I'm starting to think that a basic, "How we got our Bible", class should be standard in every church. I was going to say, "for new Christians." But it should be a standard class available on a regular basis for anyone interested. For all the wonders of the internet, the amount of information, both accurate and inaccurate, becomes overwhelming. This is an issue that people in past generations did not face. We need to tackle the issue directly and preemptively. We must not wait until someone has a crisis of confidence in God's Word because they are suddenly hearing things that are unfamiliar to them, oftentimes from people who intentionally use it for that very purpose.
I have the official IFB response arriving by telegram as we speak. It's almost here... Give it a second... Ah, here we are... It reads... "Broadus is the street that leadeth to destruction."
I love the printing typo analogy to help people who feel that change is sacrilegious. I had some of those scruples myself when faced with passages such as 1 John 5:7, so it’s powerful to flip the change to the copyist and the “modern” versions working to return us to the original.
The RELIGIOUS HERALD!!! Founded in 1823! Mark, as a proud Virginia Baptist, I read the Herald from 1982, my first year in seminary till it folded and joined with ABP, Associated Baptist Press, a bit over a decade ago. I pastored the home church of its long-time editor, Dr. Julian Pentecost, and wrote Sunday School commentary for it in the early '90s. It was a shining light for going on 200 years. Us old timers still miss it.
I think that if God had intended for us to have a Bible with no textual variants, he would have miraculously preserved the autographs that came directly from the pens of the ones who wrote the texts. He did not. And I think He didn't do so because if He did, we would be tempted to hold the text in a way that would come close to worship of the actual text rather than worshipping the one the text pointed to. As it is, scholars can use textual criticism, comparing all the texts we have, both the Alexandrian and the ones Erasmus compiled, to be reasonably confident of what the autographs said while not doing obeisance to a book.
Yours seems like one of the most insightful reasons why we actually don't have a 100% pure text/manuscript that we can identify with absolute certainty today.
Yes, it's phenomenal. I honestly, truly don't know why Jeff Riddle and IFB KJV-Onlyists can't at least acknowledge that this is a (the?) long-held viewpoint of conservative, orthodox Christians.
Trigress (verb): To wander or deviate from the main topic not once but twice, forming three lines of thought. From English “Digress” by way of Latin “Digressus” (“Di”, meaning two, and “gradi”, meaning to go). First coined by Mark Ward November 26, 2024 When this entry makes its way into the OED, I Will proudly say I was there when it was first spoken!
I can't stand (even use the word hate) when someone says, 'The KJV haters'... nothing is farther from the truth, I love the KJV, but I also love other translations, and when I find a "weakness" (for the lack of another word) or a translation problem in the KJV, it is a fallacy to say I hate the KJV when I point it out!
One of the clearest evidences that Confessional Bibliology is very, very similar to IFB KJV-Onlyists is that proponents of both viewpoints almost always (95% of the time?) take my mention of KJV archaisms as attacks on the KJV.
@markwardonwords I've had some interesting comments before about the word "Easter" in Acts. I love when someone tries to convince me Easter is accurate and the best word to use.
The only conclusion one can come to regarding inconsistencies amongst different texts and translations is that if God wanted all of us to have the same unchanging, incorruptible Word, He would have made it so. Seeing as He has not done this, we can only faithfully conclude that He has a specific reason for allowing some of us to receive a different Word from others, and we must wholeheartedly trust in His work.
That isn’t the only conclusion one could come to. We could also conclude that textual corruption has occurred. If so, what texts have been corrupted? And if the texts were corrupted, then how much more can the translations be corrupted?
Right. Those are the options. On the side of @crimson90 is the simple fact that everywhere you look around the world you will see micro-level textual and translational variation. So which text or translation is the perfect one? Wouldn't God have to tell us?
Im getting weary of the kjv only argument, im a 56 yr old layman preacher in the church, this argument has only brought division among many brethren here in my part of Texas, ive been kicked out of a few meetings because of it. Its becoming a stumbling block for evangelism around here. I study a few different versions to get a better understanding of the Word and aint making any excuses for them. Our saints are sitting around why sin aboinds and we are fighting each other concerning thee's and thou's. Shame on us all.
I have not run into it in real life. I didn't realize the extent of the issue until I discovered this channel, just a few months ago. It's awful to see!
Let's just say, I was told for over a decade that the KJV was translated by a bunch of Guys that ALWAYS agreed on translation decisions. That's only one aspect of the lies I was raised on to how we got the Bible.
Great discussion Mark. I would add there are scholars who even land in different places regarding the text. I was quite surprised to learn that a former seminary professor of mine, who is a well-known Hebrew and Semitic language scholar is a Majority Text guy rather than a Critical Text guy. His credentials are impeccable, yet there are other equally notable scholars who hold a different position. I believe Dan Wallace's statement, that "we have all of the word of God in the Greek New Testament, whether it is in the text proper of the Greek New Testament, or in the critical apparatus at the bottom of the page" (paraphrase), to be true. The point has been made multiple times that KJVO defenders, who have no knowledge of the original languages or textual criticism, when they have attempted it, get destroyed by apostate deniers of the inerrancy, plenary inspiration, and infallibility of scripture like Bart Ehrman in formal debate. He is able to dismantle their arguments quite readily. Not so much with men like Dan Wallace and other similarly trained scholars. As an aside, I am still baffled that Bart was one of the last graduate students to train directly under Bruce Metzger and has apostasized from the faith, given the rich instruction he received at the hand of one of the top Biblical text scholars in the last century. The KJVO crowd also do not realize that by taking the position they do, they are robbing themselves of a figurative, but at least small, mountain of textual evidence in support of our Greek New Testament. There is not ONE piece of literature from antiquity that has the volume of witnesses that the New Testament does, nor the early dates of witnesses in relation to the date of the autographs. The evidence from the libraries found in Egypt at Oxyrhynchus, proving that multiple autographs were produced (not a biblical library but of secular literature) regularly and kept in circulation for some 200-300 years before they were taken out of circulation or destroyed, means that some of the biblical papyrus we possess today, could have been copied directly from an autograph and some have even toyed with idea that it may be possible, though not probable, that an autograph could still be unearthed in the future. KJVO defenders rob themselves of this wealth of evidence. I wish they could see this and perhaps the Lord will open their eyes.
I thought I recognised this as you read it, especially the hyper-evangelical Tischendorf, but I could not place it. With the big reveal, I realised that I had read this on the ETC Blog. Thank you for making it known more widely.
Yes, that was a very nice find by Elijah, but I didn't want to just read the text straight; it would be too obvious how old it was. Even so, it could have done for some more contemporizing…
Study and careful research has to be done to present an argument. Thank you for the time that you have invested in this issue. Laymen are dealing with this issue at a different level. For those of us who are not KJV onlyists. We are subject to verbal abuse from KJVO and false accusations etc... Fear and intimidation tactics are used by KJVO. Family members and church members fear excommunication if they don't agree that the KJV is the only version. A KJVO pastor visited a local nursing home and told the residents that if they didn't read from the KJV, that they were not reading the word of God. It seems like men who are prone to domestic violence and verbal abuse are also attracted to the KJVO movement. I would also like to say that this does not apply to all KJVO churches. I believe that the KJV is the word of God. But I also use the ESV and the NIV, which is also the word of God.
Your little map showed the Poinsette Club - I've had dinner there while visiting Greenville Seminary (the Presbyterian one!). Oh, and great quotation! ;-)
Great video. I go to a KJV church. We have a KJV college. I grew up in KJV Southern Baptist Churches. I share a verse from the KJV on my timeline daily. However, I am not a KJV onlyist and never will be. The Lord has blessed us with over 5000 Greek manuscripts of His preserved Word. I cant say I lean toward any particular Greek manuscript whether its the Critical Text, the Byzantine Priority Text or the Textus Receptus. I do love translations from each of these Greek Texts. I kove the NLT (Critical Text) NKJV (TR) and the World English Bible (Byzantine Priority). I think radical KJV onlyism and the accusations, assumptions, mythology and misinformation they peddle are totally absurd. If one loves the KJV and that is the only translation they read, that is fine. My late father was a KJV preferist and he only read from the KJV, but he did not hate other good translations like the NKJV or even when I read to him from the NLT or the 1599 Geneva Bible. The KJV is a good translation but not the only pure and preserved Word of God in English.
Interesting as always. I am not KJVO. Recently I have been seen a few videos by people who claim that certain TR readings are supported by Church Fathers who wrote prior to the composition of Sinaticus and Vaticanus. I've checked out a few of these claims and those I've checked out seem legit. Do you have an opinion of extra textual resources like early church writings being used in textual criticism? Have you done a video on this subject you can direct me to? If not, I think it would make an interesting video, I appreciate you might feel that many others have addressed the issue, why duplicate...but I'd be interested in your opinion.
At the risk of being nitpicky and pedantic, I'd avoid saying that any readings are "TR readings" or "CT readings," as those are both later critical reconstructions of the text based on manuscript evidence. But yes, there are early church fathers who cite (or at least allude to) readings that appear in the TR but not the CT. So the question is this: Are the shorter readings the result of scribal omission, or did the church fathers simply have access to texts that had already been expanded in places? (Or, perhaps, did the church fathers cite well-known traditions, and were those traditions later incorporated into the texts?) It's impossible to know with absolute certainty unless you're able to peer back in time and see what the early scribes were up to at the time. Consider, for instance, Acts 8.37, which is cited by Irenaeus in Against Heresies (c. AD 180) but is missing from Papyrus 45 (c. AD 250). For all we know, Luke originally wrote Acts 8 without verse 37, but then added the verse in a second draft after the first one was distributed. Or maybe he first had it in there, but then asked for it to be cut out for one reason or another in the next round of copies. Or maybe Luke never even heard of it, and it arrived in the text a generation or two later. What we can say is that the verse did not end up in the majority of Greek manuscripts, nor is it firmly attested by the ancient Syriac and Coptic translations. So the Eastern churches apparently did not preserve it. On the other hand, it has strong support in the Latin manuscript tradition, so it has some claim to being canonical in Western Christendom. Perhaps the LSB's approach is the most sensible: placing the verse in the text but enclosing it in brackets to mark that its status is disputed.
@@MAMoreno thanks for your comment. Don't worry I have things I nitpick over too. I'm not sure how else I could have framed my point, but you obviously get my point, and I appreciate your observations. As you say 'It's impossible to know with absolute certainty' with this wisdom in mind, what convinced the revisionists to adopt the position that that they did with such apparent certainty?
@@chippe999 Textual critics today tend to assume that longer readings are later additions unless there is sufficient reason to think that the text was deliberately or accidentally altered early in Christian history. Let's look back at Acts 8.37 in Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. After stating that the text "is a Western addition" (meaning that it's mostly found in Latin manuscripts and the Greek copies that agree with them) and listing off the various texts that include ("with many minor variations") or omit the verse, Metzger goes on to make the following arguments on pages 359-360: *There is no reason why scribes should have omitted the material, if it had originally stood in the text. It should be noted too that τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστόν is not a Lukan expression.* *The formula **_πιστεύω...Χριστόν_** was doubtless used by the early church in baptismal ceremonies, and may have been written in the margin of a copy of Acts. Its insertion into the text seems to have been due to the feeling that Philip could not have baptized the Ethiopian without securing a confession of faith, which needed to be expressed in the narrative.* But then he goes on to offer a counterpoint, stating the evidence against his conclusion, including the opinion of Erasmus on the matter: *Although the earliest known New Testament manuscript which contains the words dates from the sixth century (ms. E), the tradition of the Ethiopian’s confession of faith in Christ was current as early as the latter part of the second century, for Irenaeus quotes part of it (Against Heresies, 111.xii.8).* *Although the passage does not appear in the late medieval manuscript on which Erasmus chiefly depended for his edition (ms. 2), it stands in the margin of another (ms. 4), from which he inserted it into his text because he ‘‘judged that it had been omitted by the carelessness of scribes (arbitror omissum librarvorum incuria).”* So perhaps he did feel rather confident that he had made the right conclusion, but Metzger presents the evidence on both sides rather than simply offering the support for his own side. And the translation that he headed, the NRSV, tried to remain objective even about the passages that it deemed unoriginal. Here's the marginal note for Acts 8.37, which affirms that the evidence in its favor is old: *Other ancient authorities add all or most of verse 37, And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he replied, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”*
@@MAMorenoyes, I agree regarding assumptions, and Metzger was balanced and a man whose opinion I respect. In regards to your example of Acts 8:37, what always gets me on that one is κωλύω in v36...if Philip doesn't reply, are we to see the question as rhetorical? I guess that's not impossible but the Eunuch orders the chariot to stop without the question being answered...are we to just assume Philip's compliance means there is no hindrance?
@@chippe999 Yes, I would take it as rhetorical, and here's why: Luke uses a similar rhetorical question later in the same book. I'll use the Geneva Bible since I have it brought up right now: *For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the holy Ghost, as well as we? So he commanded them to be baptized in the Name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.* (Acts 10.46-48)
To sense a need that we need a perfect translation exposes the error of a false focus. While, yes, we need a manuscript base and a translation that is as accurate as possible, neither a perfectly accurate Bible nor a almost perfectly accurate Bible, or even a notably less than ideal version, differ in what they can accomplish, according to what God has purpose to accomplish. This is understood if it is perceived that what we are to be pursuing is not the Bible, not holy scripture, but a transformative, transfiguring knowing of God, and he knowing us, which cannot be accomplished unless we go, not to, but through, holy scripture. I could narrow it down to what I consider a book title if I ever write it: Theology, anthropology, and the kingdom of God; or, theology and anthropology in the kingdom of God. Or, the Theanthropy and the kingdom of God. John Behr provided a corrective to the ancient statement, "God became man so that man may become God." He said: "God became human so that man could become human as God is human." The use of holy scripture is forco-inhering, co-participating, co-operating, co-serving, and co-glorifying with God. To count all things as dung that we may know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his suffering. Approaching the Bible short of this ultimate daily goal will certainly, and has certainly, cause people to become concerned about something which is not of greatest concern: to have The impossible, a perfect Bible. The concern should be to have one as accurate as possible, of course. But having a perfect Bible so we can study a textbook and call our brethren heretics has never never never been the reason for the Bible.
@markwardonwords In your opinion, what primarily causes people to embrace KJV-Onlyism? Bad theology, ignorance of the original languages, cultural superiority, or something else?
I’ve decided to leave the answer to that question in God’s capable hands. I don’t know people’s motivations. I hardly understand my own from my KJVO days.
Thank you for sharing! Sometimes, it seems like the only perspective we get from prior centuries is the one that agrees with us. James white looks like less of a heretic every day😂
He is either pretending to be Steven Anderson or is Steven Anderson. Either way (and I think it's the former), he is not capable of being a constructive presence in my comments.
The "you believe ..." and "your God ..." statements are such a terrible way to discuss things. The former is as likely to cause defensiveness as it is to misrepresent your opponent. "You believe we don't even have the Bible today." "You believe Satan succeeded in corrupting the Bible, and we're blind to know the truth." The latter statement, while likely causing even more defensiveness, also puts you at risk of blaspheming if your position is wrong. "Your God wasn't strong enough to keep His word perfectly pure." "You are calling God a liar." I would fear making such a proclamation if I might be the one who is mistaken. I think your mystery-man's comments about printing errors may be an effective tool in reaching some people. "Sure, if I found out my copy of the Bible had a printing error, I'd be willing to fix it. And I know that my interpretations can be in error at times. And especially due to the modern translations, I know translators can be in error. And due to Westcott and Hort and everyone since then, I know text critics can be in error. And human experience tells me hand copyists can be in error. So anywhere an error can be proven, I should be willing to have it corrected." Of course, then you come to the crux of the issue. If I must have perfect words, do I believe that there is some unbroken line of perfect copyists and translators? Well, history shows that cannot be the case, due to the very existence of textual criticism. Thus, I must turn to a divine act at a particular point to restore God's perfect words. As best I can tell, logic necessitates either Textual Confidence or Special Inspiration.
@markwardonwords Funny, I had just looked up "KJVO origin", and read the Wickipedia article. It seems the roots of this bush go back to the 1800's. And Jack Hyles put compost on it, and got it producing a lot of fruit. I do not see KJVO folk citing, honouring, or quoting him, however.
Both Tregelles and Tischendorf went to the Vatican. Tischendorf met with the Pope. Why would he meet with the Pope if he was orthodox? After meeting the Pope, Tischendorf would head to Saint Catherine's Monastery and find Sinaiticus. There is no proof that it is as old as it is said to be, nor is there proof that it is reliable. And while Tischendorf made some editions of the Greek New Testament, the fact is that Westcott and Hort were occultists. You cannot tell me THAT is orthodox. Those occultists HATED the Textus Receptus for it is the true Words of God. You also speak of "minor variants" but I don't believe Acts 8:37, 1 John 5:7, Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11, etc. are minor variants. Even 1 Timothy 3:16, "God" vs "he"/"who" is not a minor variant in my eyes. The textual criticism of Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, the KJV translators, etc. is different from that of modern textual criticism. Even John Burgon was KJV only. He said "Whatever may be urged in favour of Biblical Revision, it is at least undeniable that the undertaking involves a tremendous risk. Our Authorized Version is the one religious link which at present binds together ninety millions of English-speaking men scattered over the earth's surface. Is it reasonable that so unutterably precious, so sacred a bond should be endangered, for the sake of representing certain words more accurately,-here and there translating a tense with greater precision,-getting rid of a few archaisms? It may be confidently assumed that no “Revision” of our Authorized Version, however judiciously executed, will ever occupy the place in public esteem which is actually enjoyed by the work of the Translators of 1611,-the noblest literary work in the Anglo-Saxon language. We shall in fact never have another “Authorized Version.”" (The Revision Revised, pp.112-113)
@@StevenLAnderson1611 Yes, but how old was Timothy when he received that letter? It had to be at least a decade after he first joined Paul. At the youngest, he would have been in his late 20s, and he was more likely in his 30s. If Kenyon attends PCC and obtains a doctorate in Ministry (the highest theological degree offered by the college), at graduation he will be the minimum age that Timothy could have been at the time that 1 Timothy was written.
In one chapter I can show good reason for the faithfulness to doctrine of the TR over the CT. Luke 2:22 and 2:33 compare your ESV, NASB and your NIV to the Geneva or the KJV. After that ask yourself which text is inspired?
Luke 2:41 KJV - Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. Luke 2:48b KJV - behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. Lo and behold, even Mary who knew she was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus called Joseph His father. All of those versions you listed definitively proclaim the virgin birth in Luke 1, and do not deny it in Luke 2.
Early editions of the TR read αὐτῶν rather than αὐτῆς in Luke 2.22, and the first wave of Protestant English translations (Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew, Great Bible) thus say "their purification" instead of "her purification." That's a TR vs. TR debate, not TR vs. CT. In this case, Beza's TR disagrees with the Greek majority reading, αὐτῶν. Luke 2.33 is a similar case. The original Erasmus TR says ὁ πατὴρ rather than Ἰωσὴφ, and the early English translations accordingly say "his father" instead of "Joseph." (Compare Martin Luther's translation from the same time, which uses Vater.) In this case, the Greek majority reading is Ἰωσὴφ, in agreement with later TRs editions, while the Vulgate supports the Erasmus reading (pater). But this is still a TR vs. TR issue, and the CT need not be brought into the discussion at all.
Mark Ward promotes the ESV, NASB and the NIV which are incorrect. The Geneva and KJV are correct that is the point, who uses the Tyndale and those other Bibles you mentioned today? Ward thinks CT Bibles are more accurate and he is wrong, that is the point.
At this point, are you really serving the Lord or yourself? I've never seen anyone that hated the Bible that carried us 400 years more than you. I've also seen your claims that "we need another updated translation".. that makes no sense. We have like 100. I'm starting to think you're using controversy and sowing strife to grow your channel. You're not going to change anyone's mind on the Bible you hate so much. You know, I actually was one of your first 2,000 subs when I First became a Christian. I started with a 2011 NIV. I'm not gonna get into the entire story of my journey right now but you kinda in a sense led me to the King James! I didn't know anything about manuscript differences (TR vs CT). I made my Judgement based on the evidence and my conviction led me to KJB. Sorry but I also don't beleive we need to keep digging to "find God's word". We either have it or we don't. I believe God preserved his word perfectly! Anyways, God gave you talents. Go use them to serve his will and not your own. God Bless! 👉📖🕯☝️✝️👑🙏🙌❤️🔥⛪️
I'm starting to think that a basic, "How we got our Bible", class should be standard in every church. I was going to say, "for new Christians." But it should be a standard class available on a regular basis for anyone interested. For all the wonders of the internet, the amount of information, both accurate and inaccurate, becomes overwhelming. This is an issue that people in past generations did not face. We need to tackle the issue directly and preemptively. We must not wait until someone has a crisis of confidence in God's Word because they are suddenly hearing things that are unfamiliar to them, oftentimes from people who intentionally use it for that very purpose.
This is a good idea for my own future plans…
@@markwardonwords Wonderful!
Yes please!!!!
Some Cults will only read from a KJV like the Branch Davidian Cult
That’s a great idea. As the Pastor of a small Baptist Church I think I will plan one after we finish the book of Acts on Sunday evening’s
I have the official IFB response arriving by telegram as we speak.
It's almost here...
Give it a second...
Ah, here we are...
It reads...
"Broadus is the street that leadeth to destruction."
Sad, but true I fear.
I love the printing typo analogy to help people who feel that change is sacrilegious. I had some of those scruples myself when faced with passages such as 1 John 5:7, so it’s powerful to flip the change to the copyist and the “modern” versions working to return us to the original.
The RELIGIOUS HERALD!!!
Founded in 1823! Mark, as a proud Virginia Baptist, I read the Herald from 1982, my first year in seminary till it folded and joined with ABP, Associated Baptist Press, a bit over a decade ago.
I pastored the home church of its long-time editor, Dr. Julian Pentecost, and wrote Sunday School commentary for it in the early '90s.
It was a shining light for going on 200 years. Us old timers still miss it.
Cool! I had no idea!
I think that if God had intended for us to have a Bible with no textual variants, he would have miraculously preserved the autographs that came directly from the pens of the ones who wrote the texts. He did not. And I think He didn't do so because if He did, we would be tempted to hold the text in a way that would come close to worship of the actual text rather than worshipping the one the text pointed to. As it is, scholars can use textual criticism, comparing all the texts we have, both the Alexandrian and the ones Erasmus compiled, to be reasonably confident of what the autographs said while not doing obeisance to a book.
Yours seems like one of the most insightful reasons why we actually don't have a 100% pure text/manuscript that we can identify with absolute certainty today.
This has been my theory as well! (Only you said it better than I ever could.)
Thank you once again for your honest and solid stance on the Greek text of our precious New Testament. It is indeed a needed and helpful perspective.
I have this quote pasted in the back of my Bible when Elijah released it
Yes, it's phenomenal. I honestly, truly don't know why Jeff Riddle and IFB KJV-Onlyists can't at least acknowledge that this is a (the?) long-held viewpoint of conservative, orthodox Christians.
Trigress (verb): To wander or deviate from the main topic not once but twice, forming three lines of thought.
From English “Digress” by way of Latin “Digressus” (“Di”, meaning two, and “gradi”, meaning to go). First coined by Mark Ward November 26, 2024
When this entry makes its way into the OED, I Will proudly say I was there when it was first spoken!
Thanks Mark. Very interesting and informative as always.
My pleasure!
I can't stand (even use the word hate) when someone says, 'The KJV haters'... nothing is farther from the truth, I love the KJV, but I also love other translations, and when I find a "weakness" (for the lack of another word) or a translation problem in the KJV, it is a fallacy to say I hate the KJV when I point it out!
One of the clearest evidences that Confessional Bibliology is very, very similar to IFB KJV-Onlyists is that proponents of both viewpoints almost always (95% of the time?) take my mention of KJV archaisms as attacks on the KJV.
@markwardonwords I've had some interesting comments before about the word "Easter" in Acts. I love when someone tries to convince me Easter is accurate and the best word to use.
The only conclusion one can come to regarding inconsistencies amongst different texts and translations is that if God wanted all of us to have the same unchanging, incorruptible Word, He would have made it so. Seeing as He has not done this, we can only faithfully conclude that He has a specific reason for allowing some of us to receive a different Word from others, and we must wholeheartedly trust in His work.
That isn’t the only conclusion one could come to. We could also conclude that textual corruption has occurred. If so, what texts have been corrupted? And if the texts were corrupted, then how much more can the translations be corrupted?
Right. Those are the options. On the side of @crimson90 is the simple fact that everywhere you look around the world you will see micro-level textual and translational variation. So which text or translation is the perfect one? Wouldn't God have to tell us?
@markwardonwords and, the 1611 translators had some text variation, hence their very common use of footnotes?
Im getting weary of the kjv only argument, im a 56 yr old layman preacher in the church, this argument has only brought division among many brethren here in my part of Texas, ive been kicked out of a few meetings because of it. Its becoming a stumbling block for evangelism around here. I study a few different versions to get a better understanding of the Word and aint making any excuses for them. Our saints are sitting around why sin aboinds and we are fighting each other concerning thee's and thou's. Shame on us all.
It's not just our generation. Satan has tried to divide Christians in this way for many centuries. Galatians 6:9
I have not run into it in real life. I didn't realize the extent of the issue until I discovered this channel, just a few months ago. It's awful to see!
Let's just say, I was told for over a decade that the KJV was translated by a bunch of Guys that ALWAYS agreed on translation decisions. That's only one aspect of the lies I was raised on to how we got the Bible.
Great discussion Mark. I would add there are scholars who even land in different places regarding the text. I was quite surprised to learn that a former seminary professor of mine, who is a well-known Hebrew and Semitic language scholar is a Majority Text guy rather than a Critical Text guy. His credentials are impeccable, yet there are other equally notable scholars who hold a different position. I believe Dan Wallace's statement, that "we have all of the word of God in the Greek New Testament, whether it is in the text proper of the Greek New Testament, or in the critical apparatus at the bottom of the page" (paraphrase), to be true.
The point has been made multiple times that KJVO defenders, who have no knowledge of the original languages or textual criticism, when they have attempted it, get destroyed by apostate deniers of the inerrancy, plenary inspiration, and infallibility of scripture like Bart Ehrman in formal debate. He is able to dismantle their arguments quite readily. Not so much with men like Dan Wallace and other similarly trained scholars.
As an aside, I am still baffled that Bart was one of the last graduate students to train directly under Bruce Metzger and has apostasized from the faith, given the rich instruction he received at the hand of one of the top Biblical text scholars in the last century.
The KJVO crowd also do not realize that by taking the position they do, they are robbing themselves of a figurative, but at least small, mountain of textual evidence in support of our Greek New Testament. There is not ONE piece of literature from antiquity that has the volume of witnesses that the New Testament does, nor the early dates of witnesses in relation to the date of the autographs. The evidence from the libraries found in Egypt at Oxyrhynchus, proving that multiple autographs were produced (not a biblical library but of secular literature) regularly and kept in circulation for some 200-300 years before they were taken out of circulation or destroyed, means that some of the biblical papyrus we possess today, could have been copied directly from an autograph and some have even toyed with idea that it may be possible, though not probable, that an autograph could still be unearthed in the future. KJVO defenders rob themselves of this wealth of evidence. I wish they could see this and perhaps the Lord will open their eyes.
I thought I recognised this as you read it, especially the hyper-evangelical Tischendorf, but I could not place it. With the big reveal, I realised that I had read this on the ETC Blog. Thank you for making it known more widely.
Yes, that was a very nice find by Elijah, but I didn't want to just read the text straight; it would be too obvious how old it was. Even so, it could have done for some more contemporizing…
Thank you Mark for this video - I especially appreciated learning the correct pronunciation of Bart Erhman - thank you!
My pleasure!
What's the publisher and version of the Bible you're holding in the video? Thank you.
It’s a Thomas Nelson kjv single column
Study and careful research has to be done to present an argument. Thank you for the time that you have invested in this issue. Laymen are dealing with this issue at a different level. For those of us who are not KJV onlyists. We are subject to verbal abuse from KJVO and false accusations etc... Fear and intimidation tactics are used by KJVO. Family members and church members fear excommunication if they don't agree that the KJV is the only version. A KJVO pastor visited a local nursing home and told the residents that if they didn't read from the KJV, that they were not reading the word of God. It seems like men who are prone to domestic violence and verbal abuse are also attracted to the KJVO movement. I would also like to say that this does not apply to all KJVO churches. I believe that the KJV is the word of God. But I also use the ESV and the NIV, which is also the word of God.
Your little map showed the Poinsette Club - I've had dinner there while visiting Greenville Seminary (the Presbyterian one!). Oh, and great quotation! ;-)
Yes, I've had dinner there, too! Just once-when I got a PhD, BJU paid for a nice dinner there for me and my wife! Very nice!
You got a lot of days before December 31st. I’m enjoying it.
A fair bit more to come!
@ Awesome to hear.
Great video. I go to a KJV church. We have a KJV college. I grew up in KJV Southern Baptist Churches. I share a verse from the KJV on my timeline daily. However, I am not a KJV onlyist and never will be. The Lord has blessed us with over 5000 Greek manuscripts of His preserved Word. I cant say I lean toward any particular Greek manuscript whether its the Critical Text, the Byzantine Priority Text or the Textus Receptus. I do love translations from each of these Greek Texts. I kove the NLT (Critical Text) NKJV (TR) and the World English Bible (Byzantine Priority). I think radical KJV onlyism and the accusations, assumptions, mythology and misinformation they peddle are totally absurd. If one loves the KJV and that is the only translation they read, that is fine. My late father was a KJV preferist and he only read from the KJV, but he did not hate other good translations like the NKJV or even when I read to him from the NLT or the 1599 Geneva Bible. The KJV is a good translation but not the only pure and preserved Word of God in English.
Interesting as always. I am not KJVO. Recently I have been seen a few videos by people who claim that certain TR readings are supported by Church Fathers who wrote prior to the composition of Sinaticus and Vaticanus. I've checked out a few of these claims and those I've checked out seem legit. Do you have an opinion of extra textual resources like early church writings being used in textual criticism? Have you done a video on this subject you can direct me to? If not, I think it would make an interesting video, I appreciate you might feel that many others have addressed the issue, why duplicate...but I'd be interested in your opinion.
At the risk of being nitpicky and pedantic, I'd avoid saying that any readings are "TR readings" or "CT readings," as those are both later critical reconstructions of the text based on manuscript evidence. But yes, there are early church fathers who cite (or at least allude to) readings that appear in the TR but not the CT.
So the question is this: Are the shorter readings the result of scribal omission, or did the church fathers simply have access to texts that had already been expanded in places? (Or, perhaps, did the church fathers cite well-known traditions, and were those traditions later incorporated into the texts?) It's impossible to know with absolute certainty unless you're able to peer back in time and see what the early scribes were up to at the time.
Consider, for instance, Acts 8.37, which is cited by Irenaeus in Against Heresies (c. AD 180) but is missing from Papyrus 45 (c. AD 250). For all we know, Luke originally wrote Acts 8 without verse 37, but then added the verse in a second draft after the first one was distributed. Or maybe he first had it in there, but then asked for it to be cut out for one reason or another in the next round of copies. Or maybe Luke never even heard of it, and it arrived in the text a generation or two later.
What we can say is that the verse did not end up in the majority of Greek manuscripts, nor is it firmly attested by the ancient Syriac and Coptic translations. So the Eastern churches apparently did not preserve it. On the other hand, it has strong support in the Latin manuscript tradition, so it has some claim to being canonical in Western Christendom. Perhaps the LSB's approach is the most sensible: placing the verse in the text but enclosing it in brackets to mark that its status is disputed.
@@MAMoreno thanks for your comment. Don't worry I have things I nitpick over too. I'm not sure how else I could have framed my point, but you obviously get my point, and I appreciate your observations. As you say 'It's impossible to know with absolute certainty' with this wisdom in mind, what convinced the revisionists to adopt the position that that they did with such apparent certainty?
@@chippe999 Textual critics today tend to assume that longer readings are later additions unless there is sufficient reason to think that the text was deliberately or accidentally altered early in Christian history. Let's look back at Acts 8.37 in Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament.
After stating that the text "is a Western addition" (meaning that it's mostly found in Latin manuscripts and the Greek copies that agree with them) and listing off the various texts that include ("with many minor variations") or omit the verse, Metzger goes on to make the following arguments on pages 359-360:
*There is no reason why scribes should have omitted the material, if it had originally stood in the text. It should be noted too that τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστόν is not a Lukan expression.*
*The formula **_πιστεύω...Χριστόν_** was doubtless used by the early church in baptismal ceremonies, and may have been written in the margin of a copy of Acts. Its insertion into the text seems to have been due to the feeling that Philip could not have baptized the Ethiopian without securing a confession of faith, which needed to be expressed in the narrative.*
But then he goes on to offer a counterpoint, stating the evidence against his conclusion, including the opinion of Erasmus on the matter:
*Although the earliest known New Testament manuscript which contains the words dates from the sixth century (ms. E), the tradition of the Ethiopian’s confession of faith in Christ was current as early as the latter part of the second century, for Irenaeus quotes part of it (Against Heresies, 111.xii.8).*
*Although the passage does not appear in the late medieval manuscript on which Erasmus chiefly depended for his edition (ms. 2), it stands in the margin of another (ms. 4), from which he inserted it into his text because he ‘‘judged that it had been omitted by the carelessness of scribes (arbitror omissum librarvorum incuria).”*
So perhaps he did feel rather confident that he had made the right conclusion, but Metzger presents the evidence on both sides rather than simply offering the support for his own side. And the translation that he headed, the NRSV, tried to remain objective even about the passages that it deemed unoriginal. Here's the marginal note for Acts 8.37, which affirms that the evidence in its favor is old:
*Other ancient authorities add all or most of verse 37, And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he replied, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”*
@@MAMorenoyes, I agree regarding assumptions, and Metzger was balanced and a man whose opinion I respect. In regards to your example of Acts 8:37, what always gets me on that one is κωλύω in v36...if Philip doesn't reply, are we to see the question as rhetorical? I guess that's not impossible but the Eunuch orders the chariot to stop without the question being answered...are we to just assume Philip's compliance means there is no hindrance?
@@chippe999 Yes, I would take it as rhetorical, and here's why: Luke uses a similar rhetorical question later in the same book. I'll use the Geneva Bible since I have it brought up right now:
*For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the holy Ghost, as well as we? So he commanded them to be baptized in the Name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.* (Acts 10.46-48)
Mark Ward has turned his channel into a Gatling 🔫 lately. And it's bullets are hot anti-bad-bibliology lead! I'm loving this lol.
To sense a need that we need a perfect translation exposes the error of a false focus. While, yes, we need a manuscript base and a translation that is as accurate as possible, neither a perfectly accurate Bible nor a almost perfectly accurate Bible, or even a notably less than ideal version, differ in what they can accomplish, according to what God has purpose to accomplish. This is understood if it is perceived that what we are to be pursuing is not the Bible, not holy scripture, but a transformative, transfiguring knowing of God, and he knowing us, which cannot be accomplished unless we go, not to, but through, holy scripture. I could narrow it down to what I consider a book title if I ever write it: Theology, anthropology, and the kingdom of God; or, theology and anthropology in the kingdom of God. Or, the Theanthropy and the kingdom of God.
John Behr provided a corrective to the ancient statement, "God became man so that man may become God." He said: "God became human so that man could become human as God is human."
The use of holy scripture is forco-inhering, co-participating, co-operating, co-serving, and co-glorifying with God. To count all things as dung that we may know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his suffering. Approaching the Bible short of this ultimate daily goal will certainly, and has certainly, cause people to become concerned about something which is not of greatest concern: to have The impossible, a perfect Bible. The concern should be to have one as accurate as possible, of course. But having a perfect Bible so we can study a textbook and call our brethren heretics has never never never been the reason for the Bible.
First time I've heard anyone refer to S.P. Tregelles outside of his careful refutation of Darby's 1830 pre-tribulattion rapture invention!
Excellent!
Glad you liked it!
Very good! Helpful.
Glad it was helpful!
I'm guessing the mystery man is Peter Ruckmann. I will watch the video and see if I am right.
UPDATE: I was wrong.
@markwardonwords In your opinion, what primarily causes people to embrace KJV-Onlyism? Bad theology, ignorance of the original languages, cultural superiority, or something else?
I’ve decided to leave the answer to that question in God’s capable hands. I don’t know people’s motivations. I hardly understand my own from my KJVO days.
Thank you for sharing! Sometimes, it seems like the only perspective we get from prior centuries is the one that agrees with us. James white looks like less of a heretic every day😂
@StevenLAnderson1611 following your lead... Pulling at my heart cords. 😆
Where'd he go? 😳 Did Steven get banned again?
He is either pretending to be Steven Anderson or is Steven Anderson. Either way (and I think it's the former), he is not capable of being a constructive presence in my comments.
Broadus has 7 letters in it… its a sign
pseudonym: Bro. Adus
The "you believe ..." and "your God ..." statements are such a terrible way to discuss things. The former is as likely to cause defensiveness as it is to misrepresent your opponent. "You believe we don't even have the Bible today." "You believe Satan succeeded in corrupting the Bible, and we're blind to know the truth."
The latter statement, while likely causing even more defensiveness, also puts you at risk of blaspheming if your position is wrong. "Your God wasn't strong enough to keep His word perfectly pure." "You are calling God a liar." I would fear making such a proclamation if I might be the one who is mistaken.
I think your mystery-man's comments about printing errors may be an effective tool in reaching some people. "Sure, if I found out my copy of the Bible had a printing error, I'd be willing to fix it. And I know that my interpretations can be in error at times. And especially due to the modern translations, I know translators can be in error. And due to Westcott and Hort and everyone since then, I know text critics can be in error. And human experience tells me hand copyists can be in error. So anywhere an error can be proven, I should be willing to have it corrected."
Of course, then you come to the crux of the issue. If I must have perfect words, do I believe that there is some unbroken line of perfect copyists and translators? Well, history shows that cannot be the case, due to the very existence of textual criticism. Thus, I must turn to a divine act at a particular point to restore God's perfect words. As best I can tell, logic necessitates either Textual Confidence or Special Inspiration.
Hi brother Mark:
Your title made me want to ask: "Was KJVO first invented by JACK HYLES, as a new doctrine, in the 1960's?"
I am not an expert on the history. Tim Berg is!
@markwardonwords Funny, I had just looked up "KJVO origin", and read the Wickipedia article. It seems the roots of this bush go back to the 1800's. And Jack Hyles put compost on it, and got it producing a lot of fruit.
I do not see KJVO folk citing, honouring, or quoting him, however.
@@genewood9062 The ability for everyday people to research these issues has greatly increased since his time.
I don’t get the word “controversy.” People are in the KJV cult or they aren’t. It’s simple.
👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽❤
Poor guy wanted to be done with KJV-only nonsense, and he gets roped right back in.
He is scheduled to be done on December 31. Thus, these videos are wrapping up his final popular-level discussions of the topic.
I thought I made that sufficiently clear in my "Done*" video. Apparently I was wrong!
@@markwardonwords It was clear to those of us who did more than read the thumbnail. 👍🏻
God's giving him more viewership and content. I'm fine with it.
Ha! I'm sure he's counting the days!
The reason certain people can’t leave the KJB alone is because it won’t leave them alone
🔥🌹🌹🌟
Both Tregelles and Tischendorf went to the Vatican. Tischendorf met with the Pope. Why would he meet with the Pope if he was orthodox? After meeting the Pope, Tischendorf would head to Saint Catherine's Monastery and find Sinaiticus. There is no proof that it is as old as it is said to be, nor is there proof that it is reliable. And while Tischendorf made some editions of the Greek New Testament, the fact is that Westcott and Hort were occultists. You cannot tell me THAT is orthodox. Those occultists HATED the Textus Receptus for it is the true Words of God. You also speak of "minor variants" but I don't believe Acts 8:37, 1 John 5:7, Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11, etc. are minor variants. Even 1 Timothy 3:16, "God" vs "he"/"who" is not a minor variant in my eyes. The textual criticism of Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, the KJV translators, etc. is different from that of modern textual criticism. Even John Burgon was KJV only. He said "Whatever may be urged in favour of Biblical Revision, it is at least undeniable that the undertaking involves a tremendous risk. Our Authorized Version is the one religious link which at present binds together ninety millions of English-speaking men scattered over the earth's surface. Is it reasonable that so unutterably precious, so sacred a bond should be endangered, for the sake of representing certain words more accurately,-here and there translating a tense with greater precision,-getting rid of a few archaisms? It may be confidently assumed that no “Revision” of our Authorized Version, however judiciously executed, will ever occupy the place in public esteem which is actually enjoyed by the work of the Translators of 1611,-the noblest literary work in the Anglo-Saxon language. We shall in fact never have another “Authorized Version.”" (The Revision Revised, pp.112-113)
Amen
@@StevenLAnderson1611 Yes, but how old was Timothy when he received that letter? It had to be at least a decade after he first joined Paul. At the youngest, he would have been in his late 20s, and he was more likely in his 30s. If Kenyon attends PCC and obtains a doctorate in Ministry (the highest theological degree offered by the college), at graduation he will be the minimum age that Timothy could have been at the time that 1 Timothy was written.
@@johncompton7046 I concede. I’ll delete it!
In one chapter I can show good reason for the faithfulness to doctrine of the TR over the CT. Luke 2:22 and 2:33 compare your ESV, NASB and your NIV to the Geneva or the KJV. After that ask yourself which text is inspired?
How do these verses prove the faithfulness of the TR over the CT?
Have you looked at Luke 2:48 in the KJV? Luke 3:23? Luke 4:22?
Luke 2:41 KJV - Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.
Luke 2:48b KJV - behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
Lo and behold, even Mary who knew she was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus called Joseph His father. All of those versions you listed definitively proclaim the virgin birth in Luke 1, and do not deny it in Luke 2.
Early editions of the TR read αὐτῶν rather than αὐτῆς in Luke 2.22, and the first wave of Protestant English translations (Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew, Great Bible) thus say "their purification" instead of "her purification." That's a TR vs. TR debate, not TR vs. CT. In this case, Beza's TR disagrees with the Greek majority reading, αὐτῶν.
Luke 2.33 is a similar case. The original Erasmus TR says ὁ πατὴρ rather than Ἰωσὴφ, and the early English translations accordingly say "his father" instead of "Joseph." (Compare Martin Luther's translation from the same time, which uses Vater.) In this case, the Greek majority reading is Ἰωσὴφ, in agreement with later TRs editions, while the Vulgate supports the Erasmus reading (pater). But this is still a TR vs. TR issue, and the CT need not be brought into the discussion at all.
Mark Ward promotes the ESV, NASB and the NIV which are incorrect. The Geneva and KJV are correct that is the point, who uses the Tyndale and those other Bibles you mentioned today? Ward thinks CT Bibles are more accurate and he is wrong, that is the point.
Look at purification in verse 22. Look at who is Jesus' father in the CT, who is Jesus' father?
At this point, are you really serving the Lord or yourself? I've never seen anyone that hated the Bible that carried us 400 years more than you.
I've also seen your claims that "we need another updated translation".. that makes no sense. We have like 100. I'm starting to think you're using controversy and sowing strife to grow your channel. You're not going to change anyone's mind on the Bible you hate so much. You know, I actually was one of your first 2,000 subs when I First became a Christian. I started with a 2011 NIV. I'm not gonna get into the entire story of my journey right now but you kinda in a sense led me to the King James! I didn't know anything about manuscript differences (TR vs CT). I made my Judgement based on the evidence and my conviction led me to KJB. Sorry but I also don't beleive we need to keep digging to "find God's word". We either have it or we don't. I believe God preserved his word perfectly! Anyways, God gave you talents. Go use them to serve his will and not your own.
God Bless!
👉📖🕯☝️✝️👑🙏🙌❤️🔥⛪️
This is not meant as a triumphalist, gotcha question: did God's perfectly preserved Word exist on earth in 1610, the year before the KJV came out?