3 Reasons Why You Should Trust Modern Evangelical English Bible Translations
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 лип 2024
- It's easy to demonize and distrust people you don't know and have never seen or heard of. I used to know zero translators of evangelical English Bibles. Now I know many-a few personally, but most through their other work. Let me introduce a few to you!
🎁 Help me end Bible translation tribalism, one plow boy at a time:
✅ / mlward
✅ buymeacoffee.com/mlward
📖 Check out my book, Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible:
amzn.to/2r27Boz
🎥 Watch my Fifty False Friends in the KJV series:
• 50 False Friends in th...
👏 Many, many thanks to the Patreon supporters who make my work possible!
Name, James Duly, Robert Gifford, Lanny M Faulkner, Lucas Key, Dave Thawley, William McAuliff, Razgriz, James Goering, Eric Couture, Martyn Chamberlin, Edward Woods, Thomas Balzamo, Brent M Zenthoefer, Tyler Rolfe, Ruth Lammert, Gregory Nelson Chase, Ron Arduser, Caleb Farris, Dale Buchanan, Jess English, Aaron Spence, Orlando Vergel Jr., John Day, Joshua Bennett, K.Q.E.D., Brent Karding, Kofi Adu-Boahen, Steve McDowell, Kimberly Miller, A.A., James Allman, Steven McDougal, Henry Jordan, Nathan Howard, Rich Weatherly, Joshua Witt, Wade Huber, M.L., Brittany Fisher, Tim Gresham, Lucas Shannon, Easy_Peasy , Caleb Richardson, Jeremy Steinhart, Steve Groom, jac, Todd Bryant, Corey Henley, Jason Sykes, Larry Castle, Luke Burgess, Joel, Joshua Bolch, Kevin Moses, Tyler Harrison, Bryon Self, Angela Ruckman, Nathan N, Gen_Lee_Accepted , Bryan Wilson, David Peterson, Eric Mossman, Jeremiah Mays, Caleb Dugan, Donna Ward, DavidJamie Saxon, Omar Schrock, Philip Morgan, Brad Dixon, James D Leeper, M.A., Nate Patterson, Dennis Kendall, Michelle Lewis, Lewis Kiger, Dustin Burlet, Michael Butera, Reid Ferguson, Josiah R. Dennis, Miguel Lopez, CRB, D.R., Dean C Brown, Kalah Gonzalez, MICHAEL L DUNAVANT, Jonathon Clemens, Travis Manhart, Jess Mainous, Brownfell, Leah Uerkwitz, Joshua Barzon, Benjamin Randolph, Andrew Engelhart, Mark Sarhan, Rachel Schoenberger
Thanks Mark. I feel so drained wondering which one is the one. Watching this was liberating, I love the NKJV, now I can just keep on loving it.
By all means! It’s an excellent translation!
Mark, you do a wonderful job at explaining translations and not siding with one only.Thanks so much from a 60 year old man who has been reading the Bible sense I was 22.my first translation was the GNB that had stick drawings of people.
I remember seeing that! So glad to be of service.
Lots of joy in this video. So lovely.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Very good mark like you I grew up Reading KJV but I'm not afraid To use other translations like you mentioned Great work
Thank you for watching!
Excellent Video! Many thanks.
Glad you liked it!
I love it very good Mark thank you very much. God Bless!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Great video, Mark.
Thank you, sir!
I was wondering when you were going to do a Best Bible For series video on the New Living Translation? It is as much a dynamic translation and as accurate as the CSB. I really enjoy this translation (both in Protestant and Catholic editions) and think there are others who feel the same.
I have begun the script. I just have about 100 scripts begun (not kidding). I'll take this as an important vote!
@@markwardonwords thanks! I use this and the mainline version of a sorta NLTish Bible , the Common English Bible along with my NRSV and NRSVue (now) daily.
To know Him is to love Him. ☺️
Amen.
well said brother!
thank you!
My pleasure!
Good stuff brother!
Thank you!
I would encourage all English speaking Christians, whether you read the KJV, or any modern translation, to read " the Translators to the Reader", written by the translators of the KJV. It's still found in many KJV's at the front of the Bible. Or you can read it online. It gives you a very good view into the minds of the translators, and how they viewed other English translations besides their own. I think that if they were around today, that they would highly approve the many good English Bibles that we have access to, and that they would encourage us to read them all.
Amen!
@@markwardonwords Hey Mark, I really enjoy your channel, and I agree with your stand on the modern translations. I'm sixty eight, so I grew up with the KJV, and I love it. Every verse that I've memorized is from the KJV. But I have pretty much every major modern translation as well and I study mostly with the NKJV and the NASB. I do have a question about a footnote in the NKJV that maybe you could help me with. In Hebrews 3:6 in the NKJV it reads," but Christ as a Son over His own house, whose house we are if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm to the end." There's a footnote at the bottom of the page about that verse that says, " NU- Text omits firm to the end." I know that the NU stands for the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament and the United Bible Societies 3rd Edition. In the NASB, ' firm until the end' is included, and not in brackets. It reads that way in the 77 and the 95 edition. But in the ESV, and the NIV, 'firm until the end' is omitted. Why is that? I assumed that both the NASB, ESV, and the NIV all used the same Greek Text. What's your take on that? Maybe it isn't that important, but I just assumed that all three would read the same. God bless.
@@jamestrotter3162, all the major modern evangelical English Bibles used the NA/UBS except for the NKJV and MEV, as you know. But that doesn't mean they slavishly accepted all the textual critical decisions made by the NA/UBS editors. Just as the KJV translators used two different GNT editions (Stephanus and Beza) and made their own decisions when the two differed (implicitly producing, sort of, what we know as Scrivener's GNT), so the modern translators sometimes went their own textual-critical way. This is more true in the OT than in the NT, I think, but I don't have hard data on that. And those OT options tend to be places where modern translations reach outside the MT to the LXX or Vulgate.
@@markwardonwords Thanks Mark!
Thank you for this message…it sets my mind at ease when trying to navigate the translation turbulence. I am curious tho where you’d place the NRSVue? A good or bad translation?
I haven't read much of it. I feel certain that it is mostly good. Mostly responsible. But its error in 1 Cor 6:9-10 is significant. See my piece at TGC: www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/nrsv-compromise-homosexuality/
Keep up the good fight, Mark!
That's my plan, Lord willing!
What are you talking about the good fight? Do you want to make sure you wanna find Bibles that don’t have Lucifer’s name in it?
Thank you for this video. Enjoyed it. I hear in your conversation on "trust" not an either/or argument where its either modern translations OR the KJV, but a both/and. Im not sure why everyone watching this video can't support that. But then again I dont understand the KJVO argument. People arent saved by a particular translation but by God's grace through faith in Christ.
Both and! Both and!!! Yes!!
The reason is they do not trust Jesus Christ for their salvation .
They are "convinced " that there is some highly esoteric if not coded secret to salvation that is ONLY discernable if you scour the pages of the KJV like someone out of "the Devincci Code" .
These ppl usually have some whacky legalistic or ritualistic doctrine that grants them "true" salvation.
Be it Torah observant Christians.
Total water submersion salvation proponents.
Works based salvation doctrines of all types ....
ALL of them are completely and wholly dependant on the fact that people cannot understand the bible in their own intllegable common parlance.
Much like the Latin Volgait onlyism of its day . ....
If ppl actually can read and understand the Bible, they lose their gig.
I use the ESV every day in the mornings for my studying. This year, I decided to use different translations for my evening reading. So far I've made it through the New Testament four times with ESV, NASB, CSB, ESV (again) and I am currently in the NKJV. Takes me approximately 1-1/2 months to read the New Testament. Currently on the Book of Mark in the NKJV. In the morning I'm working on an extended study of Revelation (1-1/2 years so far. I find the KJV difficult to read. But my goal is to read the New Testament in the KJV at some point. I will do an entire bible read-through after I finish my current read-through of the New Testament. Generally, my morning study time takes me through many of the books of the bible including the Old Testament. What I've found, going to Greek to English Interlinear translations, as I study the words of the Revelation, doing a perfect translation just can't be possible. Words in each language are dependent on context, form, and many other variables that I am sure the translators must just have to use their best, inspired judgment with much prayer. A simple word like the greek tabernacle can be translated as dwell or shelter. What fits the best must be approached from a standpoint in the heart of the translation being sought. Is it academic or theological? Is the closest meaning word to the word the one to be used? I highly respect the translators in the job they've been given and the choices they make to produce a translation faithful to the word. The NASB is truer to the Greek and Hebrew but does take a bit more time because it is harder to read than the ESV or CSB. My first translation I used was the NIV but a couple of years ago I switched to NKJV, later to the ESV but now I want to read many of the different translations - because each one tells me Christ is Lord and my Savior. If I can come to the same conclusion why Jesus died, rose, and inputted righteousness upon me through the grace of God, and I have been justified by faith, through the blood of Christ, no matter what translation I use, the word is in my heart now. And Jesus is my Lord.
I can't say much more than amen. You're right on! Perceptive points.
@@markwardonwords Thank you, sir!
Exactly! Love it!!!
Thank you, Dwayne!
Amen! Thank you.
You are so welcome!
Good stuff Mark
Thx, Casey!
@@markwardonwords you’re welcome bro
The weird thing with me is, I was involved in KJVO church and because of their abusive , insulting and sometimes borderline violent behaviour to anyone who disagrees with them, I was completely turned off the KJV and to this day want nothing to do with it.
I won't even bother reading quotes on FB pages and if people start reading from it I walk away.
I'm not saying it's a bad translation, it's just from what I witnessed it has inspired a very poorly behaved and un- Christ-like elitist cult in these modern times.
Now I read through several versions mainly ESV , CSB and NASB, but the KJV version I avoid at all cost.
I have met gracious and godly KJV-Only people, definitely. But I have also seen a great deal of the kind of behavior you describe. I'm glad you are free in your conscience to read contemporary translations!
I understand the feelings. It wasn't the translation fault but the cultists who used it. Still I understand and have felt the same way when reading the kjv because I didn't want to be associated with "them" either. Problem solved for me I use the LSB now with references to the NSAB, NKJV and NIV if I need it.
I recently had an exchange with a KJV-onlyist on Facebook, and seeing how he was more interested in making accusations against translators of modern versions and their readers rather than sharing the love of Christ, I too have become turned off from the KJV
Somehow, the idea of being associated with a group of people that often express a ton of religious pride to the point of accusing others of being unbelievers or having no faith in the Word of God is not in any way appealing to me
I’ve corresponded with Ronald Allen , and he was the Old Testament editor to the NKJV. Your points are extraordinarily purposeful and well taken. The main point I appreciate is that you trust in the Tyndale tradition. So yes, a believer in Christ can move from the kjv to the nkjv, to the esv, to the nasb. And if that not enough, the Legacy Standard Bible is going to provide a chance for youngsters to see what reading the ASV from 1901 was all about.
I’m glad the Tyndale tradition is so rich!
You briefly mentioned the Net Bible. I've only just recently discovered it. Are you planning to do a video specifically about the Net Bible? I would really enjoy it and benefit from it.
Yes!
May take a while…
I can not help the overwhelming thanks to God for what hr's given, in the KJV, direct to rightousness and and salvation. great video!
Enjoy this video very much.I just downloaded your article You've probably never seen the real King James Version.,after first reading the other piece titled Bible Translation Spectrum.What valuable information these articles gave me particularly that you mentioned the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible by David Norton which I hope can be accessed through website,which I was hoping you can help me with.Big thanks from your plowboy friend.
I'm not aware of a website that has the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible text on it-is that what you're asking?
Simply, Amen. Thank you.
Thanks for listening!
What kind of ESV Bible were you holding there? It looks nice.
ESV Preaching Bible-not the verse-by-verse edition. It’s beautiful! But I gave it away already!
@@markwardonwordsthanks! What cover did it have, leather over board? Or was it Trutone over board?
The one I had briefly was TruTone over board. It was good quality, and it slipped nicely in and out of its box.
Cool! By the way, thank you for making these informative videos!
What's the website for free books? I can't find it.
I confess I forget what I mentioned… Was it the Logos Free Book of the Month? www.logos.com/free-book-of-the-month
Why does the ESV remove the word "begotten" from John 3:16 - it's in the Greek?
Because, for a time, scholars thought that μονογενης (monogenes) was from γενος (genos, kind), but they came to realize that it was actually from γενναω (gennao, born).
No, I did mean what I wrote. But you are right that the story can be extended further back in time-scholars liked the “born” etymology before the “kind” etymology became accepted. I don’t know who if anyone still takes that line.
I would agree with Mark here (but not just because he’s a nice guy) - “they came to realize that it was actually from γενναω (gennao, born).” Like Mark, I was born-and-raised on the KJV. I know I’ve read/heard my fare share of ‘begats and begottens’ from that version.
Anyone who has referenced much of the 10-volume set of the “Ante-Nicene Fathers” comes to know that the early Christians saw μονογενης (monogenes) as involving “born.” The “Heretics” would say (in Greek) “There was a time when Jesus was NOT” since μονογενης (monogenes) implied Jesus being born - not having an eternal past. There was great perplexity among those that believed Jesus had an eternal past. They would use illustrations such as; an unlit torch (Jesus) being lit from another torch that was burning from all past eternity (God). That ‘flame’ would be the eternal part of Jesus. Another illustration was that of a beam (Jesus) emitting from the Sun (God) At that time, it was a common belief that the sun has always existed thus, the beams were being ‘born’ from the eternal sun ‘fittingly’ illustrating Jesus. There were other “explanations” too, but these should suffice for now. Other times μονογενης (monogenes) was equated with generating.
Interestingly, God was often called “The unbegotten God” to highlight His eternal past in contrast to “The only-begotten Son.”
Some modern scholars claim μονογενης (monogenes) means strictly unique/only and they totally ignore the “born/begat” part. But then the word would instead be μοναδικός (monadikós) = unique. God’s Holy Spirit didn’t inspire John to use that word. If monogenes really meant strictly unique/only, how much easier it would have been to silence the “Heretics” like Arius. He would say; “There was a time when Jesus was NOT” and they would remind him that "monogenes really means unique/only and nothing else." Well, that would have made the argument much easier to settle. But that’s not what they knew monogenes to mean. The fact that the founding church fathers wrote into the Nicence Creed the juxtaposing expression “begotten not made” as apposed to ‘unique/only not begotten’ shows clearly that they knew there was something much more to “begotten.”
Regardless of our understanding of μονογενης (monogenes) any “only begotten son” was BORN with certain rights, responsibilities. Other rights, qualities and attributes would be acquired or earned later on in life, as time passes. Recognizing Jesus as the “Only Begotten Son” demonstrates that he had certain rights and qualities ‘right from the start’ and that there would be more rights, attributes acquired or earned later in his life - as time passes - as we see, for example, in Philippians 2:9-11 and others. Removing the word “begotten” from God’s inspired word hides/disregards such valuable points that were meant to be in the Holy Scriptures. Why must “begotten” be removed from the Bible?
Ray Morris (real name)
@@markwardonwords Can you recommend some reading on when and how this shift took place? My resources (Brown, NIDNTT; Verbrugge, NIDNTT Abridged; Kittel) all give monogenes the sense of "one of a kind." These may be dated (the most recent is Verbrugge at 2000), so if something has shifted in the last couple of decades, I'd like to read about it. Thanks!
What is your view of the Gideons edition of the ESV?
I'd be happy to see it used in TR-only churches. Not sure if it will please anyone but the Gideons. But I'm glad it pleased them.
Mark, how do you define an "evangelical" translation? I own and read many translations: NIV, CSB, NRSV, NASB, NJB, NABRE, NKJV, and REB. I often compare passages amongst the different translations.
I wonder why the REB doesn't get more respect amongst evangelicals. I enjoy its literary and very readable style. It doesn't go overboard on "inclusive" language as some modern translations do. David Dewey, a Baptist minister says in "A User's Guide to Bible Translations" that it is under utilized and should be more widely know.
A fair question. Evangelical translations come from evangelical institutions, staffed by evangelical scholars, supported by evangelical dollars. I've spent twenty years using such translations; I simply haven't spent the time with the REB and NEB.
Perhaps the best way to understand the concept of the "evangelical translation" is to ask which versions of the Bible from the last 60 years were made as a conservative reaction to the controversies surrounding the RSV. The three main ones were the NASB (which was basically just a more wooden and less official update of the ASV), the NKJV (which also rejected the textual scholarship behind the RV/ASV), and the NIV (which abandoned the idea of directly revising any prior English Bibles and instead just borrowed snippets of the Tyndale-KJV language whenever it suited the tastes of the translators).
The second wave of "evangelical translations" were made in response to the introduction of gender-inclusive language in the NRSV, which began catching on in other translations as well (most infamously in a British edition of the NIV). The two major translations to emerge from this controversy were the ESV (a licensed update of the RSV that finally addressed the list of concerns that conservative Protestants had with it) and the HCSB (which eventually adopted a small degree of gender-inclusive language when it was revised into the CSB).
So far, we have the NASB, NKJV, NIV, ESV, and (H)CSB, but two other popular translations tend to get lumped into this category as well: the NLT and the NET Bible. These two versions contain some traits of non-evangelical translations, which has led certain evangelicals to distrust them. The NLT's roots trace back to the Living Bible, which was created by an evangelical Protestant but was largely vilified for being a paraphrase of the ASV instead of a proper translation. This reputation carried over into the early years of the NLT, and the new translation also received some flack for incorporating gender-inclusive language.
The NET Bible is probably best respected for its extensive translator notes, but the choices made by the translators have not been as well-received. It mirrors the RSV in many of the decisions it makes, and despite being produced by Dallas Theological Seminary, it has at least as much in common with the typical non-evangelical translation as it does with, say, the NIV. If it had come out in the 1970s, we would not be calling it an evangelical translation, much as we don't use that label for the TEV (or Good News Bible), despite it being produced by someone who was a Southern Baptist at the time of its writing.
There are more obscure translations that might fall into the category of "evangelical Bible" as well, but those seven are the major ones. (You could also include the LSB if you're willing to count it separately from the NASB.) It's easy to make a distinction between evangelical versions and Catholic versions such as the RNJB and NABRE (though the ESV and NLT both have Catholic editions with the imprimatur). It's also fairly easy to say that the NRSVue is not "evangelical," even though some evangelicals were included in its interfaith committee. The same is true of the CEB, which was made by mainline Protestants as an alternative to the NIV (which was still too evangelical for their tastes even after the 2011 update).
The NEB is somewhat harder to peg down. It wasn't made as a conservative reaction the RSV, but rather as a new idiomatic supplement to the Tyndale-KJV line of Bibles. British scholars opted to go in this direction rather than participating in the making of the RSV. Their resulting work included many of the exact same scholarly decisions as the RSV, so anyone who disliked the RSV was doomed to dislike the NEB just as much--and perhaps even more. That being said, it was produced by the Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, and Congregationalists of the United Kingdom, so the NEB's status as "evangelical" or "non-evangelical" is somewhat meaningless: such categories make far more sense in an American context, where there's a clearer line between evangelical and mainline Protestants.
The REB is more clearly non-evangelical, despite being somewhat more conservative and less innovative in its actual translation choices. Its committee was more inclusive of other Christian denominations, including Roman Catholic and Quaker participants. In that way, it is closer to the diversity of groups represented by the (N)RSV, but it is not quite as interfaith as the NRSV committee (or committees, if we count the NRSVue separately), which included input from non-Christian Jewish scholars.
I should note that the REB is one of my favorite translations. Out of every translation that sits to the right of the CSB and NRSV on a formal-to-dynamic equivalence scale, it is almost certainly my favorite (though I have a certain affection for the TEV as well). It is probably the most beautiful and euphonic of the modern English versions, topping even the Jerusalem Bible (and easily exceeding the NIV, NABRE, CEB, and NLT).
That being said, I can understand why evangelicals in the U.S. are not that fond of it:
1. It's very, very British. The most infamous example may be Proverbs 19.29: "There is a rod in pickle for the arrogant, and blows are ready for the fool's back." Americans looking for an alternative to the KJV's descendants tend to go for translations that are easy to read and comprehend. They don't look for versions that contain unfamiliar idioms and aim for a high register. The REB makes no efforts to read like a daily newspaper, which may be to the detriment of its popularity in the States.
2. It translates controversial passages in ways that will displease evangelicals. Isaiah 7.14 speaks of a "young woman" instead of a virgin. The _arsenokoitai_ of 1 Corinthians 6.9 are given the label of "sexual pervert" with no explicit reference to same-sex activity. Jesus is "the means of expiating sin" in Romans 3.25 rather than a "propitiation" for divine wrath. The qualifications for deacons in 1 Timothy 3 include rules for "Women in this office" rather than for the wives of male deacons. And so on.
3. Some passages are shuffled around based on scholarly conjecture. See, for instance, Job 40-41 (where the first six verses of ch. 41 are placed before ch. 40). See also the story of the woman caught in adultery, which is now placed as an appendix to John's Gospel instead of retaining its traditional spot at the start of ch. 8. This tendency to depart from the extant manuscripts is also seen in the translation choices throughout the Old Testament, which show a rather low allegiance to the Masoretic text and a tendency toward speculative reconstructions of the text's original readings.
I don’t think I can disagree with this learned and eloquent comment, no matter how much I wish evangelical translations had better reasons for coming into existence.
@@markwardonwords Even so, a translation's merits can be evaluated separately from its origins. The KJV came into existence largely because James didn't like the Geneva Bible's notes, but it's still a masterpiece of English literature in its own right.
Mark, is it possible for someone to email you? I don't see an email posted on your channel but I have a couple of questions I'd like to ask you.
Byfaithweunderstand.Com/contact
Bother! We are from the same city! That was cool to hear. I have perhaps overly looked into things and decided to get as many translations as I can and be a Bible nerd as well. So far, as you say, while wording may be slightly different, the meaning(message) is the exact same.
I do avoid paraphrase Bibles (The Message) and ones like the NRSVUE) but I stick with your saying of the best Bible is usually the one you have closest to you.
My main two favorites are my ESV Study Bible & the 1995 NASB. That said, I’m reading 7 versions at one time, 5 chapters pers day so I can enjoy or not enjoy (lol) the differences.
Thank you for helping guide Christians and you make Greenville proud! Visit Bob Jones University?
Good choices!
I do love BJU! Just talked to someone there today on the phone!
The problem as I see it, isn't the translation it's the text it is based upon
There are multiple translations based on the same texts as the KJV, including the NKJV and the MEV. I encourage contemporary English speakers to look toward them, because edification requires intelligibility.
When I encounter speakers of Elizabethan English, I encourage them to use the KJV. The NKJV or MEV would have quite a number of deviations from their expected speech and writing patterns, deviations that would be confusing and, occasionally, misleading for them.
@@JamesSnapp - simply because speaking truthfully on the textual issues would knock Mark Ward off his pedestal pulpit.
Obfuscation is imperative.
Mark, thank you for your videos, they are excellent. Let me ask you a question: I am hispanic and american citizen, so as a bilingual man I use english and castilian versions of the bible. I know you are not expert in spanish versions of the bible, but I write to you because I trust a lot in your criteria: who or what institution could hispanics trust in order to know which versions of the bible in spanish are reliable? Is there anyone or anything you trust that is expert in this concern?
There is a huge controversy (as big as yours) inside the big hispanic community in América about this issue and I would like to serve that flock as good as you do. God bless you.
A good friend, a missionary in Mexico, has tracked my work and talked with me about what might be analogous in the Hispanic world. I actually do speak Spanish, but at probably 65% fluency. Can you contact me through my contact form at byfaithweunderstand.com? I'll get you in touch with two friends I trust. The fact is that I just shouldn't speak to this matter myself-that is, I don't know the institutions to trust. I know some people I trust to know that!
How do I type that in? 8:34
frame-poythress.org
This week I was at a men's Bible study group. And I forget the passage someone read from but I was using the NKJV and when he read from his version, for some reason I was able to understand it sooner than with my NKJV. This hasn't been the first time, I have experienced this. I was eager to know what version he was using, and I finally caught a glimpse of the cover and it was the NIV? I've always heard of how bad a translation it is. I remember when I was first being given Bible studies to become baptized, the person giving me bible studies commented how she didn't like how the NIV sounded too much like a novel to her. But in later years, when I have read from the NIV, I really do like how it flows in conversational tones. I kind of feel guilty that I like it, I don't know why?
So… The NIV helped you understand God's word, and yet you feel guilty reading it? I know EXACTLY how you feel. I felt the same way. But would that really be Satan's play, do you think? *Haha-I know what I'll do! I'll give people more understandable Bibles! Then they'll understand God's word better and the Bible won't be so foreign! What a fiendish plot!* ;) I think you should read the NIV with a good conscience-while staying aware that there is something of an inverse relationship, a relationship God has created, between readability and "accuracy." I've talked about this on this channel: you can't divorce the two. An unreadable Bible isn't accurate. But by reading more functional and more formal translations together, you can get a really good picture of what's going on.
Thank you Mark
Trusting the Holy Spirit to lead and guide is essential without him any Bible will not open to us . As I have said before KJV, NKJV, AMPLIFIED , NIV NLT I use. I have the ESV on iPad iPhone cause I can’t afford another HARD COPY. Thank you for your contribution and continued work
I travel 250 kilometres once a month to preach at two country Churches and always encourage by your commitment and comments
Once indeed, the Geneva Onlyists ruled the day in their protests against the Kings translation! But, that was in the past..... Great video!
You all should also check out the analytical literal translations (alt3) of the bible by gary f zeolla its a bible set so and has concordance and companion and (why these books are in the bible) books so to me it's more trustworthy when an author can back up what he did also you can add and take away books that you think is canonical and have a place in the bible or not. Also check out the third testament spirit of truth.
I think if you want to break away from kjv or its extended family ie rsv, nrsv or maybe esv then the recommendation is to go with the new fresh translations of niv, csb, net bibles
Of these 3 im leaning towards csb.
Opinion on the John MacArthur nasb study Bible?
Never did use that. No opinion other than general appreciation for MacArthur’s expository care.
@@markwardonwords would it be worth it buying his study bibles?
Sure! I’ve heard many good things about that study Bible!
God is well able today to raise up men and women of Godly character for the translation of His words from the original meanings in Hebrew and Greek to the modern English language. We are so blessed to have such a rich choice of translations for the result to know Him better and walk more closely with Him and share Him with a hurting and dying world! I applaud you, Mark, for your powerful and admirable defense of newer translations!
Thank you.
@@markwardonwords On youtube: "4 Reasons We Don't Believe in a Pretribulation Rapture"--Dalton Thomas (MARANATHA GLOBAL BIBLE STUDIES) FAI STUDIOS (Frontier Alliance International) They have outreach in the Golan Heights, Israel. Tell me, Mark, after watching this , what you think!
Hi Mark, Would you be interested in interpreting , jointly, with me, from the literal translation of Mt.19:9 ?
This is very important, thanks.
“And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”
(Matthew 19:9 KJV)
I'd point you to the work of my friend Andy Naselli: drops.forwarddesigner.net/f/Kmnac5
Your videos are so logical-thank-you for that!
I first heard about KJV onlyism 3 years ago. I then did some research. I found info by James White (before I found your channel 😉) & did an informal survey & got the same answer to my question “Which translation should I read?” when I asked pastors. The answer was “the one you will read” Of course I would be very skeptical of a “translation” written by one person
Thank-you for all of your really good, well thought out videos!!
Wow, thank you for these encouraging words!
Most modern translations go thru update after update way too often for me.
Not for me. I just don’t care. Because they are not the ultimate standard; the Hebrew and Greek are. But I do think you’re still right, that in general they update too frequently. Every 30 years or so seems about right to me. So the NIV wasn’t too far off.
The ESV, published in 2001, has been revised in 2007, 2011 and 2016. The NLT, published in 1996, was revised in 2004, 2007, 2013, & 2015. This is disconcerting to Christians who want a settled text, at least for a little while. I use both translations to differing degrees, and I'm hoping that the publishers leave them be. Generational updates make sense, once every few years doesn't. I don't think English is changing that fast.
Have you read The real Douay Rheims bible translation by Dr. William Von Peters, it is professed to be the only true translation of the original. It would be interesting to get your take on this
Hmm. Never heard of it. Link?
can you please explain why esv differs with other english translations in ecclesiastes 11:5? thank you
Can you be a little more specific?
Mark, just from what I’m seeing skimming through the comments, I am reminded of something I asked you a little while ago on another video. And that is: is it possible that in going from one end of the Bible position spectrum (KJVO) you may have over corrected and gone too far the other way (all translations are good)? It seems there’s a lot of contention with the latter as many people seem to have *that* Bible version (e.g. NIV) that they can’t stand.
And Bible translations do matter. I recently watched a debate with James White vs someone who holds a similar position to JW’s. And James’ opponent at one point used the NLT to support his view to which James said that is a bad English translation that’s nearly a paraphrase. I don’t think we should be shy about saying there are some less than reliable translations out there. Maybe not in the sense that they are heretical. But in the sense that for serious matters they can be too simplified.
When it came down to making a choice for my own church, I pushed for the ESV. That says something about where I am. I also think that scholars and Greek/Hebrew-oriented pastors should argue graciously about Bible translation philosophy. But my audience, laypeople, should be able to be free of most of that. In my judgment, the benefits of their just *reading* the major modern evangelical English Bibles outweigh the benefits of joining translation debates about languages they don't read. Pretty well all of the translation "errors" alleged of the major modern evangelical English Bibles, in my experience, are things that most people won't notice or be affected by. They are not errors but opportunities for possible misreadings, misreadings I think most laypeople will not even think of.
Can you show me that area of the NLT
@@CaseyFleetMedia Couldn't a JW use Micah 5:2 in the NIV which describes Jesus as having 'origins' from of old to support their false teaching?
@@sdlorah6450 no
@Casey Fleet sure the context was in regards to Jesus applying “I am” statements to himself. Because God in the OT applied “I am” statements to himself, and James White was demonstrating how Jesus applies a name to himself that God applies to himself in the OT.
So the verse in question was John 13:19. James’ opponent was claiming Jesus was not claiming to be the “I am” but was just saying he was the Messiah. And he used the NLT as his support:
“I tell you this beforehand, so that when it happens you will believe that I AM the Messiah.”
John 13:19 NLT
It was then James pointed out “the Messiah” is not in the Greek and then he said the NLT is a bad English translation.
Also I have to give a little bit of a push back to Mark Ward. I think even in our casual reading we should use a good translation of the Bible. Because even in reading we do absorb things. We might read something and later when we discuss matters of our faith we might think, “I remember reading that” and then find that we can’t find what we thought the Bible said in a more trusted translation.
You said this in such a way that the bible stciklers have to get it: But this is still trustng someone else to translate the bible for you. You're just trusting dead someone else's instead of living ones! Exactly, God made the bible so that it would be mediated for us from the original texts! My line is always the same: Every bible is a gift from God.
I'm grateful for every Bible translation I have.
I recently switched to a heavy KJV stance, but wasn’t sure about rejecting other versions. Now I believe that KJV should be your primary text with other versions running the assist. Just this past week I have been stumbling through Isaiah. I picked up my amplified and bingo. Everything made sense. I carefully compared the amplified with my KJV and everything lined up. Although, when I compared ESV to KJV, the ESV seemed to miss the mark a hair. Isa 28 is what I was studying, v 11 and 13. Your videos are outstanding. :)
Thank you, sir! I’m glad you got help from checking the Amplified!
I have always liked studying with multiple versions. Now I find myself using KJV less and less, not because of your videos 😊 but more because my aging brain feels drained after awhile. I still love the poetry of the KJV, so not forsaking it completely, but I am finding some newer versions to be refreshing. I found two new ones that not only put the Apocrypha/Deuterocanicals back in, and half the missing verses too. (the NRSVue and the NASB 2020)
This is good, and a breath of fresh air after just having plowed through a two hour, KJV Onlyist, conspiracy-driven video.
My father, an author of over twenty books, tells me that he struggled to understand the Bible when using the KJV, and it was when he turned to a modern one (this would have been in the 60s, so I'm not sure which one it was) that he understood it and became a Christian.
Glad to be of service!
Oh-and I’d love to hear more about your father. A specific anecdote could be super helpful for me! A passage he never understood in the KJV, maybe?
@@markwardonwords Alright, I'll ask him about that. :-) See what I can find out.
@@markwardonwords Alright, I've just been talking with him. He tells me that he struggled mainly with the prophets and Paul's letters. Some parts of them he found very difficult. He eventually started reading the New English Bible, which had just come out at that time, originally just the NT. I've got a copy of it with me now. My father worked in book sales for over thirty years, and he said that (this is in London, England, where he grew up) it's the only book he's ever known to sell 1000 copies in a day. There were very long lines of people waiting to buy it. It's not his favourite translation now, but it certainly helped him a great deal at the time.
That's a testimony! Thanks.
Hi , I've read ESV , NIV, NLT but somehow there is something I don´t quite like about them, don't get me wrong, I read all those in spanish (my mother lenguage), but when it's about English , I prefer KJV...
I love the KJV, too, I really do! I have tons of KJV verses memoried.
Is it true that the 2011 NIV strives to be gender neutral? This bugs me if so. What would be the next step down that road? I'm NOT KJVO, nor do I pass judgement on anyone base on their translation of choice. I have two KJV's, just ordered a NASB and am shopping for an ESV ... I believe completely in the logical sense of using multiple translations, yet I do not think that all translations are created equally ... in the end though, I am not an expert and must exercise some trust as Mark stated in his opening .. my question is only about the NIV (2011). Thanks!
I haven't talked about this in detail on my channel. The major books are written by people I respect greatly: Don Carson (pro NIV) and Vern Poythress (anti-NIV). I am still reading through Poythress' (and Grudem's) big book, but if someone put a gun to my head right this instant and forced me to take a side, it would be Carson's. I just don't think the NIV is guilty of what people are saying it's guilty of. They at least need to hear Carson's case. That case includes acknowledgment that some of the non-evangelical translations go too far with their egalitarianism; but I don't think the NIV does, or not often. And the benefits of the NIV far outweigh the minor possible detriments-even if Poythress is right and Carson wrong. Here's a brief review of Carson's book: byfaithweunderstand.com/2021/05/09/review-the-inclusive-language-debate-by-d-a-carson/
(And I love disc golf! I hope I can still play when I'm an old guy. Loved the Holy Shot; Paul McBeth is my favorite, though.)
@@markwardonwords Thank you so much for the detailed reply! Glad you love disc golf. I'm a James Conrad fan, so that shot was amazing! :) I'll check out those authors/books!
Can you define what is meant by Evangelical? Elsewhere, you said these translations are funded and supported by Evangelical scholars and institutions- but what is Evangelical? Thank you for your wisdom you share with us.
The classic definition is the Bebbington Quadrilateral: 1) Biblicism, 2) Conversionism, 3) Activism, 4) Crucicentrism. Of course, every theological label is fought over. But evangelicals believe the Bible and believe the gospel-and tell the gospel to others.
@@markwardonwords That is incredibly helpful and appreciated - it will give me something to study and contemplate.
I personally know the editor of the NIV Study Bible, and some of the other translators.
Me too! Do you mean Andy Naselli? Or someone else? There are different NIV study Bibles.
@@markwardonwords I'm showing my age: Kenneth Barker General Editor (1985 NIV Study Bible Editor)
A mission leader invited me to Mr. Barker's home for lunch one day, so we were honored to meet him and his wife. These guys tell their own jokes about how many 'dead' languages they know. But they are just real people, with Christlike and humble character.
7:50 You talked about "bad translations" and say they are often done by "one person". Please be careful, I am not sure about US, but for instance, here in Sweden there have been several one-person translations (NT) which have been highly regarded and appreciated. The right thing to say is that there are bad team-translations and bad one-person translations, and there are good team-translations, and good one-person translations. And there are advantages and disadvantages when translating in team and when doing it alone. This is not a black and white issue.
Fully agreed.
Free books?? You have a plan to investigate other diff cultic bible videos: NWT, passion, etc?
I actually have a script on The Passion Translation almost done, and one on Et Cepher started. I don't think I'll bother with the NWT, but maybe…
@@markwardonwords If I may say so, Please read Jason David BeDuhn's Truth in Translation. Deep information in there on the NWT!
@@markwardonwords In case you do happen to "bother with the NWT," hopefully you would have at least one, kindly, thoughtful, considerate person on the "defensive" side (hint, hint :) ) rather than just a one-sided perspective. Most likely you wouldn't ask the Scribes or Pharisees their thoughts and opinions on the "Samaritan Pentateuch" or a Christian giving the same outlook on the Scribes & Pharisees as they themselves would. Or someone bitter at another about how that 'other' thinks. It would be less bias. Thanks Ray Morris (real name)
Any feel for how common it is for KJV-onlyists to eschew modern versions, based on major theological grounds, unrelated to textual differences? I mean things like Matt 7:14, Hebrews 6:1, 1 John 3:9 being rendered in a more or less "Lordshippy" way. For those in the free grace camp (raises hand), the KJV seems to do the best job. Based on just those three verses, the NIV/ESV/NLT seem quite problematic, while the NKJV/CSB/NASB are at least reasonable in my view (though some would disagree).
This is an EXCELLENT question. To be honest, I can't think of *anyone* in any of the KJV-Only worlds out there who has spoken as you just have. Let me note what you've done: you've seen a clear difference between text and translation; you've evaluated modern translations according to your theology (they do do this!); but you've seen some contemporary translations as doing just fine at key passages and others as leaning in a direction you didn't quite like. The major thing you've done that I do not see my KJV-Only brothers do (with the notable exception of Chuck Surrett, who evaluated the NKJV and was willing to praise it often) is that you've acknowledged that modern translations *can be right* in places.
Now the question is whether you know Greek or not, right? Are you a fit judge of the quality of various translations at those three passages? I'm not shooting this back at you angrily; I'm asking. What kind of Greek training do you have? If the Lord hasn't given you the opportunity to have any, then your judgments must be made second-hand, or based only on English. *That does not mean your judgments are worthless*; it just means they can't be determinative for others.
@@markwardonwords Mark, I appreciate the thoughtful reply. This is an issue that I am still wrestling with, and I don't pretend to have an absolutely clear leading here - only a sense that the KJV seems to "get it right" (from my current theological standpoint) more often than the others. I also appreciate the sensitivity! I'm sure you have been "bitten" after asking the Greek question, and I promise I won't do that.
To tell you the truth, I know very little Greek. I am familiar with things like present infinitives and how they CAN have an imperfect or continuous sense to them. What bothers me is, I see other places in the NT where there is a PI, and they do not always have that sense, nor are they always rendered that way in the translation. So seeing it rendered thusly in 1 John 3:9, with such a fundamental faith issue at stake, raises alarm bells in my head. You are absolutely right, I cannot dogmatically say "this is the way it is (or isn't)" I just have to accept that I am still learning, and will try to remain open to more revelation from God, including a change in my theological stance (which has happened before). Thanks for your ministry!
@@djnak7856, this is such a humble, Christian answer! Thank you for this! I'd encourage you to assume that the evangelical Christian biblical scholars who have translated the major modern evangelical English Bibles for us are responsible but not perfect people who are doing their best and probably have reasons it would take you a while to discover for the translation choices they have made. This does NOT mean that they have no theological framework and that it's impossible that they have gotten something wrong. It means, I think, that theology doesn't usually turn on translation decisions. All the major available evangelical denominational viewpoints can be defended from all the major modern evangelical English Bible versions. Or so I think! That's a pretty sweeping statement, but I have some reasons for believing it! May the Spirit guide you into all truth.
@@markwardonwords Totally agree brother - the translator folks know a lot more Hebrew and Greek than I do! I probably spend too much time reading about the pros and cons of how to translate certain passages. Besides not fully understanding all the nuances, I often get convinced by whichever side argues their point more eloquently...only to find an equally convincing counter argument on the other side. It can be a never ending rabbit hole. Sometimes we just have to trust the Spirit to reveal His truth to us. In the end, having God's word in any (reputable) English translation is a blessing!
@@djnak7856 This is such a wise comment. Yes indeed: this is the way it is. And you do just have to do your best and seek the Lord. Maybe this desire in your heart to understand means that you should take Greek and then Hebrew! I support you!
"You're just trusting dead someone else's instead of living ones." 🤣🙌 Amen
Right!
Can you explain how the words "the token of" appear in modern translations when there is no clear evidence those words were ever spoken by the Lord? Deuteronomy 22;15? The King James has them in italics; modern Bibles assume these words are in the Hebrew by placing them there with no explanation or footnote.
I think those words are required and should not be in italics. I looked up the Hebrew word in the standard Hebrew lexicon, and they felt the same. The context demands that what be held up is "the token of her virginity," not "her virginity"-that isn't something that can be held up.
It is interesting to find that John Bunyan ( author of Pilgrims Progress ) would not use the KJV when it came out in his day, he preferred the Geneva Bible.
Citation?
@@markwardonwords It was in a biography of the life of John Bunyan that i read. Also C. H. Spurgeon said that he preferred the Revised Version because it was more accurate, if you Google "Was Spurgeon King James Only ? it's there. Very interesting.
Sephia skintone 🤣 Back in the day when rainbows were black and white.
Great video.
Exactly. ;)
A couple of years ago as an Older Street preaching Christian I went to a Street Preaching conference and was raked through the coals by KJV only people because as a lay,man I did not use the KJV which was my introduction to this cult. I see KJV only as a huge dist6raction from the work Christ called us to. I did not start this fight as they tried to humiliate me because I was a NKJV and NASB person. I am thankful for you and others such as Dr. Daniel Wallace.
✔
I just want to encourage if I can I am being really blessed by you content. I was brought up on the KJV and most of my scripture memorisation was done in that translation it indeed is beautiful but I also love other translations . All of us who speak English and think in English are holding in are hands and reading daily a translation. The power of the bible is that man is not perfect but God is and he by his power and grace has conveyed his message in these translations. I am personally not a fan of the NLT but I would never condemn a brother or sister who came into a relationship with living God through that translation. There is so much arguing and in fighting in church already I refuse to add a Bible translation to that, I agree that there can be things in some translation that I don’t like. But I regularly use my KJV along side my NIV when there are passages I need more clarity on. I have an illustrated NLT it came in very handy when I wanted to understand the dates for there special occasions and celebrations and the bible introduction are good I don’t like the text that much but in those elements it’s good for a bit of research. Again sorry for the ramble but thank you so much for this series 👏🏾
You're welcome! And, practically, I agree: I don't use the NLT a ton. But I trust it to be what it says it is. And I've never had occasion to encourage another Christian not to use it.
Even if you take the trouble to learn Hebrew and Greek, you would still have to trust your Hebrew and Greek teachers and whatever study aids and bible dictionaries you use to convey the meanings of each word correctly to you; you're not going to consult the entire Greek language corpus every time you come across πνεῦμα to make sure it's referring to the Holy Spirit and not just someone breathing. And I'm pretty certain that many of those Greek and Hebrew dictionaries and study guides are written by folks who also work on modern Biblical translations; so you might as well trust those translations too at this point. We don't all get clear and concise revelation direct from on high in a vacuum. Our knowledge is utterly dependent on the work that has come before.
Right!! Excellent points.
Mark, you are a true Godsend on so many levels. Stay faithful and keeping making great content ❤️📖⛪️🙌🏻
I appreciate that!
I don't give my opinion for good reasons, but what I see the issue is manuscripts not so much translation issues from my research
My friend, the New King James Version and the Modern English Version both use the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts as the King James. And they translate those texts into fully intelligible contemporary English, which means they meet the principle of 1 Corinthians 14, edification requires intelligibility. I recommend the NKJV and MEV to you.
@@markwardonwords I must thank you for your kindness my friend and I as said it's not a translation issue but a manuscript issue. I was just pointing that out to people, I know there are some kjv people who say it is a translation issue but from what I can see it is a manuscript issue. I also have heard some kjv people say that it is a manuscript issue only, and if someone translated a version directly from the kjv in to modern English taking into account that the thee and thou thine are singlers for you as ye you and your is the plur version for you then they would read it that I found interesting what do you think my friend. Yes the mev is translated from the same manuscripts ask the kjv but th nkjv is has used the Alexandrian manuscripts as well as the textus receptus. In the footnotes you can see nu which is from the Alexandrian manuscripts. I hope this is helpful my friend. I love my kjv my wife loves her Christian standard Bible my mother in law loves her niv. My children love the kjv they are 8,7,and 5 I have been seeing if I can directly modernize the kjv for my own personal purpose 😂 lol I just like to study these debates. I do have a hard time with the verses missing out of my Bible I find it easy to read the kjv. But thank you for your recommendation. May the love of Jesus Christ bless my friend
@@k2thet846 There are editions of the NKJV with no footnotes. My childhood copy had none. Regarding the footnotes, the preface to the NKJV states "The textual notes in the New King James Version attempt to make no evaluation of variant readings but seek instead to present the facts objectively." In other words, they didn't include the variant readings in the footnotes because the necessarily agreed or disagreed with them, but just because they wanted to be honest and also allow for people curious about the different manuscripts (but unable to read the original languages) to be able to see the differences for themselves. The fact is, the text itself uses the Textus Receptus rather than the Critical Text, and it should be accepted by Textus Receptus advocates because of that. If the footnotes bother you that much, you can buy an edition with no footnotes like my old childhood edition. And even if you can't find one without footnotes, it's not too hard to simply ignore them (you could even take a black marker and scribble over them if you wanted to). My mom's KJV is a Scofield Reference Bible, and she took no notice of the footnotes (some of which advocate the Gap Theory and Old Earth Creationism) until years later. It's easy to ignore them.
Wish Kjvo woukdcread the 1611 preface they were not Kjvo but problem is few of them use 1611 but later Kjv editions!
Mark, if my research is right, and correct me if I'm wrong, when the KJV was first published, it was not accepted. In fact, it took a royal decree and persecution for people to actually start using it. The Geneva Bible was far more popular than the KJV. Also, because they rejected the KJV as a Catholic Bible, some of them took the Geneva Bible and boarded the Mayflower and sailed to what we now know as the United States of America. Many people think the KJV flew off the printing press into the hands of eagerly waiting Christians. That is just not the case. The KJV didn't take on for about 20 something years after it was first published. People should read the KJV Translator to the Reader and hear what they have to say. None of them thought that the KJV was inspired. It's a wonder why the KJV Bible is not published with the Translator to Reader today.
I knew nothing about this debate before. I read the NKJV because that's what we have had because we got them from Gideon for free and had no other bible. I've been reading the NKJV since I was 8 back the early 90s and I discovered the ESV and read it for the first time this year at age 38. I started to read it in the middle of February and I'm almost done with the New Testament in a few weeks because thats where I started. I don't know a word of Hebrew or Greek, so I've had to to trust the NKJV schoalars for 30 years and unlike you Mark who knows personally some people who translated the ESV, I know no Translator, I'm from Jamaica. I'm very discouraged by this debate. I want to know that the Bible I'm reading is accurate and trustworthy. I just want to serve God and read his word and whenever I see or hear this KJV Modern Bible debate, I'm frustrated. I'm not sure what to do. I don't have access to the many Bible translations that others in the US does, in terms of hard copy, I can access them on the internet and that's how I learnt about this debate and the other Bible translations. People telling me I'm damned if I read anything but the KJV, yet when I read it I don't understand what I'm reading. The eth and est verbs and some words I've had to be looking up in dictionary everytime I try to read it. I've found the ESV refreshing and much easier to understand than even the NKJV and it explains to me how I aught to live in this present age and that's good enough for me. My only problem with the ESV is that it's not sold in Jamaica where I'm from so I don't have a physical copy and I'd love to have one. Thank you Mark for these videos, they help me a lot.
Thomas, thank you for this! Wow! If you’d like me to take your comment down for you after Edward confirms (so your email isn’t public), I can do that!
@@thomasressler Thank you so much Thomas, I'll email you my address in moment.
@@markwardonwords Hi Mark, I've emailed Thomas, so if you can take down his imformation. I'm lost for words, I was hoping to get an ESV Bible and praise God, he has answered me in a way a didn't expect at all.
Done!
@@markwardonwords Thank you so much. I sent the email to Thomas with tears in my eyes. I prayed, I asked the Lord for help to get an ESV Bible and he has answered my prayer in a way I never imagined. I wasn't sure how it would have happened whether you would have sent it as you'd ask for my address prior or how, but through Thomas, God has sent help. Thank you again.
OK, I’m gonna say it. I wanted to avoid it but I don’t think I can. There are, or were, reasonable arguments for not trusting certain versions. The Living Bible was OK but.... The NIV in its first iteration was wrong in several instances. Did they deliberately skew certain passages to the “liberal” point of view? How can we say they didn’t? I know one liberal pastor who refuses to use anything but his 1985 NIV because “I don’t like the word choice, like propitiation, in the NASB and what it implies.” So, yeah, I somewhat understand their point however if KJO folk truly wanted the most correct version they’d switch to the NASB. But they won’t because they’re emotionally invested, just like my liberal pastor friend who won’t give up “my NIV.”
The KJV translators said, "Things are to take their denomination of the greater part…. A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) [James 3:2] also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. [There is] no cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the Sun, where Apostles or Apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God’s spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?"
I have individual disagreements with the NIV but overall appreciation. It has helped me over and over. If you're in a sound church, I highly doubt you'll be misled by anything in the NIV-or that you'll even notice that it differs, or could be misread to support some kind of heresy. Plenty of things in the KJV can be misread to support some kind of heresy-and they have been over time.
The 1984 NIV certainly skewed its passages, but it wasn't in a liberal direction. Did your liberal pastor never hear of the New English Bible? That would have been a far better choice for "liberal" readings. For instance, Romans 3.25 in the NEB doesn't simply avoid the word "propitiation." Rather, it says, "For God designed him to be the means of expiating sin by his sacrificial death, effective through faith." The word "expiation" was the gloss of choice for modernists who rejected the fundamentalist notion of "propitiation" as barbaric. At worst, the NIV refused to take a side by avoiding both of those nigh-incomprehensible theological terms and instead opting for "sacrifice of atonement." And even then, it clearly favored the "propitiation" side by offering the following alternate translation in a footnote: "as the one who would turn aside his wrath, taking away sin."
@@MAMoreno - Thanks, good info.
The original NIV NT was 1978, probably the same as 1984?
@@purebible1311 I can't confirm that for sure. The earliest edition of the NIV New Testament (published in 1973 and released with the Old Testament in 1978) isn't hosted online, so I'd have to find a good used bookstore to track down a definitive answer for you. (I've never liked the NIV, so I don't tend to collect editions of it myself.)
One problem (and I say this as someone who studied Greek in seminary) is that many modern translations have progressively changed some of the passages on divorce and remarriage to make them less negative (which I find to be incredibly concerning). I wrote a paper on this www.danielrjennings.org/arebibletranslationsprogressivelysoftening.pdf I am not KJ Only but I realize that the older translations do generally seem to translate these passages better.
Daniel, I didn't read your paper in depth but I took a look. I'm afraid that your analysis of the Malachi passage disinclined me from reading further. =( You didn't discuss the Hebrew, brother. A layperson without Hebrew knowledge and/or some advanced tools will simply not know what's going on. He or she will think that modern translators have intentionally softened God's hatred of divorce. This isn't fair to your brothers. You can't set aside textual issues when it's the text and not the translation philosophy that differs in a given passage. =(
@@markwardonwords I was about to criticize his post for the same thing last night, but then I noticed that he addressed the matter in Appendix 3 of his paper. He said, "In all fairness to this issue we want to note that there is some evidence to
suggest the more modern rendering of Malachi 2:16 to shift the passage away
from saying that God hates divorce to place it upon the man who is initiating the divorce. Older translations were divided over this issue." He also included a footnote to a defense of the alternate translation choice on ESV.org.
I would still regard every instance cited in this paper as a matter of coincidence that has nothing to do with shifting cultural norms, but the appendices handle the data in a more meaningful way than the essay proper.
@@markwardonwords You should read the whole paper brother. The very thing you are looking for is in appendix 3.
Ah, got it!
Why did the ESV translators translation Rev 13v8 to say from before the foundation of the world? Is that not a incorrect translation of ἀπό?
Other translations say: from/since
Now as a non calvinist knowing what calvinists believe it makes sense that the ESV would translate it the way they did, but it then seems to be dishonest.
and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.
Revelation 13:8 ESV
All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
Revelation 13:8 NKJV
All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.
Revelation 13:8 NASB1995
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
Revelation 13:8 KJV
All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast-all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.
Revelation 13:8 NIV
All who live on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written since the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slaughtered.
Revelation 13:8 NASB2020
and all those who live on the earth will worship the beast, everyone whose name has not been written since the foundation of the world in the book of life belonging to the Lamb who was killed.
Revelation 13:8 NET
only as background,
Rev13:8. The ESV is a revision of the RSV. The RSV renders ἀπὸ as Before. For any translation, you'll find nits that you disagree with. for example, Why does the KJV in Rom 9:5 not affirm the deity of Christ? Is the KJV heretical? of course not. My point is that you have to take the translation as a whole, check the Greek if you can, and read multiple translations.
Paul is right.
Also, I'm not at all sure that "from before the foundation of the world" is Calvinist (were the RSV translators Calvinists?) and "from the foundation of the world" is non-Calvinist. Blood Bought Ministries, have you taken a look at any commentaries that explain the translation options? What options does the Greek leave open? Have any translations, including the ESV and RSV, used an option that the grammar does not allow?
From or since implies from or since the creation of the foundations of the world. And since no one was around back then, it still implies Calvinism. So it makes no difference in that regard whether it’s from or since.
Besides, I’m a Calvinist and have never used this verse and I’m unaware of any other Calvinist that uses it.
@@chaplainpaul5326 Yes, it's a change introduced by the RSV committee when they revised the ASV. Notably, the NRSV committee changed it back to "from." The ESV committee didn't bother to change it, but I'm not sure if that's because they liked the "before" gloss or just didn't notice it. Even after four editions, the ESV is still a pretty minor update of the RSV beyond the removal of a few "thees" and the insertion of a few "propitiations."
Geneva bible only had same feelings about new bible in time Kjv!
As the KJV preface suggests!
The NIV has changed radically since it first came out in 1978, and is now full-blown feminist, and its radicalism is stunning in certain passages such as Mark 1:41. The ESV is overall further away from the KJV than was the RSV in 1952, which anyone can find out for himself by just comparing the three versions. Modern evangelicalism is devoted to the basic axioms of liberal biblical criticism which dazzled the mainline denominations in the 19th century. With the modern liberal critical approach to the Bible, there is no stable text; everything is either in flux or open to questioning, revision, doubt, or rejection at any time depending upon the "trustworthy" conclusions of modern "trustworthy" evangelical scholars armed with their secular minded approach to the Biblical text. If the modern versions are so "trustworthy" and are so good, why do they need to be revised every few years? If it is not for more money, it can only because they DO NOT BELIEVE (unlike KJV translators for example) that they are working with an EXISTING inspired text, but rather that they are still in search of it, a search that can never be concluded. They may be sincere, but they are NOT trustworthy, because the axioms under which they operate are deeply flawed. Modern biblical text criticism leads logically to theological liberalism, although it may take a century or so for this to work itself out in the denominations that adopt it. The NET is one of the most radical translations ever published, more radical than the NRSV used by liberal mainline churches. While fascinating in its discussion of certain manuscripts, the axioms under which Wallace and his colleagues operate are secular, not Christian. Their approach to the Biblical text hardly differs at all from those of atheist New Testament scholars such as Bart Ehrman. Evangelicals are becoming liberals in their approach to the biblical text, and it is very sad.
My friend, I disagree profoundly with you here. I don’t think the Bible teaches what you are saying. But if you truly feel this way, the NKJV and MEV are available for you. They use the same underlying original language texts as the KJV.
I read and studied from modern translations in the beginning of my Christian walk but something was missing. Then I went to the NKJV. The NKJV was like my primary version for 10yrs. I am not KJVO BUT am KJV preferred now. Here is why. After a long exhaustive research and staying neutral in my research, I believe the Byzantine family of manuscripts is the best. I also believe the KJV's precision in accuracy to the Hebrew and Greek is amazing. I also like that in most KJV's they italicized words for sentence structure letting you know those words are not in the manuscripts so you can take or leave that word. To me that is being honest and faithful to the manuscripts that makes you feel you can trust it that they not trying to change the word of God. In other modern versions you do not know if your reading the word of God or mans interpretation of the word of God. The KJV lets the reader interpret not the translators interpret for you.
Like many I bought into modern translations. I bought into the marketing of the ESV that became very popular. If you ever want to learn how to market a bible translation look at what they did with the ESV. They have it down to a science. But the ESV tried to pull from many different streams of translations in keeping some KJV language to appeal to KJV users while also in modernized updated English to appeal to those who like modern versions. But KJV/NKJV users are not going to the ESV because of the KJV language appeal, they stay with the KJV because of the manuscript family they side with. BUT if your going to use a modern version that stays faithful to the Alexandrian family of manuscripts the NASB is the best and most accurate to the manuscripts. The NASB never really took off perhaps because of poor marketing. There will always be a trade off of how literal you want to go and readability.
Tony, if my KJV-Only brothers talked like you talk we wouldn't have so much strife.
However, of course I still don't fully agree. =) I'd encourage you to read Bill Mounce's paper on translation theory. It's not super difficult. Here it is: drops.forwarddesigner.net/oLjfHH If there's always a trade-off between literal translation and readability (and it's HUGE for you to say that: I've never heard my KJV-Only brothers acknowledge this simple truism), then different Christians can come to legitimately different conclusions at different places as to how much literalness is called for.
I agree-and I'm certain Mounce does-that no translation is consistently literal/formal or dynamic/functional. All translations use both strategies. It's the proportion in which they use them that differs. You should read Dave Brunn's One Bible, Many Versions. He discusses this in entertaining and fascinating detail.
Hey, what Bible has Lucifer’s name in it?
Original 1611 KJV marginal note for Isaiah 14.12: "Or, O day-starre."
Geneva Bible marginal note for Isaiah 14.12: "[T]he morning star that goeth before the sun, is called Lucifer, to whom Nebuchadnezzar is compared."
John Wesley's commentary on Isaiah 14.12: "Lucifer-Which properly is a bright star, that ushers in the morning; but is here metaphorically taken for the mighty king of Babylon."
Matthew Henry's commentary on Isaiah 14.12: "The king of Babylon shone as brightly as the morning star, and fancied that wherever he came he brought day along with him; and has such an illustrious prince as this fallen, such a star become a clod of clay? Did ever any man fall from such a height of honour and power into such an abyss of shame and misery? This has been commonly alluded to (and it is a mere allusion) to illustrate the fall of the angels, who were as morning stars."
Adam Clarke's commentary on Isaiah 14.12: "The Versions in general agree in this translation, and render הילל heilel as signifying Lucifer, Φωσφωρος, the morning star, whether Jupiter or Venus; as these are both bringers of the morning light, or morning stars, annually in their turn. And although the context speaks explicitly concerning Nebuchadnezzar, yet this has been, I know not why, applied to the chief of the fallen angels, who is most incongruously denominated Lucifer, (the bringer of light!) an epithet as common to him as those of Satan and Devil. That the Holy Spirit by his prophets should call this arch-enemy of God and man the light-bringer, would be strange indeed. But the truth is, the text speaks nothing at all concerning Satan nor his fall, nor the occasion of that fall, which many divines have with great confidence deduced from this text. O how necessary it is to understand the literal meaning of Scripture, that preposterous comments may be prevented!"
Surely it depends on the translation. Not all translations are created equal, and there are many bad translations. The NIV is an especially bad one. The Living Bible is worse, and the Good News Version is pretty bad too. The NIV's translation of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is a great example of a dishonest translation. The ESV, and NET are at least worth looking at for comparison. The NKJV is pretty good.
My friend, did you watch the video? =)
@@markwardonwords Of course. The fact that you know NIV translators and they are nice is not evidence that they are good translations.
Here are the observations of a friend of mine, on how the NIV translates 2nd Thessalonians 2:15
“Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”
“The NIV translators, however, have effected what amounts to a literary sleight of hand. One would be tempted to call it a rather nifty move were it not for the fact that they have tampered with the written Word of God. Hold the traditions which ye have been taught. Traditions (paradoseis) is a noun in the objective case. It is derived from the verb to hand over (paradidomi). The phrase, which ye have been taught (edidachthate), is a form of to teach (didasko). The NIV turns the verb into the noun - hold to the teachings - and turns the noun into the verb - we passed on to you. If we were to translate the NIV translation back into Greek, instead of paradoseis, we would have didaskalias, and instead of edidachthate we would have paredothate.” Clark Carlton, The Way: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, (Salisbury, MA: Regina Orthodox Press, 1997) p. 137f
I don't question the sincerity of the NIV translators, but when you try to make the translation clearer than the original, you insert your opinions into the text, and mislead the reader.
Yes, even the 2011 NIV mishandles 2 Thessalonians 2.15 despite the decades of flack the "teachings" gloss has received for being anti-Catholic/Orthodox. It's a real shame because the 2011 revision often made an effort to fix glaring examples of Evangelical bias in the 1984 edition. (Let's not forget the absurdly irresponsible "smallest of your seeds" wording from the mustard seed parable, which is thankfully purged from the current edition. If you have to reword the Bible to support your view of inerrancy, then you don't actually hold that view of inerrancy!)
Guys, I, too, can find places in the NIV where I would prefer they went a different direction (mostly minor things). But I appeal to the KJV translators here:
"Things are to take their denomination of the greater part…. A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) James 3:2] also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the Sun, where Apostles or Apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God’s spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?"
In other words, the predominant character of the NIV is that it faithfully conveys the meaning of God's messages. You have to be pretty subtle to even notice most of the places where people are supposed (by the NIV's many critics) to be led astray.
I hear your argument, the fact is the NIV and ESV have had verses removed. NIV takes out verses on fasting, and many other verses. I read other translations ESV NIV NKJV even a version called Easy to read Version. I never felt close to God reading those versions, the spirit of the book matters. I wanted a King James for a while and was afraid to read it because I was afraid I wouldn’t understand it. In 2018 I started reading the King James Version and honestly it’s changed my life and I find it’s the easiest to understand ironically. I am not a king James only stereo type. I own a Geneva Bible too. If you have the Holy Spirit you can understand the King James Bible. I have struggled with reading more difficult books but the king James I don’t struggle with. It takes take to understand. You have to keep reading it and pray before you read for the Lord to help you understand it
May the Lord bless you, Chelsea. If you do not cause division over your preference or adopt doctrines which teach the perfection of the KJV, I won’t fault you. The KJV is an excellent translation. Keep at it! My Fifty False Friends series on UA-cam can help you read it with more knowledge.
I think it’s wrong to not want to speak to someone if they don’t like the King James Bible. People who disagree have a right to disagree. I am friends with other Christians that have read the King James Bible but prefer bibles like the New American Standard Version. I have also owned the Revised Standard Version. The one written in 1952, from what I understand there’s one written in the 1880s but I can’t say I read it. I am interested in being in ministry one day and I myself have purchased King James bibles for new and mature Christians, but what I do personally is read the Bible with them over the phone especially if they never read the Bible before. I will read with the person until they are confident enough to read it on there own..I will also explain the Bible to them if they get confused.I believe teaching someone really helps them learn and enjoy reading the Bible and it’s also a great way to fellowship with someone. Thank you for your response
@@chelseadecarlo6804 I think that 1880s Bible was the Revised Version of 1885 which was a revision of the Authorized Version commonly known as the KJV.
Evangelicals can be pushed out of their comfort zone to do serious work on a mainline translation! The folks at Baylor University collaborated together on the NRSV which was the basis for the Baylor Annotated Study Bible that came out in 2019. There should be no parochialism in reading and using a Bible translation. We can learn from people who don’t have the same outlook we do and its not necessary to agree with them on everything. Learn what the Bible has to offer from people who come from all walks of life and that will change your life.
Agreed fully.
Because the Spirit didn't stop hovering over eggs in 1611? I know, I know, the tares, the tares. How they look like wheat!
Mark Ward admits the Old King James Version has been translated true to the Hebrew and Greek text. I would ask him then why do the modern translations contradict the Old King James Version if they are true to the text also? Both can't be true to the original if they contradict each other, I can cite many verses especially in the book of Proverbs where the NKJV contradicts the Old King James Version. I have a Parallel Bible which is a KJV/NKJV.
This is because of what the KJV translators themselves say in their preface: there are places of obscurity and difficulty in the Bible, particularly in the Hebrew Old Testament, in which it is not perfectly clear how the verse ought to be translated. “He that hath friends must show himself friendly” is one of those places. Unless the KJV translators got special revelation from God-and they specifically deny that they did-then it had to be okay for other translators to go different directions when warranted by ambiguities and difficulties God placed there.
@@markwardonwords some of the verses actually say a complete different idea or thought, please compare these verses in Proverbs from the KJV to the NKJV. This is just in one book of the Bible.
Proverbs
11:16
16:1,10
18:8
19:18
25:23
@@dwashington1333, this is a good and fair comment asking a reasonable question. I cannot reply to these specific instances yet, but I've got them in a file for a potential future video. Note something, though: we're not talking about textual differences here, almost certainly. That is, every translator in history has come to the exact same words in these verses. Why would they render them differently? There are multiple possible reasons. Have you ever learned another language?
Daniel Wallace is the man definitely 👍 😊
No doubt!
Why is the King James Bible the only translation to have the name Jehovah?!
I did a video on this for Logos. ua-cam.com/video/BmRkeOqEfww/v-deo.html
At 12:30 Mark Ward says that heretics supported the AV, but his three examples are wacky.
1) Joseph Smith, the mormon leader, offered ridiculous corrections to the King James Bible.
2) Henry Emerson Fosdick (1878-1969)
"To be sure, in the King James Version, the First Epistle of John contains these words (5:7): 'There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.' But no subsequent version contains that verse, because it appears in no early manuscript, and it is rejected by scholars as being a late addition."
3) William Ellery Channing (1780-1842) similarly accused our beautiful verse of being a "forgery".
None of these three believed that the Authorised Version is the pure word of God.
Not supported. Used.
@@markwardonwords - so an irrelevant claim, of no value. They can also “use” corruption versions. The Unitarians like to use the Improved Version.
Here Fosdick even wrote a book using only the corruption version. www.amazon.com/Responsive-Readings-American-Standard-Revised/dp/1331720362 . So he was a Westcott-Hort recension dupe.
@@purebible1311 They use the KJV because it's in the public domain in the US, so it's easier to alter it to support one's heresies. They wouldn't be able to do the same as easily with a modern English translation because they could be sued for copyright infringement. This is something I sometimes point out when KJV-Onlyists mention public domain as a reason for supporting the KJV. The public domain is double-edged sword. On the one hand, it makes it accessable to anyone free of charge. On the other hand, it's easier to corrupt it that way.
The word of God says an unbeliever can't understand the word of God, 1st Corinthians 2:14. So how can devout Roman Catholics be on comittees translating the bible?
I am aware of only one relatively minor evangelical Bible translation that had Roman catholics on the committee.
Trusting is just one thing,adding verses and other other scriptures is where I question the new translations and verses.
But, my friend, the new versions did NOT add verses. And even if they did, 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.
How can I trust modern versions such as the NASB and the NIV which omit the name of God (Jesus, Christ, Lord, God, and others), 214 and 176 times respectively as compared to the KJV? How can I trust the same when they disassociate the name of Jesus from his titles 'Christ' and 'Lord' in a number of verses?
Read what you want, just don't push the kjvo religion down other people's throats. There is more than enough info out there on why the kjv is not what kjvo make it out to be.
Shirley, something has you coming back to my channel. Let's try to show some charity toward one another as brother and sister in Christ across the line that now divides us. What do you think I will say in response to your concern here?
@@markwardonwords In the past if someone had tried to highlight for me the important differences between the KJV and my NIV, I may not have fully grasped what it was that they were saying, but I do not think that I would have assumed that they were behaving in an unloving manner towards me for doing so. Having known and read nothing but the modern versions for so many years, I wish that someone had cared about me enough to try to 'clue me in' on these differences and why they matter, even at the risk of their intentions being misunderstood.
Blood Bought Ministries, I actually have to agree with Christopher. Someone could just as well charge me of trying to push anti-KJV-Onlyism down people's throats by having a UA-cam channel. A comment on a video is not an abuse of power.
Shirley, can I try once more? I'm asking you: what do you think my reply is to your initial comment? Charity puts yourself in my shoes, because I am your brother. What do you think my answer will be?
@@markwardonwords Based upon your previous responses to myself and others when similar points have been made, maybe something along the lines that because we cannot read Greek and Hebrew, that that renders us incapable of making distinctions among English words and their meanings in the KJV and modern versions, too...
The KJV provides a full, consistent witness of the Lord Jesus Christ and his works and of salvation by grace through faith in him alone. When the KJV is put alongside a modern version like the NIV or ESV, the KJV itself shows that the modern versions do not do the same.
If a person has had the benefit of being grounded in the KJV first, maybe it is harder for them to see those differences because of a human tendency to read into the text of the modern version good doctrine based on their prior KJV knowledge. An objective reading of the KJV and modern versions on a verse-by-verse basis is very revealing, though. Statistics like those above hopefully wake us up and make us aware of the important differences between the KJV and modern versions to the end of making us rightfully think twice about embracing them.
I appreciate this video. But one thing I would mention is that using the method og source criticism, the bible would never have made it to be the same as the previous original scriptures, due to the fact that we do not have these scriptures. In the end the belief in the bible, whether or not it is the KJV og NIV or any other translations, is just pure belief with no science backing it. I am not saying science has to be in place before something can be true, but there is no way to make sure we have the right understandings of the text from the time of Jesus.
I’m afraid I disagree rather profoundly here. I rest my life on the truth of the Scriptures, and we have excellent reasons to believe that our copies of the Old and New Testaments are highly accurate.
@@markwardonwords there should always be room for disagreement, and Thank you for your reply, it is much appreciated. My view is that without the original scriptures we will have to assume that the earliest evidence we have, even if it dates back to a 100 years after Jesus walked the Earth, and in a language that was never spoken by him or the disciples. I would say that is not sufficent to claim it as clear evidence. But I would like to hear your opinion on this matter aswel.
@@bilal-zr6uy, I appreciate your reply. As one scholar of the textual history of the Bible put it, someone can always claim that in the mists of history something happened to the text and it got changed. Who knows if Moses scribbled an extra two commandments on the two tablets as he was bringing them down from Mount Sinai? Someone can always say that. But we don't have any rival texts, we have extremely similar copies from multiple different places in the ancient world and from multiple different time periods. Scripture claims to be inspired by God (2 Tim 3:16), and the church has always received at least the 66 books of the Protestant canon-sometimes a few more, rarely (I believe) a few less. It is probably that Jesus did speak Greek. See this article I wrote: academic.logos.com/did-jesus-speak-greek/
I hope that helps!
@@markwardonwords Thanks for the reply and something to think about. Wish you the best !
NIV, not inspired version NLT, new light translation. Any translation that drops the name of Jesus or Christ or references to His blood from a verse should be ignored and tossed in the trash.
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.
All those translations contain Calvinist and lordship salvation doctrine weaved into the translation. Csb seems to be the best
I can't agree here, my friend. Got any specifics?
Dont put trust in the Alexandrian text, do your research then re do this video and becareful what you are supporting!
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 oh darn, i did not know this thank you!
Basic doctrines must be stated in a way that they cannot be doubted.
Doctrine of Mary not being Immaculate.
Why leave firstborn out of Matthew chapter1?
Doctrine of virgin birth.
Why change Joseph who is not called the child's father by the narrative in Luke 2:33?
Doctrine of calling upon the name of the Lord to be saved.
Thief on cross callingvJesus "Lord" only in Kjv in Luke 23:42
Doctrine that Jesus was sinless.
Matthew 5: 21,22 with Mark 3:5
Doctrine that salvation is free and not hard to recieve.
Luke 18:24 difficult??
There are 5000 of these false statements in the modern version.
Stop leading people astray from the true word.
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.
If your belief in those doctrines is solely dependent upon your interpretation of these verses _as they're phrased in one English Bible,_ then you might as well question those doctrines. Otherwise, realize that you're grossly exaggerating by claiming that these doctrinal positions are impossible to defend with the modern versions.
I trust God not man. I will use KJV period.
Where does God tell you to use only the KJV, my friend?
Men made the KJV: a committee of 47 scholars. They were revising the Bishops' Bible, which was also made by men: 10 bishops. That version was a revision of the Great Bible, which was a revision by the man Myles Coverdale of the Matthew Bible, which was a revision by the man John Rogers of the first Coverdale Bible, which was Coverdale's completion and partial revision of the man William Tyndale's incomplete original English Bible translation.
Wrong, the ESV is an embarrassment compared to the KJV. The ESV along with the New Bible Versions have committed a grave sin. They teach two Gods in the Bible instead of one. To overlook this is to be very foolish! John 1:18 is about the "Begotten Son." The ESV says "Begotten God." That means that one God is revealing the other. Wrong.
My friend, the New King James Version and the Modern English Version both use the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts as the King James. And they translate those texts into fully intelligible contemporary English, which means they meet the principle of 1 Corinthians 14, edification requires intelligibility. I recommend the NKJV and MEV to you.
@@markwardonwords
I was not looking for your recommendations. Instead I wanted you to comment on why John 1:18 has been corrupted to mean two Gods.
Can you explain why your favorite version teaches two Gods?
@@approvedofGod It appears to be a trinitarian corruption of scripture.
Unfortunately all bible translation have flaws - the modern translations likely omit readings that were original (for example Jesus called sinners TO REPENTANCE or Luke 4:4 ...but by every word that comes out of the mouth of God etc.) but the textus receptus bibles have a handful of trinitarian corruptions aswell.
Without God's spirit we would be lost
If you're trusting the Bible more than the leading of the Spirit, you might as well follow the Koran. Repent, grow up, seek the Lord with a FULL heart.
The Spirit leads through his word, my friend!
@@markwardonwords Rightly dividing the Word of Truth leads to rightly dividing circumstances as led by the Spirit. If you're more into religion than actual relationship with the Lord, your comment makes perfect sense. Be a doer of the Word & not a hearer only. Those who hold slavishly to Scripture without ceaseless prayer are left to their own understanding...apart from the Path of Righteousness and solidly in the wide path that leads to destruction. Asking the Spirit to visit you... friend.
Mark Ward, one reason why you shouldn't use modern translations of the Bible.
They are erroneous, as anyone who knows the gospels will know.
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
@Mark Ward I have the KJV, NKJV. and more modern translations of the Bible.
I also have the Hebrew and Greek Bible dictionaries.
I have found that the NKJV is the most accurate.
I also know that modern translations are erroneous.
So I would take any advice from a man who likes modern translations.
Bible translations don't bring you closer to God. You became close to God the moment you believed. That's why we have eternal fellowship with God. We are one with him in Spirit. 1st Corinthians 6:17. We are partakers of the devine nature. 2sd Peter 1:4. As you can see from these few verses of many we are not close by the word, but the fact we are in Christ being believers. The word points us to Christ but the closeness is when we are in Christ. John 5:39-40. So people if you believe in Jesus the above scriptures tell you you are close to Jesus. Not by how much you read the word of God, are attend a building for fellowship, are a prayer meeting, these things are great for encouraging eachother, wherever you meet, Hebrews 10:25 .but we are close because we have believed in Jesus. God is in you. 1st John 4:4. Isn't that close.Be encouraged.
Ya people this is why you should trust the new better modern versions. 😂why- because our modern versions only match 1 percent of the Greek manuscripts we have today and that crazy KING JAMES BIBLE only matches 99 percent of the Greek manuscripts we have today. So what one do you think you should read? Hello the KJB. Mark stop peddling false information. Go out and preach the gospel and put your education towards something good.
My friend, none of this is true. But even if it were, 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.