Let a Leading KJV-Onlyist Teach You a False Friend!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 жов 2024
- Promised link: kentbrandenbur...
🎁 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, Patreon supporters, and other givers who make this work possible!
▶ UA-cam:
Andrew Brady, Drew Koske, GypsyFriend1, Sean Zimmermaker, Michael Foust, Matt Stidham, Glen Converse, Russell Edwards, Gregg Bell, Aaron Traw, Terry Basham, II, Applied Word with Dan Weston, David Shockley, wrjsn231, Matthew Mencel, Javier Caballero, Municipal Money Matters, I Make Your Video, SEL 65545, Dale Buchanan, Jeanine Drylie, Larry Castle, Christopher Scaparo, David H, Jesse and Leigh Davenport, Meghan Brown, Justin Bellars, Lynn Hartter, Alan Milnes, Lynn Stewart, Karen Duncan, Gregory Brown, Brad Ullner, David Podesta, Frank Hartmann, Tricia Maddox Behncke, Caleb Richardson, PAClassic87 95, James Duly, 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, James Goering, David Saxon, Travis Manhart, Josiah Dennis, I Make Your Video, judy couchman, Kimberly Miller, Jonathan Clemens, Robert Daniels, Tiny Bibles, ThatLittleBrownDog, Robert Gifford, GEN_Lee_Accepted, Lanny Faulkner, Benjamin Randolph
▶ PATREON:
Christopher Scaparo, Tricia Maddox Behncke, Gerald Fuentes, Kienan Maxfield, Mark Jerde, Paul Gibson, gnomax, Jake, Nathan Hall, D. H. Wallenstein, Keith Martin, Beth Benoit, Cody Hughes, Arvid D, Frank Hartmann, Thomas Jacobs, David Stein, Ruth Lammert, Andy B, Deborah Reinhardt, Desert Cross Tortoise Fox, Robert Daniels, Rick Erickson, Lanny M Faulkner, Lucas Key, Dave Thawley, William McAuliff, Razgriz, James Goering, Martyn Chamberlin, 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, A.A., James Allman, Steven McDougal, Henry Jordan, Nathan Howard, Rich Weatherly, Joshua Witt, M.L., Tim Gresham, Luc + Eileen Shannon, Easy_Peasy , Jeremy Steinhart, 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, Jonathon Clemens, Jess Mainous, Brownfell, Leah Uerkwitz, 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, Matthew, Dan, Jim, Sam, Anonymous (18x)
Note: some links used on this channel are referral links.
12:06 "I speak Spanish" - So this guy who speaks Spanish needs to learn an older style of English to read God's word? Does God not speak his language? This is one of the biggest problems I see with KJV onlyism. The radical idea that Wycliff, and Tyndale had was that people should be able to read the Bible in their own language. After I posted this came 16:00, My point exactly!
Anyone who claims that English is a ROMANCE language should not be trusted/listened to. As a professional linguist myself, I was dumbfounded by the blogger’s statement that English is a Romance language. While it may have plenty of influence from Romance languages, it is ultimately a Germanic language. Thank you, Mark, for your insights
I made a similar mistake once. I knew better but said the wrong thing. And there are major Romance elements to English vocabulary of course. But, yes, he made an error he shouldn't have.
@@markwardonwords There is one particular KJVO that I know of and that I once knew personally who believes English is the original language of mankind. He actually believes English is the language that Adam and Eve spoke and it became a lost language at the confusing of languages at the Tower of Babel and that God recovered this language (transitionally and perfecting it) in the 1611 KJV. He has a channel where he teaches numerology and KJV idolatry in order to try to prove that the 1611 KJV is God’s perfect word. He also teaches other ridiculous things that when Jesus was crucified, the KJV was crucified as well (what he means by this is that when you hold a KJV, you are literally holding in your hands, Jesus Christ) and he will go on these long rants of dissecting letters in the English alphabet for example, I’ve seen him take the letter “P” (his reasons for this is because the letter “P” is the center letter of the word serPent and he arbitrarily states that the serpent swallows up the KJV Bible and thus hiding God’s word from mankind) and says “P” is the 16th letter , and if you count backwards from “Z” to “P” it’s the 11th letter and thus you have 1611 and this is God’s way of hiding the KJV is plain sight (demonstrating that English is God’s perfect and revelatory language). I can go on and one but this is a whole new level of absurdity that some KJV Onlyists are beginning to adopt.
But regardless, can't it can be thought of more in reference to Latin than Germanic when considering things like false friends?
My understanding is that the Germanic content is generally the core words and grammar that are less likely to change, while the Latin words are generally the less-used words which are more likely to change.
@@IamGrimalkin This is a level of abstraction and meta-analysis I have not reached. It's a worthy hypothesis, however. Very, very interesting. It's true, I've read, that that most common function words are Germanic. But I've seen "of" change plenty. Again, I'm just not sure I'm ready to validate your hypothesis, but I'm intrigued!
@@markwardonwords
Another point I've just thought of is that the KJV translators would probably be more inclined to pick a Latin word over a Germanic word if it's similar to Erasmus's Latin, since it was printed right next to the Greek they would be using.
So I suspect the KJV was less Germanic than the typical vocabulary of the wider population.
I just started reading your absolutely outstanding book 'Authorized', and I can tell you definitely cherish the KJV. I am also reading through the KJV for the first time coming from primarily using the NIV and NASB, and your book has definitely helped me understand the KJV in a new light, with understanding what false friends are. I love the Bible and its many translations in English, and the KJV is definitely one of them. I will say that the KJV is most definitely easier to commit to memory. After my readthrough I will happily settle back into my NASB-NIV-NLT rotation but the KJV will definitely be relevant to me. Thank you for all your work, it truly makes a difference in the body of Christ.
This video looks BEAUTIFUL.
That's my wife's drying shed! blackburngardens.com/the-drying-shed/
It's the jewel of our property right now. We love to just go in there and hang out (and get away from loud children sometimes, I admit!).
"They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other." - KJV translators.
there was a time when I would become angry over Bible translation. That anger turned to hatred towards people sometimes. In time I stepped away from my KJV onlyism, but I felt like the ground had given away and I was in a textual freefall. I felt the ground under my feet again, after humbling myself and allowing the KJV translators to teach me how wise people approach the textual......and I'm not angry anymore. Feels amazing! =)
YES!! The KJV preface is almost as high as Scripture in my esteem. I feed on it. It is brilliant and wise and witty-and a little defensive and bitter and therefore spicy. I deeply love it.
@@markwardonwords "a little defensive and bitter" - I can't remember the name of the Bishop right now, but I believe David Norton shared a story with me about a Bishop back in 1611, who said he would rather be ripped apart by wild horses, than to force another new translation on his congregation. (referring to the brand new KJV) Some things never change! =)
Hey Bro. Mark. I wanted to thank you for your work. I am an intern looking to church plant in a KJVO section of the Baptist movement. Your videos and book helped me on a path that moved me from Ruckmanism to a TR leaning, textual confident, KJV loving and pragmatically using, non KJV-only-ist. I have since discipled some young believers accordingly, and have unbound their conscience (or rather God has). I purchased my first NKJV Bible a week ago and am using it for my personal devotions. My pastor is on the same page as me, which I didn’t find out until after taking the job and after finding my new convictions. This has been a multi-year journey. I discovered you after leaving ruckmanism and entering a more mild KJV-only position. Thank you for thinking critically, but more importantly, thank you for your gracious spirit. I appreciate you, Brother.
Wow! This is so meaningful to me! May the Lord bless you and that church plant, brother! May he protect you from division over this issue.
you sound JUST like me. God Bless you bro! Left Ruckmanism and never looking back.
@@dqst2012 I have. That book is nothing but conspiracy theories. The other popular, evangelical versions all affirm the virgin birth of Christ. I still preach from the KJV and primarily use it, but my conscience has been unbound, and I will not bind the conscience of those under my care. Even though I prefer the TR passages missing from the Critical text, they were not maliciously removed
@@dqst2012
To demonize people who are authentically trying to get to what did Paul say is not appropriate.
It comes down to a few reasons of thought, none of which come in the form of hating God.
1 - Oldest is the closest to the truth.
2 - Majority is closest to the truth.
3 - Inspiration happened in 1611 or TR or Vulgate because God made a perfect word for people.
@@dqst2012 I urge you not to trust Gail Riplinger. She is a true extremist, a conspiracy theorist. :(
@markwardonwords
After watching the videos in the playlist of false friends, I find myself appreciating the KJV even more. It gives me a nostalgic feeling of my teenage years in school learning Spanish for the first time. I like it.
The archaic language of the kjv is one of the many reasons why some still consider it a favorite. I have multiple bible versions as well: The nasb, niv, and esv
I will say, I love and appreciate the research you have done. I already had previous knowledge of a handful of those words, but admittedly, some of them I did not. I am a passionate learner so learning these just make me fall more in love with the kjv. However, even though I do not consider myself an onlyist, I do see the historical value of the kjv as the onlyists do. Which brings me to this proposal:
You should definitely put the videos in that playlist in the form of an archaic dictionary or textual manual for those who appreciate kjv. Might I suggest the title "The King's English Dictionary". Listing each archaic term from the kjv (and/or pilgrim's progress) in alphabetical order, with each definition holding the multiple possible meanings of the words with the cited sources of definitions, also accompanied with examples if possible.
I would definitely by a hardcopy of that. Please don't only do a digital version, make a hardcover/paperback version as well. With how many kjb's are still being sold to this day, a dictionary/handbook like that would surely prosper, especially with the right marketing. You could even have some of your colleagues advertise/promote it. There are plenty ways to cut down the cost of pushing it in the market.
All I'm saying is, with all the research you've done on the kjv, I would use some of that to benefit those who love the kjv. There are plenty of people that treat the kjvo the same way the kjvo treat them. I was on a forum where someone quoted a verse from the kjv, and someone commented "get away from the kjv before it leads you to hell." That person responded saying that they normally read the CSB, but he grew up on the kjv. So there's groups of prejudice on both ends. The lady that said the man with the kjv would go end up in hell supposedly is an NLT kind of gal.
Something like this is coming! A new Lexham Press book called KJV Words You Don't Know You Don't Know! 2025!
Once upon a time - the church only had a Latin Bible. And the idea of translating the "majestic Latin" into common tongues like German or English was unthinkable.
They used the same argument the KJOs made.
I agree.
Although weren't the anti-translation crew more the equivalent of Ruckmanites? They believed in the "double inspiration" of the Vulgate, right?
@@IamGrimalkin If you're speaking of Peter Ruckman I hate to remind you he had more knowledge than most of you.
The Bible began in Antioch, it didn't begin with the Latin Vulgate! and what church? The Catholic church? Or the body of Christ. The Catholic church threw out the critical text and yet today people worship it!
@@jimhandley1287
So what if he does?
There are probably millions of people with more knowledge than me, all with wildly conflicting opinions (including some reformation-era Vulgate-onlyists as well).
I still have to decide who's right and who's wrong.
(As an aside, as often happens s with these labels, the position it refers to is less nuanced than the man it it named after).
Your level of depth of understanding and patience with KJV olnlyists is impressive. What I find astounding is the example you cite of lists of archaic words and what their modern meaning is, created by some of these folks. How many KJV only pastors will read something out of his crusty old KJV Bible and follow that up with, "So, in other words, what Paul is saying here is....." Aren't they effectively "re-interpreting" the KJV text into modern vernacular every time they teach a lesson or preach a sermon? So we're supposed to "just learn" the archaic 17th Century English words that got translated from the original text? Why not just go back to the original text and translate it into modern English? But wait. Hasn't somebody already done that?
When they go out of their way to claim EVERY OTHER English translation is just a satanic, new-age translation, purposely designed to be misleading and deceptive, I think they stretch the limits of credibility and logic. Sewing division where it isn't really necessary is in itself a tactic of the enemy. This whole debate over translations is as fascinating as it is totally unnecessary. I like the work you do cutting through the nonsense.
RIGHT! At some level, a lot of these guys know that archaic words will not be understood. They show it as they explain the KJV wording.
Great video, as usual. Thank you for your consistent, polite, and reasonable discourse on this topic (and others).
My pleasure!
A false friend that KJV Only readers misunderstand frequently is the word "conversation," easily misunderstood as "what we say" when the Greek means "how we live."
Right!
Is "lovers" a false friend in Psalm 38:11 "My lovers and my friends stand aloof from my sore;...."
Websters - Lover - A friend; one who regards with kindness.
I have never in my life heard anyone refer to loved ones as "lovers" unless they were intimately involved.....
Excellent!!
My literal mind didn't catch that the milk was supposed to be sincere, I just thought it meant the word of God was sincere. Oops, lol.
This is super common. Our brains do their very best to get meaning out of a sentence.
Mark, thank you so much for your ministry, brother! I truly appreciate all you do for God's people and new converts.
Please pray for me! Thank you for this!
Not exactly sure how I ended up finding this channel, but thanks youtube algorithm! I love discussions about Bible translations, especially after growing up in a "not KJV-only but *very* suspect of other translations" church...as I eventually evolved into the Presbyterian I find myself to be today (where most everyone uses the ESV [and to lesser extent] the NASB95 and others), I often find myself suggesting translations even *more* dynamic (like the NLT) as suggestions for new/young Christians that cross my path. I'm currently working through the Berean Study Bible as I quite like the idea of an "open/without royalties" Bible translation that's easy-to-read without losing textual integrity. This is the first vid I've watched on your channel - looking forward to checking out others as well. God's peace be with you!
Welcome aboard! Sounds like you'll like it here!
In short: KJV has unintentionally become impure by language change over the last 400 years.
Yes. That’s it. Not terribly impure, still very good. But impure enough that it’s time for change.
@@markwardonwords I could have said, "The KJV has unintentionally become insincere by language change over the last 400 years", but I guess I would have been misunderstood by 99.9% of English speakers!
@@parksideevangelicalchurch2886 Right!
As a possible counterexample, Erasmus' Latin reads "lac illud non corporis sed animi, quod dolum nescit". My translation from several years ago reflects this reading, if slightly loosely: "that milk which is not of the body but of the spirit, which knows no deceit".
This is apt. It is possible that the KJV translators were using the challenging metaphor of “milk with pure motives.” It’s also possible they were going for the same double meaning possible in Greek: “pure” and “sincere.” The problem is that that double meaning is impossible now. If in 1611 someone could refer to clothing as “sincere white,” then we clearly have a different semantic situation today.
As I memorized that chapter in 1 peter in the KJV I knew it meant pure from my ESV. I assumed the word changed but sometimes seeing the evolution brings deeper meaning and rumination on the text. I could have just been lucky in this instance but this isn’t the only time this has happened. Regardless, I wouldn’t be able to appreciate this KJ rendering without knowing my ESV so well
This whole "you just need to study and use a dictionary" is frankly a subversive form of gnosticism... You can only understand when you are enlightened to the archaic meanings... No, this is ridiculous on its face, unless these same pastors are going to teach their followers Koine Greek and Hebrew. This is no different that those in Christendom who require services and liturgies to be performed in Latin, despite the hearers being largely unable to comprehend what is being said.
This leads, potentially to cultic thinking and practices. I grew up in this form of arrogant thinking, and was despised by some of these types when ordained because I happened to utilize the NKJV at my council...
I believe your approach is excellent "gentle, able to teach..." Blessings.
Cannot wait for your book to come out Mark. Having all of these in one place is going to be a magnum opus and will overwhelm the judicious and impartial reader towards a translation in their spoken tongue. It's truly sad how much KJVOs are misunderstanding the pure milk of the Word because of an extra-biblical commitment to an arbitrarily anointed translation.
I won't have them all in one place, I'm afraid. Just 38 of them-hopefully a representative sampling. It's possible that my editor will suggest cutting some, too, because 38 is more than is necessary. We'll see! The editing is going on now!
@@markwardonwords Ah! Gotcha. Maybe a simple index at the back? Or even just a web address where a full list is maintained. Would love for there to be some go-to place to see all the ones you’ve worked so hard to mine.
@@tinybibles Yes, there will be a canonical list at the back of all 100 in proper order. And there will be a website, Lord willing, with more info.
Great content as usual - thank you! ;-)
Glad you enjoyed it!
So helpful and well done, as always!
Glad it was helpful!
I would say that failing to update certain words would be changing the Word of God. Updating words in a translation would actually preserve the meaning.
WRONG! I just painted my room SINCERE WHITE. lol
Yes!!👍
It looks like Kent and his people have noticed this video and he has new comments on that thread of his.
He says he doesn't believe "that a modern equivalent exists that gives the actual meaning in the usage" of the Greek word and that he wouldn't translate it that way. So what? The word "Sincere" no longer means what either the Greek word or the KJV translator thought it meant! And if Kent is right, then he was WRONG for saying it means "pure"!
Fully agreed.
I am not a King James onlylist, I do prefer the King James in many instances. But you are right you must be aware of false friends and dead words. I like Cambridge Concords because they give you definitions of archaic words and a Bible dictionary. Humble lamb also gives you definitions of archaic words. And yes any Oxford dictionary is going to give you a very good understanding of those words. I do have a question, do you think that King James onlyists are adverse to using concordances or even Blue letter Bible to find the meanings of the Greek words that are being used? I mean I looked this verse up on Blue letter Bible and it gave me the definition of pure, guileless. We live in a day and age when it is really not that difficult to find these things out and one could still preach from the King James with clarity and honesty.
Most of them are not opposed to using concordances. It really depends on the paranoia level regarding scholarship.
I’m certainly no KJV-onliest, but I am a fan of 17th century English. And a fan of “hard” text. Text that makes you slow down. Text that makes you stop and think, “what does that mean.” Text that has you running to other sources to see how they interpret the text. As for false friends that give no indication that something is wrong, I don’t think I’ve ever had a Bible that wasn’t full of footnotes to highlight such things. On a similar note, I love Shakespeare. I don’t want somebody changing his words because the meanings have changed. But I do appreciate help with somebody pointing me to those changes.
Marginal notes in an edition of Shakespeare can certainly be helpful, but it's also helpful to have a parallel column with a translation into modern English. Sometimes, you need to see the entire line rephrased to get at what it's saying. There's validity to both options, though it would be inadvisable to stick solely to the parallel column unless you're only interested in the story and not the artistry.
The main difference between Macbeth and the KJV is that Macbeth was initially written in Jacobean English, while the KJV is a translation of an earlier set of non-English texts into Jacobean English. And while Macbeth can certainly be said to have some value as a morality tale, it is not as essential to the moral guidance of the secular reader as the Bible is to the Christian reader. You can more easily afford to misunderstand the Bard than you can the Messiah.
Thank you for your sincere teaching on this topic😜
Ha! My pleasure!
@@markwardonwords It was a pure joy.
Mark, I wanna say thank you.
You have inspired me to compare and read other translations other than the KJV.
I still hold dear to my KJV, although I am reading the ESV, NASB, NLT, and a Catholic and Jewish Bible translation.
Also, unlike some people, you are really respectful and open-minded, so thank you.
Many thanks! I still hold my KJV dear, too! May the Lord bless and grow your understanding of his word!
@markwardonwords I am curious about something, though.
Have you ever done a video about the Book of Mormon or the Quran?
I know there is only 1 Quran and 1 Book of Mormon, so we can't compare like the Bible.
TY, MW. Blessings.🌹⭐🔥⭐🌹
They are so ignorant seemingly intentionally. I grew up in that tradition. So thankful to be free from the extremism they embrace
Hello! I don't see the link to the Brandenburg article! Thank you so much for your diligent (studious) study for this topic!
I did just put it in!
@@Сохранено1he has edited the book Thou Shalt Keep Them, and used to go back and forth with the authors of the Pyromaniacs team blog, led by Phil Johnson, back in the day. That’s how I knew about him.
Hi Mark, just started listening to you. I heard of you a few years ago from my sister, who read your book. Low and behold I found out that am actually going to your sister church Summit Park Bible Church in Anacortes. Hope I can meet you some time. Thank you for your work.
Nice! Summit Park, especially its dear pastor, showed real kindness to me and the little church plant where I was an assistant pastor. Glad to have them as an area sister church. Read the book and reach out again; maybe we could do coffee-as we all commonly do here in the PNW!
Another good video! Thanks, brother.
Thank you, Caleb! You've been consistently encouraging!
KJV onlyist are being ridiculous. All languages change including the 3 original languages the Bible was authored in (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek). Isn’t the charge from God to read and UNDERSTAND his word (KJV Matt 13:23a But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it;)? I have my life’s work cut out for me to connect and fully understand his word without having to constantly navigate archaic “English” words. Even though I use the original languages for deep bible study, my daily reader needs to be a fully understood native language translation. Additionally the KJV was translated at a time where there was a tiny fraction of our current witness of scriptural text. I’ll continue to approach God’s word with my eyes wide open not partially shut.
Can't really understand KJV Only peeps. To these people, isn't the 1769 KJV translation a perversion of the original Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic? Shouldn't we all be learning Greek and Hebrew?
And why the 1769 version ? Why not the 1762 or the 1638, or the 1629 OR the original 1611 version instead? How about the GENEVA Bible which came before the KJV and upon which the KJV depends?
I love the KJV, cut my Christian baby teeth on it, but I don't really read it much as newer translations speak to me easier and just as deeply. So I have no p;roblem with them using ONLY the KJV. It's when they say ALL other translations are born of Satan or corrupted by Man. Sure, some are corruptions and there's even a Satanic Bible......but you just avoid those!!
The bottom line is the KJV Only people are making an arbitrary cut-off line and just simply refuse anything else. Change doesn't come easy for them, nor does common sense.
@SpaceCadet4Jesus there's videos that answer your questions. Even one channel that champions the 1611 version.
I've never been a KJV onlyist and when I became a believer at 16 my first Bible was a NKJV prophecy Bible by a zionist preacher. Thankfully God and Jesus leads you by The Holy Spirit and you aren't limited by the text. Only at like the age of 38 did I get KJV and was able to read it relatively easily. I have a few versions of Bibles and concordance. More and more believers should just dive into the word and read it, question, seek and find and be a Berean. This is the probkem with the church today, massive ignorance and with little knowledge forcing opinions on other baby Christians.
Brother Mark,
Those opening statements were very insightful. You stated that the best response to your arguments is to hold a position that claims "the many values of holding on to the KJV outweigh the value we'd get from updating it." That's a succinct way of expressing where my mind is on this topic right now.
I asked about a month ago in the comments of a previous video "Do you think that it is a viable position for a church to choose the KJV as it’s preferred (and thus exclusive) version for public preaching and teaching for the sake of tradition and history, while encouraging other translations during private study and devotion?"
Those opening statements surely shed some light on how you might fully answer that question. I kindly repost that question though as a not-so-subtle hint for you to keep it on your radar! Lol. Thank you for all your hard work, kind spirit, and labor of love for the body of Christ.
I think that's something a man could surely do in good conscience. I think, however, that I'd hope such a man would be aware that 1 Cor 14 is in tension with his practice and that he ought to be taking steps to prepare the congregation for a translation switch in the future.
@@markwardonwords Thank you sir. I appreciate you taking the time to answer me.
If I may ask your opinion on another related question, a question of broader scope. I've been ingesting quite a bit of history and doing a fair amount of research, prayer and meditation on the topic of fundamentalism generally.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on the broader topic of fundamentalism and the fundamentalist ethos. I think the movement has been taken over by contentious, angry, less educated and less careful groups. I don’t find that to be the original ethos of the movement. Rather, men like Machen, Torrey, and Spurgeon (although he was before the coining of the term) were educated, careful, defenders of historical Christianity.
Here's the question...
Do you think recovering or restoring fundamentalism to a movement where several denominations can join hands to fend off modernism and liberalism (theologically speaking) from creeping into the church and her universities is a worthwhile endeavor? Or is fundamentalism, or maybe just the label, an idea and movement that we should steer away from? Is the term too loaded with negative stigma that it would be best to just move on and fight that anti-modernist fight (the original emphasis) without the name "fundamentalist"?
Take your time, chew on it. God bless.
@@JamesClark-le7hu I've taken 25 years to chew on this question. ;) My thoughts are pretty complicated. Here are a few of them:
1. Why do you think I do this channel? It's a love letter to fundamentalism. When your mom gets cancer, you do your best to become a cancer expert to do whatever you can to get rid of it.
2. I think fundamentalism has absolutely been eaten up by anti-intellectualism and KJV-Onlyism. I think those folks have won the label for themselves. My little sliver of fundamentalism is the non-KJVO, book-reading portion of fundamentalism. And I sense that we are nervous about using that term for ourselves. If even the FBFI (fbfi.org, a site I designed and I host) dropped "Fundamental" from their name, then the term has been lost.
3. But there's something in the fundamentalist ethos that must be retained. A number of things. Willingness to separate from the world, from error, and from disobedient brothers is one (or three!) of those things. Willingness to work across denominational lines with other truly gospel-oriented people is another. The fundamentalists who shaped me were stalwarts, but they were gracious and willing to see agreement where they could get it. Ironically, considering what treatment he's getting this very minute, Gavin Ortlund is really close to the model I was given in fundamentalism. Careful, gracious, intellectual, Bible-oriented, aware of church history. I'd like to see fundamentalism of that kind make a comeback. Maybe the label can be won back. Maybe not. But there will always be Christians who love the Lord, love the Bible, and want to have as much unity with other Christians as they can. Theological triage is needed.
Helpful? Here's a talk that's now a few years old that I did on this topic: byfaithweunderstand.com/2018/06/21/the-legitimate-concerns-of-the-next-generation-an-objective-analysis/
@@markwardonwords I will listen/read your talk there. Funny your bring up Ortlund, his channel and your channel are probably the two main catalysts that have started me down this "recovering fundamentalism" pathway. The current attacks against him are unwarranted and unfounded. I asked that same question in the comments of his videos but he's probably too busy to respond to little ol me.
Anyways, I share the same heart as you on these issues, even if I would like to maintain use of the KJV in some ecclesiastical settings. Maybe my allegiance is unfounded and illogical at points but I cannot seem to separate myself from it.
Thank you again
@@markwardonwords One last question. Could you point me to some of those "stalwarts" of fundamentalism that have shaped you? I am reading some of the history books written by George Marsden right now. I have read some of "The Fundamentals" essays. Next in line is "Fundamentalism and the Word of God" by JI Packer and then I'd like to get into Machen's "Christianity and Liberalism." Are there any other men or books that have been influential that I am missing?
I will use the KJV at times in my Bible study as another translation. When i do, if I come across a word that seems off, i use Webster's original dictionary to get definition. Is there a better way to do this? My normal translation that I use is NASB so its easy to see in the KJV the words that seem different. Is the original Webster the best resource, since I know it was written well after the KJ was written?
That's a good plan! But if you're going to use the KJV at all, I'd suggest that you watch at least 10-15 of the videos in my Fifty False Friends in the KJV series: ua-cam.com/play/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc.html. I find that most KJV readers lack the linguistic categories to understand why the KJV seems off sometimes. In every case with these false friends, I'm showing that the KJV was NOT "off." It was correct given the English of its day.
I will take a look and thank you. Using its as a secondary translation makes it a bit easier to spot things that are linguisticly off. I am NOT that that good at understanding all the nuance's of English, even modern. But I have found comparing any of the English translations with one another you can spot the differences and then deep dive into why those differences are there and its generally because the Greek or Hebrew is hard to translate and those comparisons help with getting a fuller picture. The Geneva bible is fun to use, especially with the translator notes. Its kinda like using the NET full notes. But i will check out your playlist.
@@ChristIsLord247 You are totally right. The first step in my false friends process is noticing possible false friends, most often by checking other translations.
Good info once again! Thanks, Mark, for your worthy efforts. The New World Translation has at 1 Peter 2:2 "As newborn infants form a longing for unadulterated* milk of the word...." and the footnote "pure".
Actually, there are many non-JW scholars that approve of the NWT. It really isn't as bad as many people believe. Please check out the surprisingly informative video series "New World Translation Curiosities" (here on UA-cam) with brief videos on specific topics commonly discussed about the NWT. You will enjoy.
@Packhorse-bh8qn The New World Translation Curiosities videos shows how often many 'orthodox' scholars actually do approve of the NWT. Many people simply just aren't aware of them.
@@JehovahsWitnessHistoryOnFilm The NWT has so many places that don't follow the reading of any manuscript. The decision to "change" who Stephen is speaking to, while he is dying, has no manuscript support for the reading, and is extremely biased in translation. It's a joke.
Fantastic video!
Thank you very much!
Great video !!
Thanks!
Hi Mark, would you be able to address the news about an update or revision to the ESV? I’m curious about your thoughts on this, thanks!
I can’t! I need to avoid comment lest I be taken as a Crossway spokesperson!
@@markwardonwords I see, thank you for the reply!
Wait, wait wait wait wait. There is a new ESV comingout????? WHOAH???? 8 years only.
@@GodisGracious1031Ministries I wouldn’t say a “new” ESV from my understanding, but according to Wayne Grudem up to 40 or so revisions may be implemented
Interesting, have ever heard of the Gideon's ESV? I am pretty sure there will be more Septuigant addings of verses, some more removals... anyway, I am KJB onnly.
If I’m understanding this correctly, KJV era meaning was “pure” and today’s “sincere” meaning is “free from deceit”. The original meaning and modern meaning seem similar in meaning. How do KJVist use it wrong?
In 1611, the word could refer to substances or colors (like "sincere white" or "sincere red" or "sincere wine" or "sincere grain"). Today it cannot, so a phrase like "sincere milk" either makes no sense or the wrong sense. Does that make sense? ;)
At 13:32, interestingly, the examples of words that you might need to look up ("sanctification, justification, and atonement") are not really hallmarks of the KJV. In fact, I did a wordsearch on these in both KJV and ESV, and in every case they were used just as often in the ESV - sometimes more. Also, sanctification and justification aren't terribly common words in either translation. I think these are just words that got picked up and amplified by the Protestant ethos, and while I don't deny that they are important concepts, I think his use of them as examples just goes to show we sometimes project our own expectations onto Scripture.
Some modern versions manage to avoid such Latin loan words and instead go for clearer alternatives. I'd defend using "sanctification" simply because it's a distinctly theological word, but "justification" is bordering on false friend territory because it has a distinct meaning in modern English ("defense") that has little to do with the narrower, more obscure theological meaning.
RIGHT! Nearly always, KJV-Onlyists talk as if the modern versions are giving into the dumbing down of our language and our culture, but when they give examples, they reach for slang that isn't found in any serious modern Bible translation. And they fail to acknowledge that words like those you've listed are still absolutely present in the ESV, for example.
Mark are you going to post the 777 niv looking forward to listening to this one . Any info is greatly appreciated God-bless
Yes-in one week!
Thank you Mark
I easily understood everything you said, except for the signing off monologue. Now where did I put my Oxford English Dictionary??
Ha! It will tell you! ;)
Is there another form of "false friend" in the overall passage?
That is to say, back when Peter wrote, there wasn't the stigma to breastfeeding that exists in Christianity today. Few and far between would be the number of KJVO congregations where breastfeeding isn't considered to be (at the very least) a "private" matter that should never be done in a public venue. Whereas a mother bottle-feeding her infant with an artificial formula would not raise any eyebrows at all in a public venue. The bottle itself being an artificial "image" of the "breast". This follows since "Shad" is Hebrew for breast, and thus "El Shaddai" would literally mean "God is my breast" in the sense of the new born baby looking to the Source as "MINE" and thus the intent of our passage in the context of Peter's Hebrew culture has a deeper meaning. But now Christians are taught that breastfeeding is "gross", "disgusting", "improper" and many other such things that Peter would never have intended to imply in the literary allusion of his use of this symbolism.
You are doing "exactly" what Mark is talking about...... you are using an example thousands of years old, for our our understanding today.....so we need a translation with "todays" understanding not one from 400+ years ago, or "thousands" of years ago, as it were.
@@kdeh21803 I would say that the turning point would be the development of the artificial bottle to feed babies with. Or, a bit more of a "cultural" issue. The idea of seeing a baby feeding from the breast is far less offensive in 3rd world villages than it is for 1st world cultures that are more "materialistic" (that is to say, emphasizing having material coverings of the body).
Seems the word “reasonable” or “rational” had once been used instead of “sincere”. Anyone know what happened to that line of translation?
I know what you're talking about, but "reasonable" was an alternative way of translating the Greek term _logikon,_ which the KJV translates with the phrase "of the word." The word "sincere" is a replacement for the words "without corruption" in older versions, translating the word _adolon._
Tyndale (modernized): And as newborn babies, desire that reasonable milk which is without corruption, that you may grow therein.
King James (modernized): As newborn babies, desire the sincere milk of the word, that you may grow thereby.
We need more TR or majority text bibles. I would rather stay TR instead of having true friends in the critical text. KJV and NKJV for me. I’m not KJVO these arguments that people don’t see is the underline push toward the critical text. To me that is the biggest issue.
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.
Thanks again for these videos! A curiosity, though: Does anyone know why UA-cam transcripts are so inaccurate? On this one, the concepts align pretty well but the wording differs quite a bit. (Mostly, it swaps "King James Onlyists" for "KJV Onlyists" and similar. But in other places, it just paraphrases.)
That's almost certainly because I supplied the transcript myself and, while delivering the script, ad libbed slight adjustments.
@@markwardonwords Yes, that explains it! Thanks.
I preached 21 sermons in Nahum a little over a year ago. So not too long ago🙃
Oh, wow! Not common in my experience! How about the other passages I mentioned? Deuteronomy 16? Psalm 81?
Which version of the KJV? The original 17th century, the edited common version many read today with the 66, or the NKJV?
I find it interesting, that some KJV only folks, don't realize that the original "KJV" included more than the 66 books that they're being fed today.
See I can see through this garbage of people out here thinking that the King James is so perfect. If it was so perfect John 3:36 wouldn't say believe it would say it obey. People are missing a big message when they're not even knowing what the scriptures even talking about because they're using a specific Bible. Even if you look up John 3:36 in Bible study tools you'll see that they understood but you can bet they didn't get it from the King James they got it from one of the other Bibles even if they use the King James wording.
I sort of agree. I compare KJV, NIV, and NES. It helps me understand things like tares vs weeds etc
Yes, a good plan!
Mark I heard or read you were making a book of false friends available next year? I will buy it as well as the kindle edition if you do. The RHB study bible essentially does this 95% or more of the time but it’s a bulky book and their app isn’t very good.
Yes! And the RHB doesn’t teach you how to fish. It just hands out some fish. (I love its progenitors, though!)
@@markwardonwords Looking forward to it!
I have even heard that KJVO think the 2023 revised KVJ is a corrupt version. I don't know if people know that most of the KJV used today is not the 1611 version but the 1769 revised version. What is the meaning of translation then.
Hold on, there's a 2023 revised KJV? Who made that?
1611 version is awesome
The Greek word translated as "sincere" does literally mean "without deceit" (ἄδολος literally means "not δόλος", and δόλος means "craft, deceit, guile"). So there may be more merit to how the KJV translated it than meets the contemporary eye.
The second preacher I gave an excerpt from picked up on that, and it's a good point. But I think the collocation here, "sincere *milk*," clearly indicates the "pure" sense. Maybe "sincere" worked as a great play on words; it had a double meaning in contexts like this that it lacks now. Wonderful. Here's the key thing: the main sense intended is no longer being accurately communicated, as Kent himself intuited.
@@markwardonwords I think "pure" is not a wrong translation, but it would appear that a case could be made that there is a subtly that is lost that "sincere" might convey. Admittedly, I only looked into this because of your video, so I haven't investigated it so exhaustively that I could be sure of any conclusion at this point. Unfortunately, the TDNT doesn't include this word.
@@fr.johnwhiteford6194 You may be right. But to whom is this meaning conveyed?
@@markwardonwords People who read the KJV, and ponder what "sincere milk" means, because the Greej seems to mean literally, the "milk without deceit" i.e. "sincere milk". This may be one of those cases where only footnotes will do the passage full justice.
That is certainly a viable route. The contextual relationship to “guile” is certainly not translatable into English.
I use 6 different Bibles, different translations from time to time but my favorite is the Hebrew Greek key word study Bible NKJV , then I got some really old Bibles I don't open them much those are KJ , I use the newer translations when taking to younger generation's, but I like reading them also,
Hello brother Mark,
There is one particular KJVO that I know of and that I once knew personally who believes English is the original language of mankind. He actually believes English is the language that Adam and Eve spoke and it became a lost language at the confusing of languages at the Tower of Babel and that God recovered this language (transitionally and perfecting it) in the 1611 KJV. He has a channel where he teaches numerology and KJV idolatry in order to try to prove that the 1611 KJV is God’s perfect word. He also teaches other ridiculous things that when Jesus was crucified, the KJV was crucified as well and he will go on these long rants of dissecting letters in the English alphabet for example, I’ve seen him take the letter “P” (his reasons for this is because the letter “P” is the center letter of the word serPent and he arbitrarily states that the serpent swallows up the KJV Bible and thus hiding God’s word from mankind) and says “P” is the 16th letter , and if you count backwards from “Z” to “P” it’s the 11th letter and thus you have 1611 and this is God’s way of hiding the KJV is plain sight. I can go on and one but this is a whole new level of absurdity that some KJV Onlyists are beginning to adopt.
Wow. So sad! If he's saying these things in public, go ahead and tell me his name and point me to his channel. Don't use a link, though, or UA-cam will nix your comment, I think.
@@markwardonwordsYes, anywhere he goes and whomever will listen he teaches this to. He has pretty much sworn off going to any local church because nobody will listen to him. So he started his own channel called “Above God’s Name” and especially targets young impressionable believers who either see eye to eye with him or who are Biblically and Theological untrained on how to understand the Bible properly.
His name is Gary Rovarino but he goes by the alias G. Jon Rov and also wrote a book called Concealed from Christians for the Glory of God. I’ll check back in a few hours and see if you replied to this comment because I don’t always get alerted.
@@J.F.331 Ah, yes. I have encountered him before. When someone goes to such an extreme, I almost always conclude that there's just nothing I can do. I've made an exception for Truth Is Christ, another extremist KJVO UA-cam channel. Next week that video will come out. But Gary Rovarino is very, very far gone. =( May God have mercy on him-and on us!
@@markwardonwords If and when you find his channel, much of what he teaches can be summed up mostly in one video he posted where he has a “fake” conversation with an AI James White called “ HOT Drama Unfolds: Scholar vs. King James museum kicked off show.” About 10 months ago.
@@markwardonwordsGlad you heard of him. It’s just sad to see how many young believers fall for his traps. I use to work for him (he owns a Christian Jewelry company) and for a time I was also deceived (as he mentored me for a few years). But I yearned to learn proper theology and when I did my eyes were opened to the lies he was feeding me. Not only is he profiting off of God’s word but uses it to deceive other believers. I figured since you have a platform and lots of people who watch you, believers need to be warned to stay far away from this man.
As a side note, I never heard of Christ is truth and checked his channel. It’s the same stuff as Gary. Looking forward to your response to Christ is Truth.
Thank you for commenting back and glad there are brothers like you sharing the knowledge you have. God bless you.
Your videos made me curious about the KJV. in any case, I only have the Apologetics Bible in the KJV by Holman. Which KJV version is this? There are no information in the copyright page here.
It's probably the 1769.
@@markwardonwords would this KJV be any good, you think?
@@chris12780 Sure! I have a video on top recommended KJVs, though: ua-cam.com/video/kgyYQsyFHz4/v-deo.html
@@markwardonwords thank you so much!
@@markwardonwords i just finished watching the video from the link you provided. I do like all those but I even though I prefer the Cambridge Clarion, sadly I don't have the money for it considering I am situated here in the Philippines. A good KJV with a lovely binding and the classic design is very helpful indeed!
When the "true" meaning of the word is explained it makes sense....... but many will get the wrong idea.....for example....Study does not mean get out the books and go to work.......but being diligent can mean that, but it gives our whole different mental picture.............. That is exactly what the NKJV has done, but it's vilified by KJVO folk.............. You can find a lot of this in the New Scofield......but I, as you, when I was a kid were told that the New Scofield was completely wrong in doin this...................
Hey Bro Mark, if we have questions is there a email we can use to reach out to you? I have a few and would love an answer.
I can’t give it out. :( Can you ask questions here?
@@markwardonwords
Thanks for taking my questions.
There seems to be a few thought processes around scripture and which is the best.
You have inspiration or “double inspiration” which come in the forms of the Vulgate, TR, and KJV.
You have the thought process around “old is best” which seems to point to LSB and a few others.
Then there is the thought process around Majority is best. Which version would you say is the most literal translation around the majority Text? MEV? NKJV? ASV? Additionally how can this be validated?
Thank you for your book authorized. It has been a tremendous help for me in my studies.
Which ideology do you base your standard on? Majority or oldest text?
Also, how do you defend against people who suggest that in the scholarly line of thinking you never believe you will ever get to a “finished” product?
I want to say that through your teaching, RFP, and books I have made a conclusion that double inspiration comes from a viewpoint believed to be “child like faith” but in actuality it is willful ignorance.
Right now I am unfinished in my ideology behind scripture but what are the arguments against those who want to take a “majority text” stance. Right now, I think that is the “safest”? stance and also the moderate stance when it comes to scripture.
Thank you Bro Mark and God Bless!
@@ThePeoplesWill Excellent questions. And I appreciate your willingness to have the discussion here. I feel bad withholding my email address, I really do. But I'm kinda swamped, as you might imagine…
I do generally believe that oldest is best, but I 100% believe that there are good Christians who have good reasons for adopting the Majority Text viewpoint, especially. And I'm totally fine with people using the TR, too, as long as their reasons are ultimately pragmatic. I acknowledge that it's difficult for other biblical inerrantists to accept that the recovery of the Greek NT text may never be "finished." But what's the alternative? The alternative is that God communicates to us somehow that a given edition is perfect. That's what the KJV/TR folks basically say, but they can never seem to answer the follow-up questions: How do you know *that* TR is the perfect and final one? What about the other TR editions out there? What about the other major Bible translations of the Reformation era-besides the KJV-that made different text-critical choices? What about the fact that most Christians around the world have "received" critical text Bibles?
The Majority Text view does not yield a certain and stable text in every jot and tittle. There is no method available that can do this. The Majority is not clear. Sometimes there are three or more readings to choose from, and none of them occurs in more than 50% of the manuscripts.
I have come to believe that we need to trust God through the minor textual uncertainties he has given us. We have an excellently preserved Bible, just not a perfectly preserved one. If that sounds liberal, it shouldn't, because it's what the vast majority of conservatives who can read Greek and Hebrew say-and have said over time.
You are asking good questions. I would urge you to read this book: www.amazon.com/dp/1433564092?tag=3755-20. Author Dirk Jongkind is a godly and conservative man, an inerrantist. You just need to dive in and learn. Take your time. Don't feel you need to come to an immediate answer.
I hope this helps!
Hi Mark Ward
Hi getnomed!
What about the Concordant literal version by AE Knock used by Christian Universalists ?
Mark Ward tends to support translations made by evangelical Protestant committees, not by single translators. Single-person translations are fine for a commentary (see, for instance, the Anchor Bible series from Yale) or for a popular-level version intended for casual reading (especially a paraphrase), but they are theologically imbalanced at best and fringe at worst.
Importantly, what watch are you wearing?
timex.com/products/timex-legacy-tonneau-chronograph-42mm-stainless-steel-bracelet-watch-tw2w22200
A major favorite of mine.
@@markwardonwordsGlad to see your consistency. Nice easy to understand numbers. None of those outdated Roman-numerals :)
@@billcook4768 Timex has a reputation for being cheap because they sell cheap watches. But their nice watches are truly nice. And I love their logo.
A protestant pastor arguing against the perspicuity of the bible and for church tradition instead, at what point does KJV-only completely break with "sola scriptura"? haha
I wonder the same. It hasn't broken yet, I observe. I think that's a long way off.
To give an argument I don’t believe… sola scriptura leads directly to KJV-onlyism. If the entire foundation of our belief is the text of the Bible, then that text should not change. Our foundation is not built on shifting sand, but on the unchanging word of god. If society changes word meanings, that is society’s problem.
@@billcook4768 Yes, this is why Wallace says that KJVOs trade truth for certainty. I get it. I get why they do this. But the leaders still shouldn't do it.
@@billcook4768 To answer such an argument: If the text should not change, then why use the KJV instead of William Tyndale's original work? Why use a translation that relies on Theodore Beza's revision of Robert Estienne's revision of Desiderius Erasmus's original TR when we already have the first generation of English versions by Tyndale and Miles Coverdale to give us something translated directly from Erasmus?
And these objections should sound familiar to anyone who has read the KJV's preface. Catholic critics in the 1600s were making the same accusation you are (even though you don't agree with it, of course): these English Protestants keep changing their text! If sola scriptura leads to a text that cannot change in light of advances in language and scholarship, then sola scriptura would invalidate the very existence of the KJV.
@@MAMoreno The biggest weakness of any KJV only argument is “Why the KJV.” A logical case can be made for “onlyism” but the case for KJV is much weaker.
Very bizarre. As I keep saying I feel strongly that for whole book memorization I believe the KJV is superior for most people. But if you were a pastor why would you intentionally obscure the word from the pulpit? Seems ignorant or haughty or both. If I knew every person had gone through the ESV 200 hundred times I guess it wouldn’t be bad but it still would be odd if I were preaching a message to a large group.
As much as I totally understand the point of what you’re saying, I believe the danger of misunderstanding some of these false friend words in KJV are pretty small compared to telling people there are other translations that “fix” this with updated English. If Gods word is updated every so often to stay current with the modern version of English we use, it’ll inevitably change to a point where the meaning is lost even with the most well intentioned authors.
I believe the answer is for people to grow and seek knowledge as their studies grow deeper. Let them seek out wisdom from those such as yourself that has been gifted with diligence to read, understand, and translate Gods word. You are great at lovingly correcting others and I’d hope you are as graceful in accepting correction. Teaching pastors “how to fish” as you have done already in your life, is such a blessing and great calling. Only my two cents though, many of us have different views on this topic making it the heated debate that it is.
I can really respect this response. It's what I thought many reasonable KJV-Onlyists would say (I'm not saying you're a KJV-Onlyist; I don't know that). If this is what they said, we'd have very little to divide over. But I almost never hear this. Instead, KJV-Onlyism as a whole has consistently denied that there's any problem at all with false friends, and it has continued to say many things that are simply untrue and, therefore, divisive. There's little chance that my work will benefit the KJVO world writ large while the pastors are still insisting that the KJV is at a fifth-grade reading level.
@@markwardonwords having never engaged with people that are so passionate on this topic, I can only imagine the conversations you’ve had with them and your frustrations/challenges in that regard. Claims like the Bible (no matter the translation) is at a 5th grade reading level is a mind boggling statement that I wouldn’t know how to respond to! I’ve only recently found your channel after having questions about my Bible and its history and more importantly, what makes it specifically Holy. I truly thank you for your time, dedication to this calling, if I may call it that, and the time you took to respond to me.
"Sincere" is a Roman concept meaning "without wax," i.e., the merchant didn't cheat the buyer by mending / hiding cracks in porcelain with wax.
Dr. Ruckman on this verse: “The word “sincere” means “without hypocrisy.” The Bible is always straight. It always “tells it like it is.” It won’t “butter you up” or flatter you.
But more than that, the word “sincere” is a reference to the purity of the Scripture. Peter wants the new Christian to get the pure, unadulterated word of God; not the corruptions that were making their way through the churches (2 Cor. 2:17). Never has there be a time where that verse was more applicable than today. There are plenty of “Bible studies” going on all around America. Yet America has never been more Biblically illiterate than it is today. How can that be?
The problem is in the milk. The babes in Christ aren’t getting “the sincere milk of the word,” the Authorized Version. They are getting watered-down, polluted skim milk devoid of the vitamins and minerals essential to growth. They are getting the NIV with 64,000 words removed from the text; the NASV, with 36,000 words removed from the text; the NKJV, shot through with readings from the liberal RSV of the National Council of Churches. They are getting every Alexandrian corruption that is on the market shoved at them. BUT THEY ARE NOT GETTING “THE SINCERE MILK OF THE WORD.”
and then to prove his point he says
“For instance, here in 1 Peter 2:2, the RSV reads, “Like newborn babes, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation.” That’s works salvation. If you get saved, you get saved instantaneously, the moment you trust Christ as your Saviour. No one “grows up to salvation.”
The NASV and NIV have tried to cover up the heresy of the text from which they translated (Nestle’s). The NASV says, “grow in respect to salvation.” The NIV says, “grow up in your salvation.” But those aren’t translations. Those are paraphrases to make you think that the Westcott-Hort text of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus is an orthodox text.
The Nestle’s text, which contains the Alexandrian reading, says, “εἰς σωτηρίαν” (eis soterian). The “formal correspondence” (i.e., word-for-word) translation is “into” (or “unto”) “salvation.” A little problem with “the original text” there, eh what?
Anything to get rid of the King James text!”
(Peter S. Ruckman, The General Epistles, Vol. 1, James, 1-2 Peter (Pensacola: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 2005), 246-7).
Why do you have such a low view of God?
I mean, that's a good demonstration that Ruckman's soteriology is inadequate to deal with the full teachings of the New Testament on the matter. You absolutely do "grow up to salvation" unless you have a deathbed conversion or the like. This is the kind of error that occurs when you water down "salvation" to justification (the initial means of our salvation), leaving out sanctification (the progressive inward transformation that comes about as part of our salvation). And there's also that future aspect of salvation: we will be "saved" in the future, too (see Romans 5.9-10), lest our Christian hope come to an end with this life (see 1 Corinthians 15.19).
The meaning of the word “stauros” rendered as cross in most bibles, has also changed over the centuries. Jesus was not crucified on a Roman cross, rather he was nailed to a “stauros” (a pole shaped piece of wood), then “lifted up” and “hanged on a tree”. The word “stauros” had three applications in the time of Jesus. The stake that Jesus was nailed to was called a stauros. The tree that was used for the stauros to hang on was called a stauros. And the stake when hung on the tree as one execution device was also called a stauros. This is documented by the late Dr. Ernest L. Martin in his book “Secrets of Golgotha, The Forgotten History of Christ’s Crucifixion. Through Roman Catholic corruption, this very important event in history has been altered and an idol has been created, the Roman cross.
This idea has been essentially rejected by recent scholarship, though it was a fad belief in the 1800s. The earliest depictions of Christ's crucifixion, predating a time when "Roman Catholic corruption" would be a serious possibility, depict it as a T shape.
How does it feel to continue creating Chaos of God Word. If you don't Believe or like something let it go. The only person who pushes something they do not like, is someone who is wanting to play God. (Hay look at me world, I am the only right person, you want proof just look at the suckers who follow me blindly) If you want an English Bible, because you are not mentally capable of studying history, then use the ESV bible... But I guess as long as you are getting the paid you want for doing this, there is nothing anyone can say to help you... I would say Go with God, but then it might be too Historic for you... Jesus clearly said, what is it to you what I choose for this man. In other words, you cannot take care of your own life, so you want to run mind... Nice going Einstein...!
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 It is called research, not only did I learn more from the Bible by havening to do this, but I learn more from my research about Bible history. You keep talking about the One Bible that keep proving itself to be the True word of God. I appreciate a person wanting to let someone know what they might expect in a Bible. But after a Dozen time, it gets old. And it is no longer helpful it is a pest... And all you keep talking about is words, You have no clue what you are missing. I do hope I have made some sense to you in the simple's way... Go with God
Tell us about luke 11 verse 2 . Our Father which art in heaven has been removed 😅😅😅
Why call them false friends? I'm not KJVO, so I have no general debate with the issue. BUT I do wonder, why call these old, used-up words "False" Friends. Why not "Old Friends" (we could be reacquainted with)? Calling them "False" makes it seem negative. Well, to me anyways. Are you trying to promote a psy-op against the use of the KJV? lol i jest.
"False friend" is actually the term in common use for words in foreign languages that sound similar to English words but mean something completely different. Mark Ward applies the term to the older style English of the KJV, because, even though it's technically not a different language, there is overlap with the idea of a familiar word meaning something different.
Right! And they are false, not because they lie but because they don’t tell the truth!
@@curtthegamer934 Thank you! Yes, I know this :) But it still sounds negative. "Olde Friend" would be better. Just my opinion. SOrry I seem so unedumacated ;)
@@markwardonwords okay lol
The King James Bible is the perfect word of God.
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 No, I can understand perfectly the King James Bible. Every word of God is inspired. I want the word of God that is perfect, my sole authority not one that adds, changes, every revision. I surely do not want from the Vatican. I have read other versions, thanks.
@@GodisGracious1031Ministries The Vatican had little input on any modern versions. Even the most prominent Catholic translation in the U.S., the New American Bible Revised Edition, is regularly criticized by conservative Catholics for reading too much like the product of mainline Protestant scholarship, both in its translation decisions and (especially) in its notes. Many of the things that used to be routinely criticized in the KJV (such as saying "repent" instead of "do penance") are now adopted by the handful of Catholic versions available today (the aforementioned NAB and the various editions of the Jerusalem Bible).
@@MAMoreno No, the Vatican is parntered with Bible society on the Greek Text.
@@GodisGracious1031Ministries When you say Bible Society, are you referring to the Trinitarian Bible society?
lol people so worried about a few old words in the KJV but are perfectly fine with bibles missing hundreds of words.
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.
My TBS Bible has a list of over 400 words that it says are archaic or have changed in meaning. That list does not contain all of the false friends that Mark has shown. Mark said that the first 50 false friends account for over 1,300 places in the KJV.... Thats a lot more than a "few". I'm working on counting how many places in the KJV have an archaic word or false friend. I know it will be over 2,000. And that doesn't include places that are confused because of archaic phrasing. Bottom line is that we are talking about thousands of places that are potential issues for a reader. Not a few.
@@hayfieldhermit9657 Hey, can we work together on this? I have some of this work done, but I really need help doing the rest! Contact me through the contact form at biblefacultysummit.org, perhaps? Unless you already have my email…
@@hayfieldhermit9657 yet people will complain about that and still read a Bible with thousands of missing words. The KJV is not difficult to read nor understand. Most of those so called false friends are easy to understand the actual meaning by reading it in context.
@@hayfieldhermit9657 I’m willing to be that you don’t even know the reason the KJV uses words like ye, thou, and thy. By changing those simple words it changed the context of hundreds of verses. Christians today are just pure lazy, they can spend all day watching TV but can’t research old language. No wonder Christians today are so weak and have allowed the enemy to completely take over society
Tell us about the only begotten God john 1 verse 18😅
List all of your points in one post instead of spamming multiple posts.
So here's an answer to your three (relevant) comments:
1. Daniel 9.26b:
Here's how it reads in the KJV.
- shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself
Here's how it reads in the NKJV.
- Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself
2. Luke 11.2b:
Here's how it reads in the KJV.
- When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven
Here's how it reads in the NKJV.
- When you pray, say: Our Father in heaven
3. John 1.18b:
Here's how it reads in the KJV.
- the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father
Here's how it reads in the NKJV.
- The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father
So, since this video is about archaic words in the KJV and not about textual variants or differences between printed editions of the Greek New Testament, the answer to your objections is simple: read the NKJV and don't spend time worrying about the modern versions that use a textual basis that you don't like.
Tell us about Daniel 9 verse 26 the Mesiah dies for nothing 😅
I think your sincere but your sincerely wrong😂😂😂
Good grief. This is 17 minutes of example of
Matthew 23:24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
____________
The problem with changing words is; one does not know who or why; and more specifically, did they get it correct. Lord knows we don’t need another 17 minute video going over how Fred chose the wrong word to update a word that was fine to begin with.
First, Matthew 23.24 is a case where the KJV translators changed a word from earlier versions ("strayne out a gnat," William Tyndale) and almost certain didn't get it correct.
Second, Fred from 2024 might be fallible and prone to choosing the wrong word, but so was Fred from 1611. But the advantage we have now is that we can ask Fred why he changed the word, assuming Fred worked on the latest edition of a translation and has yet to pass away. In fact, all the Freds who worked on the NET Bible were nice enough to tell us why they made their decisions in the extensive footnotes for that version. Fred from 1611 isn't around to explain himself, and we have scant notes from those old Freds to fill us in on what they were thinking at the time.
@@MAMoreno thank you for backing up my point. Although we have multiple copies of the original text gathered from around the world; we don’t know and cannot say for certain what the original authors meant when they used a particular word. We cannot ask them for context or meaning from 2,000 to 4,000’ish years ago.
We have what scholars that read, wrote, and spoke Greek and Latin in the KJB.
We have what others have translated some 400 years later.
The problem is like the old test where the teacher tells Johnny, “Susan has a new baby brother.” And Johnny is to tell Billy, that tells Wilma, that tells Betty, that tells Lori…. on and on for thirty students. When the last tell the teacher, Susan’s baby brother was taken from their campsite by Bigfoot, and her mother is still in the hospital.
Has the way we use words changed over the years? Of course. But it is context that helps us understand. The passage used here from the KJB is
1 Peter 2:2 As newborn, babes, desire, the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow there by:
Google brings up Mariam Webster’s dictionary for the word sincere: honest, pure, true
In the thesaurus: heartfelt, wholehearted, profound, deep, genuine, real, unfeigned, unaffected, true, honest, earnest
Any of these could be substituted for the word sincere; however, the Bible also states let every man work out his own salvation with fear and trembling. Therefore, sincere is the perfect word, as it lets each of us pick the word of meaning that best fits us Through prayer and reading of God‘s Word.
My biggest issue with changing words, is where does it stop? And who decides what word? American, a Brit, a Catholic, a Protestant, a Mormon, or even a Muslim? if I say, I tapped that fag on my boot in the United States, I will be accused as an abusive homophobe. However, if I say that same phrase in London, England, people know that I was referring to tapping a cigarette on the trunk of the automobile.
So my stance remains, leave well enough alone.
@@Rood67 The problem with your telephone game analogy is that scholars are now heavily consulting manuscripts from earlier in the game. That's not to say that Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza didn't examine any early sources themselves, but their work is mostly dependent upon the readings from a set of Greek manuscripts (the codices housed at Basel University Library in Switzerland) that were written down fairly late in the telephone game.
Other ways to get around the problem include consulting the writings of early Christians, comparing the early translations, examining the use of certain words and phrases in extrabiblical literature of the time, and looking for cognates in closely related languages. All of these approaches can lead to an excellent translation--and, regardless of its minor faults and theological biases, the KJV was an excellent translation--but an infallible one? No.
Your god is obviously a watered down one that can't preserve his word. My God perfectly preserved his word.
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
Considering that there are a few readings in the KJV that don't appear in a single Hebrew or Greek manuscript that predates it, nor in any ancient translation of those texts, that particular translation is incompatible with the idea of perfect preservation. A better case could be made for, say, the Geneva Bible, but that's only if you allow for some degree of "preservation" in Latin.
But what is the perfectly preserved version?
@sbccave, Name the perfect Bible in 1600? Where was it, and which edition was it?
I have a question a most serous one at that how long have you had this grudge against the KJV translation?
I don’t, my friend. I love it dearly. I only wish to understand it, and for others to do the same. I have come to realize that I did not understand it as well as I thought I did.
@@markwardonwords Thanks for this response. I have another question: do you understand that most if not all English words have multiple meanings depending on how it is used and the things that are being referred to in the spoken language?
@@simplicityinthecomplexity6988 Yes, you're absolutely right! But every word has a finite number of senses at any given time. And that number changes over time. You cannot say, "The angels were clothed in sincere white" today and expect people to understand that what you meant is "pure" white. Does that make sense, my friend?
@@markwardonwords I understand the difference due to that I am aware that words can and do have different meanings, so I would not read this as a "sincere filling" or "Am I being sincere in typing this text.". I would not change the KJV just as I would not change the Geneva, or other translations when these can be used to understand how Christians of the past perceived God and Jesus Christ. The KJV is a historical translation and we can use it to learn from by doing some of the things that you do as in looking up these words to ascertain a clearer understanding of them. I do not disagree with translation but changing something that was translated by Christians of the past just because of words that were commonly used back thin and are not used as commonly today is not a good of enough reason for me to support such an endever.
@@simplicityinthecomplexity6988 I certainly believe that Mark dearly loves the King James Version. Through his endeavor to better understand it and to share that information with others, I have grown to understand it better as well, and now use it regularly, alongside other translations, in my Bible study. I am very grateful to Mark for his work and pray regularly for his ministry.
You asked me once how I look up words I don't realize I'm misunderstanding. Actually if one reads the KJB from front to back, it's not an issue because of the rule of first mention, the book itself gives the meaning it wishes to convey. However I do concede it a problem for the casual reader.
Now therefore, if ye have done truly and sincerely, in that ye have made Abimelech king, and if ye have dealt well with Jerubbaal and his house, and have done unto him according to the deserving of his hands; If ye then have dealt truly and sincerely with Jerubbaal and with his house this day, then rejoice ye in Abimelech, and let him also rejoice in you:
Judg.9.16,Judg.9.19 KJV
It appears from the above a sincere person or statement is the truth. Therefore I ask you in your endeavors to make the KJB more readable for yourself, please do it truthfully, not corrupting or changing any of the doctrines as they stand. But of course that might require knowing all the doctrines from milk to meat.
Rather than asking how one can look up a word that they do not know they don't understand; the better question might be how can one truthfully relate in an updated verbiage a doctrine that they didn't even know exists?
It's akin to someone calling themself an auto mechanic but has never heard of a transmission. Or a kid with matches and some gasoline. I do hope one does not get burnt.
For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
Heb.5.12,Heb.5.13,Heb.5.14 KJV
The "law of first mention" is bad exegesis. See the video by Jonathan Burris. That's not to say that there's no value in chasing a theme throughout the Bible, but basing your understanding of a word solely on how it initially shows up is arbitrary at best.
I did a video on the Law of First Mention, too! ua-cam.com/video/I9sb6UPPEz8/v-deo.html
@olegig5166 So according to the “rule of first mention,” the word “milk” must refer to describing something as bountiful and wonderful as it is first used in scripture in Exodus 3:8 -
“And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites.”
Also, “meat” must always refer to the fruit of a tree yielding seed, as it is first used in scripture in Genesis 1:29 -
“And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.”
If this were so, then Hebrews 5:12 would have the writer stating that certain teachers need bountiful richness, as opposed to the fruit of the tree. I think we might both agree that this would be faulty hermeneutics.
As it so often does, the idea of “rule of first mention” fails to be true and is therefore untrustworthy as a hard and fast rule for understanding the meaning of words found in Scripture.
@@samandkathyshelton4207 your right, the going back to a works based salvation during the Trib as it was in the OT under the Law is a tough meat to swallow. Sometimes the rule of first mention takes second seat to common sense reading.
@@olegig5166 My, but does that statement veer much too far beyond the scope of this channel, which is the readability of Scripture and not eschatology. I will say this though, if “rule of first mention” does not work all of the time, I certainly cannot trust when it might or might not work, because it then becomes a matter of opinion and not Scriptural certainty.
There is no hope for you and your sinaticus and vaticanus 😅
Those using nkjv would have a modern language version. To what degree of changes could be a video idea. There is a couple verses been deleted or relegated to the margins.
Not in the NKJV-all the verses from the KJV are in there!
Can you share the verse references where the NKJV has left out a verse that is in the KJV?
The sincere milk of the word makes perfect sense! It is sincerely feeding those who trust it for truth. Sincere meant then what it means now. Complete, absolute, fulfilling...
I am thankful for the word of God as it is and has been for more than 400 years. It does not need an update! I would be willing to challenge all your "false friends" in a debate. LMK
Peace in Jesus
Love you, Pastor Brett! I really do! I enjoyed my conversation with you, my friend. I don't want to debate you!
It does not mean "complete, absolute, fulfilling" in this verse. Tyndale translated this word as "with out corrupcion." The Geneva Bible used a synonym for that phrase, "sincere." And the KJV copied the Geneva.
You can't just make the KJV say what you want it to say.
@markwardonwords
I love you as well Mark, but debating your false friends is not something that will cause division. It will boldly speak the truth to those who will listen. I am here if you change your mind. God's best in all you do, except your mission against the KJV. I will continue to defend the text of the Bible, as it is translated in the English King James Version.
@@Pastor-Brettbyfaithyou are a double-minded man, you say that the King James does not need to be updated yet on your friend Nick's Revolution UA-cam channel you commend him for the work he has done updating the King James so which is it does the King James need updated or not if you were consistent you would tell Nick that he was wrong for updating the King James
@randywheeler3914
Randy,
Thanks for judging me before you get to know me. Have you accused Nick of being "double minded" ? His translation is perfectly in line with the Byzantine text/Textus Receptus, without changing the meaning of the text. Mark Ward knows that I am not a follower of Ruckman. I preach, teach, and love the KJV. It is the only English version I trust as absolute truth. I use it as a base to judge other English translations. If they do not come from the Byzantine Text tradition, I do not accept them. I have and use a Webster Bible, MEV, and 1560/1599 Geneva, along with Nick's own KJV 2023. I use these along side of my Stephanus 1550 Greek and other Byzantine texts. It was never a matter of updating language. If it is done without changing the meaning or removing whole portions of scripture, I support it. I have tried to get Mark on Nicks program. His work on the NT is exactly what Mark is calling for. But Mark's channel would suffer if Mark accepted this as a valid answer to all his questions. It would also require him to confess allegiance to the Byzantine text and quit his new job with Crossway. Mark has sold out to the modern critical text. I am trying to convince him of the truth and see him defend what he once knew as truth. I hope that answers your question. Have a blessed day in Jesus.
This is not hard to answer, in fact look at the context…It is only the second verse which is a continuation of verse one. Even more so, you see the word’s usage in Philippians 1:10. Sorry this argument is sin-seared not sincere. Exactly as the chapter demonstrates…Or should I say homogenized, or watered down…Silly scorners, I mean scholars. I only pray the mind of Christ could only be as high and lofty as your own conceits. You adulterers and adulteresses. Psalm 50:18, Jer. 23:30. Very vain…
Well then! I'm just chuckling over here. I kinda liked your "sin-seared" pun.
So why did leading KJV-Onlyist Kent Brandenburg feel the need to explain that "sincere" in 1611 meant what we mean by "pure" today?
@@markwardonwords Because, he obviously had a laps of judgment and felt it necessary to be accepted by his peers or others. The context is very clear. I am sorry that he didn’t read the verse preceding it, nor look up the very few references of the word sincere in the Bible. Would have saved himself a lot of embarrassment.
@@RoninMinistries You don't seem to know Kent…
@@markwardonwords Praise the Lord….
The Greek word translated as "sincere" in Philippians 1.10 is not the same Greek word that appears in 1 Peter 2.2. However, the Greek word that appears as "sincere" in Philippians 1.10 later appears in 2 Peter 3.1, where the KJV renders it as "pure." So make of that what you will.
You seriously need to get a copy of the kJ. V. ER.
And talk about it before gets popular and you're too late.
And you ruin your a career.