling (an affect or emotion), which is considered to be a painful one, while ashamed is feeling shame itself.
So one example they are being put to shame, and in another, they are feeling ashamed. I think this is quite a big and important distinction when speaking about the word of God.
Now in this same example they also changed "confounded" to "humilated." Again, two completely different words with two different meanings.
"Confounded" meaning "a surprise in doing wrong" while "humilated" is being "humbled; degraded."
These are big differences in meaning and can completely change how the reader is suppose to understand the situation being presented clearly, especially when trying to understand how "sin" works.
Do these "makers of idols" feel guilty and sorry for their action, or are they confused and oblivious to any guilt in the situation? Were they "humbled" as a result of this? Or were they left "confounded."
Now I don't care to go into a whole argument and in detail of this with you or anyone else for a fact of the matter. I just want you to know that you are purposefully misleading people when ignoring these "blatant differences."
Good points.
All good and valid points but you start with the presupposition that the King James got every word 100% "correct" and the King James is not the standard we use to judge all others what defines an individual word is the context in which it is used I believe context helps get the understanding and the meaning across more than the individual word used
@randywheeler3914 I didn't do any such thing. This is an assumption you made up in your head to ignore the point of "different words mean different things for a reason" compared to "all these verses say the same thing" in an attempt at a red herring argument, to rather argue about whether or not the words in question is the correct translation or not, rather than the argument in question is whether or not they all mean the same thing, regardless of word choice.
There are multiple translations that used those exact same terms, such as the "Aramaic Bible in Plain English" Translation, "The English Revised Version", the "God's Word translation", "the JPS Tanakh", "NET Bible", Youngs Literal Translation", "Websters Translation Bible", etc.
If you were to also translate from the Hebrew Bible, terms would also be the same.
For example in the Hebrew Bible or The Tanakh, under Isaiah 45:16 it says:
טז בּוֹשׁוּ וְגַם-נִכְלְמוּ, כֻּלָּם: יַחְדָּו הָלְכוּ בַכְּלִמָּה, חָרָשֵׁי צִירִים.
16 They shall be ashamed, yea, confounded, all of them; they shall go in confusion together that are makers of idols.
Your point is moot.
*Oxford English Dictionary*
_Confound_ definition 3.a:
To discomfit, abash, put to shame, ashame. (Almost always in passive.) Chiefly Scriptural.
@MAMoreno The line has already said they were "ashamed", "yea confounded..." you wouldn't use two distinct words to say the same thing when they are used in addition in the same sentence.
As the Oxford English Dictionary also says, "confound, v. To throw into confusion of mind or feelings; so to surprise and confuse (a person) that he or she loses for the moment his or her presence of mind…"
There are no unintelligible words in the KJB. There might be some words you don't understand, but that's just an education and a willing hearted issue.
By that nonsensical standard, there are no unintelligible words in Wycliffe's Bible, either. Tyndale could've saved himself some time and some persecution if he had just been a Bible Protector rather than a Bible Corrector.
@@MAMoreno It doesn't sound exactly nonsensical to say that you could spend a lot of time and effort to learn Middle English and Wycliffe's Bible, but you know that is both impractical and not easy. However, to learn the KJB words and meanings, while still requiring some effort, is already in a form intelligible enough to the less educated/young, though of course, no one denies the fact that one has to actually study to show oneself approved.
As for your misunderstanding about Tyndale, he was not "updating Wycliffe" he was pioneering Scripture in Early Modern English. Wycliffe's translation was from Latin, whereas Tyndale was from Greek.
You automatically assume the KJB is unintelligible, but you actually know how readers of the ESV, NIV, LSB, etc. themselves need some level of both education and theological understanding.
So I repeat that to the diligent and wise-hearted there is no barrier to intelligibility when it comes to exclusively relying upon the KJB for God's written truth.
@@bibleprotector The very fact that you said "no one denies the fact that one has to actually study to show oneself approved" unironically shows that, yes, the language of the KJV does mislead people into false doctrine. If taken the way it is often presented in fundamentalist circles, this verse would mean that the large illiterate masses of centuries past were incapable of receiving God's approval. Never mind that the verse is directed toward a pastor who has been entrusted with the gospel passed down by oral tradition, nor that he is being called to "study" as a workman, and the modern meaning of "study" does not fit with the extended metaphor.
@@MAMoreno God revealed the light out of darkness long before printed Bibles and fundamentalist circles ever existed. The workman is one who does the work after this order: "This also cometh forth from the LORD of hosts, which is wonderful in counsel, and excellent in working." (Isa 28:29). I expect you don't understand the work. The work is right interpretation of Scripture. The metaphor is directly that, i.e., the wise one who does the work of understanding how to interpret.
Your modernistic, nonsensical interpretation about "oral tradition" is a direct contradiction to the fact that the Old Testament was in written form, let alone also writings of the New Testament in process.
Seeing as the Word of God existed in written form, it bypasses your false aspersion that some strawman person would believe that the Scripture only existed after 1611, or that Paul was only referring to studying the King James Bible when he wrote to Timothy.
Seeing as studying truth itself is referenced and that already was manifest in the beginning of creation (remember the God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness Who has also shined in our hearts?), then the teaching of the KJB as presenting what is actually happening shows that you are the one with the false doctrine who has wrongly called the words of the King James Bible false, and most particularly, you have shown yourself to be the unwise (the other word for that) in so grossly misinterpreting Scripture, i.e. you have wrongly divided the word of truth.
In short, you have engaged in a concept which might be called "antithetical study", which is the darkness version of study. Your "antithetical study" is like a process which makes the Scripture mean what it does not mean. It makes it be something it isn't. "For their heart studieth destruction ..." (Pr 24:2a).
@@bibleprotector I said that the gospel was an oral tradition because Paul says it was an oral tradition in that very letter (1.13; 2.2). But the extended metaphor is this: a workman "studies" (diligently seeks) to receive approval rather than shame for his work by "dividing" (cutting) the thing he's working on "rightly" (accurately). Analogously, the preacher diligently seeks God's approval rather than shame by presenting the true gospel message accurately and without distortion. While the Scriptures themselves certainly contribute to that precise presentation of the gospel (3.16-17), Paul is directly speaking of the gospel itself when he refers to the "word of truth" (cf. Ephesians 1.13 and Colossians 1.5), not the Scriptures that attest to the gospel. In one sense, this may seem like splitting hairs, but it's a necessary corrective against the "Bible study as a meritorious work" viewpoint that totally misses the point of Bible study by making it a righteous act in its own right rather than a practice to promote righteous behavior.
Well, I usually read the King James version, except for the Psalms. For that, I use the Holy Transfiguration Monastery translation of the Greek Psalter. If I were doing heavy duty theological studies, I'd be using the Holy Apostles Convent translation of the New Testament. It has a wonderful apparatus, by the way, if you're into textual studies (which I'm not...yawn).
I have to laugh at you silly Protestants and your issues. Ohhhhhh boy *chuckle*
Is God as able today to raise up spirit filled prophets as He was in the past? If yes, then wouldn't their Word be just, and maybe even more reliable than what was written down thousands of years ago? From my studies Jesus said this was true. Aren't people who adhere so strongly to what God said yesterday, just the fearful and unbelieving of Revelations? Revelation 21:8 People who won't come fully to Jesus for eternal life. Sometimes mere words just can't do the subject justice. So, the Lord must explain it over and over in new and different words. That is what preachers, teachers and Prophets from God are for. "Fear not little flock, for it is your Father in Heaven good pleasure to give you the Kingdom of God!"
And would you believe they are who they say they are .
@@lauriekurad John 10:27 "26But because you are not My sheep, you refuse to believe. 27 My sheep listen to My voice; I know them, and they follow Me. 28I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one can snatch them out of My hand"
@@Howie47... And what has that, to do with what I said?
Answer my 'First' question....
@@lauriekurad "And would you believe they are who they say they are.? Because if you are one of God's sheep, you know His voice, and He knows you, and no other can lead you astray. We don't follow personalities. We don't follow by outward appearance. We know if the words they speak come from the Father, and the words that don't come from Him. "When one or two prophecies in the Church, let the Church judge what has been said." Whether or not it is from the Lord, or not. I know the Word of God and the voice of the Lord, do you?
@@Howie47...
Actually... You just destroyed your whole Original Post, with this last one.
And yes...I am very familiar with The Voice of GOD.
I heard HIM, before, during, and after I died, and was sent back here.
I still do.
I have been taught by HIM for over a dozen years... personally.
I have been tested by The Church...actually several.
The Church uses me in order to help with unclean spirits.
Private Investigators, The Police, and The FBI have used me to find missing persons.
Yes... I know GOD's Voice, because HE is the One, who has told me where the missing were.
HE is the One who guides me in casting out unclean spirits.
HE is the One, who has been guiding more than even I know.
Yes.... You did not even remember your first post.
Had you remembered, you would not have cancelled, what you tried to prove at first.
@markwardonwords I can’t imagine the number of obligations you have and requests you get, but I wanted to throw this out there for consideration. I would like to interview you for my podcast, The Inerrant Word Podcast, about your book on Bibliology for beginners. Would you be interested and available? I know this probably isn’t the best place to ask, but I do not know of another place to contact you. Thanks!
Commented with my email. Then deleted for security. Did you get it?
Got it. Thanks!
To be fair, each translation has to be different enough from every other one to be copyrighted. And I don't trust merchants. Oh well, they're all Simonists selling the Gospel for a profit.
Really? Do you know a single one of them? I do, my friend!
@@markwardonwords I'm sure you do. I'm sorry.