Do We Need a Standard English Bible?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 лип 2024
- We interrupt our normal release schedule to get you a video responding to a talk that was given just a few days ago by Lloyd Read at the Spiritual Leadership Conference, held at Lancaster Baptist Church, home of West Coast Baptist College. Here's the link to the audio and PDF handout:
slconference.com/events/reada...
* * *
🎁 Help me end Bible translation tribalism, one plow boy at a time:
✅ / mlward
✅ buymeacoffee.com/mlward
📖 Check out my book, Authorized:
amzn.to/2r27Boz
🎥 Watch my Fifty False Friends in the KJV series on UA-cam:
bit.ly/50FalseFriends
👏 Many, many thanks to the Patreon supporters who make my work possible!
James Duly, Robert Gifford, Lanny M Faulkner, Lucas Key, Dave Thawley, William McAuliff, Razgriz, James Goering, Eric Couture, Martyn Chamberlin, Edward Woods, Thomas Balzamo, Brent M Zenthoefer, Tyler Rolfe, Ruth Lammert, Gregory Nelson Chase, Ron Arduser, Caleb Farris, Dale Buchanan, Jess English, Aaron Spence, Orlando Vergel Jr., John Day, Joshua Bennett, K.Q.E.D., Brent Karding, Kofi Adu-Boahen, Steve McDowell, Kimberly Miller, A.A., James Allman, Steven McDougal, Henry Jordan, Nathan Howard, Rich Weatherly, Joshua Witt, Wade Huber, M.L., Brittany Fisher, Tim Gresham, Lucas Shannon, Easy_Peasy , Caleb Richardson, Jeremy Steinhart, Steve Groom, jac, Todd Bryant, Corey Henley, Jason Sykes, Larry Castle, Luke Burgess, Joel, Joshua Bolch, Kevin Moses, Tyler Harrison, Bryon Self, Angela Ruckman, Nathan N, Gen_Lee_Accepted , Bryan Wilson, David Peterson, Eric Mossman, Jeremiah Mays, Caleb Dugan, Donna Ward, DavidJamie Saxon, Omar Schrock, Philip Morgan, Brad Dixon, James D Leeper, M.A., Nate Patterson, Dennis Kendall, Michelle Lewis, Lewis Kiger, Dustin Burlet, Michael Butera, Reid Ferguson, Josiah R. Dennis, Miguel Lopez, CRB, D.R., Dean C Brown, Kalah Gonzalez, MICHAEL L DUNAVANT, Jonathon Clemens, Travis Manhart, Jess Mainous, Brownfell, Leah Uerkwitz, Joshua Barzon, Benjamin Randolph, Andrew Engelhart, Joe Siler, Mark Sarhan, Melissa F, Rachel Schoenberger.
Mark, thank you for all your work and for your book. I read it thoroughly, and watched countless hours of yours and others' videos. I've never been KJVO but I attend a church that is, in practice. Your work loosed the "chains" that remained on me and has given me a new love and appreciation for God and the Bible.
I prayed over and considered your humble approach and began the 1 Cor 14 discussion last night with the elders of my church. Your humble example, and 'to the point' arguments helped me in this discussion. I have a long road ahead to bring the freedom from the chains of unbiblical traditions you speak of....only God can make this happen, and I'm confident He will. God specializes in setting captives free!
Praise the Lord! Stay 100% humble, my friend, and see what the Lord can do! It is right and wise also to start with leadership as you have done. Keep me updated!
Whether people agree with you or not, I hope your channel becomes one that millions of Christians listen to. I believe it will help them appreciate their translation more and encourage them to go deeper in their study. Thank you for your obedience to Gods call on your life.
Pray for me!
@@markwardonwords praying for you brother 🙏
Thank you brother! You have helped me more than you know in my journey out of kjvo. Keep up the good work!
Glad to hear it!
This whole video is brilliant. The Siri bit was hilarious, 😂
Ha! Thanks!
I read and memorize the King James version because of it's inspiring, poetic, and elequent beauty. I need no other reason to use it. I use NASB in analytical study and the NIV for casual reading. It works perfectly for me.
Sounds great! You haven't made KJV usage a doctrine!
@@markwardonwords interesting choice of words are you saying all Bibles are the word of God? If not,? which one is. Which Bible should we use for doctrine? Perhaps Adam and Eve should not have used the word of God that was given to them as Doctrine. The serpent did after all give an alternative interpretation. If the word of God is profitable for doctrine, which is the word of God? Is this the confusion you’re trying to spread?
@@shannonashley7224 The original KJV had textual footnotes and translation footnotes as well. More seriously though the standard Bible in Chinese, the second most language spoken in the world, is CT-based. This TR-onlyism type thing seems to be mostly in English only.
@@shannonashley7224are you saying that if there is a new translation outside of English it’s not the word of God?
@@WordMadeFlesh777 How in the world did you come to this conclusion? Please show your work.
My first Bible after I got married was a personal sized, bonded leather RSV, I am still using it, and recently bought a new RSV. 🙂
Excited for your next book whenever it comes out -- sounds like it's going to be a great reference!
I hope so!
Looking forward to Authorized 2nd ed :-)
I appreciate your content so much, brother. You have greatly helped me in having a gracious and better-informed position on Bible translation. We are so blessed to have God’s Word in our English language… we should be rejoicing over the plethora of great translations as opposed to fighting about it. Your channel is helping us come closer to that reality.
Yes! Amen! And thank you for the kind word!
God is so good brother! This is my exact experience. Isn't He a good father to us?
I have to say man, you really do great work here. I am grateful to God for His work in you.
I appreciate that!
Mark, I really appreciate all of your videos. They have helped me to see translations as complements of one another rather than rivals. Your interview with Jost Zetzsche was also enlightening in the same way. God bless.
Glad you like them!
Wow. The Siri on my phone isn't that sassy.
Your videos are helping me greatly. Thank you!
Thank you for another very helpful video.
I wanted to share an experience I had yesterday attending a small Christian school conference. One of the main speakers was the new president of a certain Baptist university in Wisconsin. During his sermon in Luke 11 he defined Importunity (11:8) as consistent. (which isn't even listed in the OED). He then proceeded to explain Jewish culture of how one would take care of a friend/brother/neighbor and could be consistently relied upon, even when it's inconvenient. He then likened this to God being the sleeping man consistently there for us as the knocking Christians. I was left scratching my head since Jesus literally explained the parable in verse 9
(accidently posted)
He also corrected the KJV when told the group that the question mark in verse 6 should be at the end of verse 7. I was momentarily confused because it was at the end of 7 in my ESV.
Overall, it was a good conference (if IFB centric) and I was able to take some knowledge from it. You probably know a Dr. Jeff Heath from BJU Press, I thoroughly enjoyed his workshops on Leadership.
Thank you again for all you do.
Jeff is a sharp guy doing good work, yes!
Lol! SIRI! Excellent points, brother. Here is another quote from the KJV translators, "But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar." Doesn't sound like the translators intended for people to have to be taught to read it.
Yes!
I mostly read the Word in Spanish and I use Reina-Valera, as I am Textus Receptus and Byzantine text priority or preferenced, however I have no problem with reading another bible version once in a while to compare or study passages. When I'm with someone else and they have another bible translation I'm not going to attack them for it, I might simply point out why I prefer mine if they ask about it.
I also read the bible in English and in Portuguese, and the new testament koiné Greek in a limited capacity at the moment (I'm in my semester of biblical greek, wish me luck).
In English, again I'm T.R. priority, I read the NKJV mostly but still have a KJV and also an ESV. In Portuguese, I only read the T.R. based Almeida Corrigida Fiel and that's it, I don't read Portuguese too much these days I have no need for more Portuguese versions.
What I look for most in bible translations in the process of the translation is methodology. The textual-base, I prefer formal, word-for-word or literal equivalence over dynamic equivalence and the language has to be comprehensible for the majority if not all people.
You might enjoy this video, then, where I make an effort to defend a both-and position: ua-cam.com/video/reBR7di1Nr8/v-deo.html
Hey brother! Appreciate your work and the information you give out. I'm also a Heartland graduate, I was in school when Peter and Tim were there, and the last few weeks my mind has been opened and honestly blown. Thank you for your spirit and labor, I for one am thankful for it.
I’m sobered but glad! This can’t be easy. I’d love to hear more of your story, if you’re able to tell it: byfaithweunderstand.com/contact
By the way, Mark, your pronunciation of the French term “l’Eternel” was EXCELLENT. On the other French word whose pronunciation you admitted to guessing at (“modèle”), you were very nearly right: you said /mo'dɛlə/ (which is medieval French and also poetic/song-lyric pronunciation) - the present-day standard French (for the past few centuries) is /mo'dɛl/.
I'm curious how the French translation reads Colossians 3:16? Of all the major translations, the ESV is the only one that instructs to "sing" Psalms... vs KJV, NKJV and NASB instruct to "admonish with" Psalms... Sing Psalms vs Admonish with Psalms.
Does the French say sing Psalms or admonish with Psalms?
@@FairestZion LSG follows the KJV reading. I found an article on this verse online and most translations out there do say sing Psalms, etc. but in slightly different ways. Notably HCSB says sing but CSB follows KJV.
The French version of Louis Segond says, instruct and exhort using Psalms...
🗨 maxx 🗨 Thanks. Regardless of which translation says what, would you agree there's a big diffence between singing psalms and admonishing (or instruct and exhort) with psalms?
🗨 daodejing 🗨 Thanks! Instruct and exhort? Wow! First translation I encounter using TWO verbs. This is very insightful considering 2 Tim 3:16 (KJV) states FOUR verbs on how to apply Scripture, of which two supports Col 3:16. This is definitely a translation to quote from as it mentions two verbs and is supported by two verbs in 2 Tim 3.
What strengthens "admonishing" in Colossians 3:16 is that it's from the same author, Apostle Paul. Thanks for sharing!
Bro. Mark, ESV Gideon Bibles are based on the Textus Receptus. I did not know if you knew that or not. I read the forward to a ESV Gideon Edition in a hospital and found out there. I think that was really a cool deal.
Yes, you're right! I did know that. It's select TR readings; not all of them.
Very gracious brother - love it!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Hey Mark! Hope you are well and are having a blessed year (2024). I'm here going back, watching some of the videos I missed. Every time you mention Spanish, I feel like sharing something. Aren't languages awesome?!
Anyway, because you mentioned the Reina Valera 1909, I got curious and looked further back the Reina-Valera family tree all the way back, and "funny" enough, Philippians 3:17 and 1 Timothy 4:12 render typos or tupos? as *exemplo* which is the old way of spelling *ejemplo* and it's pronounced just the same and it means the same. And you're right, there's not an ejemplo from within and an ejemplo from without in Spanish, and I've never heard of such a thing in English either.
I think you did a great job pronouncing the French modele and the Spanish ejemplo as well by the way, and on that note, we too have a word in Spanish for modele, I think you probably know it. It's modelo and it can mean a model as in the modeling profession, and as an example or a pattern or something that is built to scale, like the model of the sanctuary that was shown to Moses for example (see what I did there?). The same thing happens with the word model in English, right?
I could find at least two Bible translations in Spanish that did use the word *modelo* instead of ejemplo, and lo and behold, not one jot or tittle of that so beautiful advice and encouragement Paul is giving to Timothy is changed or lost.
We also have the word *tipo* that is type in this context. This one is used in comparison, just like the English type, which is why is not used in either verse. If Paul were writing in Spanish, he would have had to compare Timothy to what he wanted him to be (or if you were to take a paraphrastic approach when translating) Something like, "Se el tipo de joven cristiano que es fiel, bondadoso y puro" (Be the type of young Christian who is faithful, loving and pure).
Languages are so versatile, some more than others and paraphrasing the KJV translators, the King's speech is the King's speech in any language. You know, that reminds me, there is a poem by a famous Puerto Rican poet by the name of Juan Antonio Corretjer Montes, where he says "I would be a "Borincano" (Native of Boriken, that is, Puerto Rico) even if I was born on the moon". So, The Word of God is The Word of God even if translated into Moonian? if the moon had inhabitants with their own language.
Going back to Spanish and other languages, as you said, why would God not inspire the translators of these other languages and only the English? The case may be possibly tried to be made that English is the most spoken language in the world, but that was not the case in 1611, was it? And Spanish is the second most spoken language, third depending how you measure it; surely God can see there's a lot of people in the world who speak other languages other than English and even spoke Spanish for generations before English came into their region. The idea doesn't seem fair, does it? And it doesn't matter what language the Bible I read is in, it tells me God shows no partiality, He doesn't play favorites.
I think it's beautiful that people can pick up a Bible and read it where they are at. We often say God meets us where we are at and the amount of Bible translations we have in two (that I know of) of the most spoken languages in the world is a testament to that. It's amazing when you hear someone quote the NIV, or ESV or KJV or whatever, The NVI, RV and you can tell what they are talking about, they are speaking your language, God's word, because you know Him and His word.
Apologies for the long comment, but languages are exciting and I love God's word and the idea of people having access to it. God bless you and your family, Mark. Thank you so much for allowing God to use you in this way.
The "l'Eternel" part reminded me of a story my former pastor told us: Once he prayed to God to help him understand the name "Yahweh" better, and the word that came to mind was "always". Very similar meanings.
Interesting!
Ive read niv, nkjv, esv , hcsb, nasb, asv, nrsv, rsv , net and the kjv. The kjv hits like none other once you get the hang of it. And yea i know all about the older manuscripts and all that. The only reason i do occasionally read the esv is because it has a great study Bible.
Yea there is something about the KJV. Just masterful. I always circle back to the KJV but read a lot of other translations.
this video has cut me to the quick.....😅....i love your videos and watch them frequently....thank you Sir...!
So nice of you!
Readability is a great point. Many of the vids here are all about accuracy. In the world of global Bible translation (Wycliffe and others) there are three goals, accuracy, naturalness and clarity. To make an impact, for one to respond to the Word, it must be understood.
Right!!
Hi, I just found your channel and I thought these were compelling arguments. I'm not a KJV only person, but do find a certain attraction to the translation because of its historic significance, language which's Elizabethan nature feels very poetic to my ear (eye?), and, though imperfect, solid translational methodology. I like to read it for "light" Biblical reading (if that makes sense) and it is the version I like to quote when I work on various more artistic personal projects. However, the English language has changed and, like you say, I do not know every way that it has. You may cover it elsewhere and that book you mention working on sounds like a great resource, but are there any resources that give a broad overview of the changes in the English language from the KJV's time and now? I usually use other versions like the NKJV or NASB for more in depth personal studies of the Bible, but I would like to have a better understanding of the differences in the back of my head for when I do read the KJV.
You may want to start with his playlist "50 False Friends in the KJV."
I agree with M.A. ua-cam.com/play/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc.html
The KJV still has many important uses. But all of them require understanding dead words and, especially, false friends.
We do have a standard! It's in Greek! A translation is never the standard!
Right!!
This was really helpful. Thanks for pointing out the ensample/example information, and addressing precise concerns from the KJVO crowd. I've never heard the link to the 1700's American documents before, and I'm glad you took that to task and showed the ridiculousness of that particular argument. I'm thankful that it does show he is aware of KJV edition differences, so that's a step forward I suppose!
You're very welcome!
It is much like when NT writers sometimes use agape and phileo interchangeably but folks want to read a special nuance for agape in every instance.. Sometimes there is, but context determines it
Agreed.
Your comment at 22:14 is why you can't ever completely walk away from this issue, as frustrating as it can be. This is a battle that will never be won with strategic bombing; it will be won one mislead believer at a time. That takes patience, and I'm not Siri either...but it is worth the effort, good Brother.
You are right. Very right.
As you spoke about this topic of a standard, It made me wonder if English is the only language who has this situation where we have many great translations and many groups who use each? Are there other languages who have this? Or does pretty much every other language have one and only one? Thanks for what you do!
Spanish has the Reina-Valera version (basically the traditional KJV-NKJV equivalent, based on the Textus Receptus), Biblia de Jerusalén (the Spanish edition of the Jerusalem Bible), La Biblia de las Américas (the Spanish edition of the NASB), Nueva Versión Internacional (the Spanish edition of the NIV), Nueva Traducción Viviente (the Spanish edition of the NLT), and a number of others.
Here's a comparison of 2 Timothy 2.15 to show you the stylistic differences.
RV60: Procura con diligencia presentarte a Dios aprobado, como obrero que no tiene de qué avergonzarse, que usa bien la palabra de verdad.
JER: Esfuérzate en ser digno de la aprobación de Dios, presentándote ante él como un obrero que no tienen de qué avergonzarse y como un fiel dispensador de la Palabra de verdad.
LBLA: Procura con diligencia presentarte a Dios aprobado, como obrero que no tiene de qué avergonzarse, que maneja con precisión la palabra de verdad.
NVI: Esfuérzate por presentarte a Dios aprobado, como obrero que no tiene de qué avergonzarse y que interpreta rectamente la palabra de verdad.
NTV: Esfuérzate para poder presentarte delante de Dios y recibir su aprobación. Sé un buen obrero, alguien que no tiene de qué avergonzarse y que explica correctamente la palabra de verdad.
Yes, and French and German and Dutch and Portuguese and Italian (at least) have multiple Bible translations, too. I have favorite sets set up in BibleWorks to read all the translations in each language at a time.
Even a fairly minor language like Cebuano (spoken by 20 million or so in the Southern Philippines) has upwards of 8 to 10 translations of the New Testament, including different textual bases, different translation philosophies (to an extent) and also even at least one specific 'catholic' translation and one translation from English of the KJV rather than the Hebrew and Greek.
Of course a vast number of languages have only one Bible, part of a bible, or no bible at all - however, with few exceptions these languages generally have relatively small numbers of speakers, and many of those speakers speak the 1000+ languages that do have the whole Bible.
My father was saved at 19 years of age. He had a rough childhood with an abusive father that made moonshine and regularly got drunk with violent mood swings. My father’s family lived in a rural farming community and he barely finished high school. After his salvation experience, he knew he needed to read the Bible but he struggled with the King James language, especially with his limited education. He grew very frustrated and struggled with the language barrier he was running in to. Back then, he only had access to the King James Bible. His testimony is that the Lord helped him to learn to study and grow in the Bible and as a Christian. He eventually was able to go back to school and to Bible college and become a Pastor. God helped him to grow but I have often wondered how much of an easier and more enjoyable time he would have had if he would have had a translation that was easier for him to read and understand. To my father’s credit, he pushed through all the obstacles he faced and he didn’t give up on the Bible. Because he did that, I am a Christian today.
Praise God! I also wonder how many people could have made that same trek but didn't because of KJV archaisms.
Interesting testimony and very powerful. I believe that one’s struggles in the journey and the persistence in walking the path that The Lord sets fourth is what molds us. Your father became a pastor first because God choose him to be one. Your father may have had a “lower” education but was simple at heart and believed in the humility of common sense. That simplicity was what led him to pursue the Lord. He might of stumbled on the way and might of had a hard time understanding the “archaic” word of God but none the less was he persistent on the path and due to that, God gave him understanding and rose him up to pastorship. He now understands first hand what it take to follow after God. That experience is what helps people like him to reach others and help them. Would a modern translation have made that easier? Yes but most likely he wouldn’t be the person he is today. The easy path does not edify, struggles are what keep us in search for the Lord and in that search we grow. Remember, God doesn’t care how educated or knowledgeable you may be as most of the time it gets in one’s understanding. Too many people in the church focus on the education and the Greek and the Hebrew and all that. It ends up taking over their faith as the now believe to have knowledge, they thinks that with all these degrees and schooling they can understand the mind of God and think they can understand him. Let me tell you that if Hod can fit in our heads then he really isn’t God and you might be serving the wrong one. The Lords seeks those who will worship him in spirit and in truth. He wants a humble heart one that believes in the same ways the heart of a child does. All that knowledge will come from the Lord but only if we put him first. Your father might have struggled to understand at first but his persistence in the Lord is what pleased the Lord. I bet that if you asked your father if he’d have it any other way, he’d say no. We as a society have been brought up to believe that everything has to be molded to us including the word and will of God. We want it to be “easier”. We want everything now and suited for us, conformed to us and our comfort. The truth is that is putting one’s self before Jesus. We are the ones who need to conform ourselves to God, to his will and seek after a heart that will please the Lord and we can only do that but putting him First. The word says to seek the kingdom of God and his righteousness and everything will be added to you. I am not a scholar, nor a highly decorated Dr in theology with decades of extensive research or education, I’m just a regular background kind of guy who seeks to learn of the Lord. The best pastors and ministers I’ve ever met where those of humble beginnings with powerful testimonies of the Lord dragging them out of the mud. They didn’t have all these fancy degrees and titles as so many chase after now days. They are and where great men of God who lived what they preached and served the lord in humility and simpleness until the Lord called for them. These men were filled of the Holy Spirit and through the spirit did great things and helped many people who were lost including me. Sorry for the long comment brother but just wanted to share. Look to Jesus and his example. That should tell you everything you need to know, his journey in the flesh was not easy, he didn’t take any shortcuts. He was obedient til death and death of crucificaron. Always remember that them nails weren’t what held God to that cross but it was his love for you and me. If there is anything that changes that by a bit or implies something different, don’t heed it. The path to God is narrow and hard not wide an easy. God bless you.
Thank you for another great video Dr. Ward!
Have you heard of the Anabaptist groups that are doing a translation using the TR? It will be a replacement of the KJV. They call it the TTB, Traditional Text Bible. They aren't necessarily KJO but are opposed to the modern critical texts.
It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on that.
Nope. And I can't find it online… Suggestions?
I was mistaken they are using the Byzantine text though not the TR.
I'm pretty sure they don't have a website. I have their mailing list contact if you are interested I can get it for you. I would be interested in your take on it, maybe a video for the future. 😅
Byfaithweunderstand.Com/contact
It’s pleasingly ironic that you use the word “haltingly” early in this presentation: many people do not realize that it is a survival of the earlier meaning of “halt” as “to limp/lame” - upon which you have so often and so cogently commented!
Right! You accurately divined all my intent!
I’m not a KJV only but I do read it often. What version do you read?
All the good ones! ua-cam.com/video/gFsQv7Z4jis/v-deo.html
What do you think of the LSB?
A very light revision of the NASB 1995, by all accounts. But I haven't read enough to say for myself.
Thx for the reply
IThe LSB is my Standarad BIBLE TRASNLATION , for further reference, I use the NET and the Arabic which I read. The LSB is Brilliant, it is a tweaked and improved NASB 1995.
Very well argued. Thank you for one sharing this.
Thank you.
This is a wonderful video. I join you in wishing to bridge across the gap of opposing viewpoints by seeking mutual understanding. Thank you for seeking to help bring our fellow Christians to an increased understanding. I bet you could devote an entire video on the error of attributing new inspiration or new revelation or additional pieces of truth in the KJV that God actually didn’t in the Hebrew or Greek. Or have you?!
It's a bit of a theme!
Dr. Peter Masters of Metropolitan Tabernacle also stresses the difference between 'ensample' and 'example' in his preaching.
Really??
You would think your pastor would be able to understand one is the accepted term used today and the other is an archaic usage that’s gone from contemporary English. Looking up the word in a dictionary tells you about the historical origin of the word in question, it doesn’t tell you if the meaning of it has changed. That’s where intelligent people get tripped up by 16th Century English and fail to realise that a language isn’t frozen at a moment in time. It would be wonderful if we could read the KJV like people originally understood it but we no longer do. That’s the point the KJV Onlyists keep on insisting isn’t a problem if we all agreed to ignore the obvious in front of us!
Interesting for sure. I heard Peter Masters (Pastor of Spurgeon’s Metropolitan Tabernacle since 1970) make the same ensample/example argument,ent a few years ago. He is not strictly KJV only, but their Tab bookstore only carries KJV & NKJV. I had wondered about his distinction for a while now and appreciate your clarification.
I’m surprised by this. I wonder where it is coming from.
Yeah, I don't know. I was surprised as well. And then going to the website, I looked for info regarding a commitment to translations etc., but found nothing. That's when I checked out the bookstore. Checking further, I listened to a sermon from a month ago or so, and Masters makes much over Luke's use of poneros (if your eye is bad - ESV) in 11:34 and why we need the word "evil" as in the KJV to understand what is really being said in that place. Debated I know. But he took a deliberate stand against newer translations not using the word evil. Interesting. @@markwardonwords
Mark, have you done a video on the usage of the word "elements" in 2 Pet 3 as not meaning what many today attribute it to be? Tyndale was 200 years ahead of any knowledge of the "periodic table of the elements," and could not have had physical matter in his mind. Wouldn't this apply as a "false friend?" That Greek word is used in Gal 4:3, 9 Col 2:8,20 and Heb 5:12 where the context is about spiritual concepts, and having nothing to do with the physical. It seems like it should be to me.
This is a great idea. Let me look into it.
(So many video ideas, so little time… But this immediately strikes me as a top-tier idea.)
@@markwardonwords Thanks Mark! In the past 250 years, the word "elements" has taken on a NEW meaning that it did not have way back in 1527 when Tyndale published his first New Testament.
I do wish my Greek education had been better at WCBC, but luckily I met my wife in my first semester of Greek, so I can't be too upset 😁
Excellent! My own wife studied Greek, too, and got better grades than I did… ;) But she only took four semesters.
I didn't mean to be bitter or nasty about West Coast Greek. Just empirical: empirically speaking, four semesters is not enough to give students the kind of chops necessary to judge the quality of Bible translations-the KJV or otherwise. Empirically speaking, Joe Shakour is the only KJV defender I know of who was trained within KJV-Only institutions and who can have a real conversation with me about translation of the Greek New Testament. There are teachers in that world, too, who can have a conversation with me. But as best I can remember, they didn't train at KJVO institutions.
Man, that's good to hear! My wife got better grades than me in everything. She makes a great critic when I preach!
I couldn't agree more. I really do look back and wish I had been able to go further in Greek, but there really was not much emphasis placed on learning biblical languages. They only offered an introduction to Hebrew, which my wife also took. It was kind of a joke.@@markwardonwords
I compare many translations daily. I read NLT and NIV for reading and NKJV and ESV when studying and The Living Bible when reading to my young grandchildren. I also read the KJV from 1968 1977 and still do.
Excellent! I've never gotten into the Living Bible, but the others I've used for a long time.
@markwardonwords I can send you one for free..everyone should read it at least once. It was a big catalyst that brought new easy to read translations like NIV etc.
@@RobertP_1960 I appreciate that! But I do have a copy in Logos!
I don't know. What do you mean by standard? The noun or adjective? Or perhaps both. In which case would it be a Standard, standard, or a standard Standard?
What a great Top 10 List. I wanted to see a conclusion recap listing them on screen for us visual-reinforced learners. Perhaps you might when you do your 2028 revision to this video (yep, I'm suggesting there might be those that have ears but didn't listen still)
Great suggestion!
My old 1985 NKJV is still my go-to bible. Then I look in my other versions for different wording.
That's a good one!
If the wording is different, which translation do you opt for?
@@FairestZionIn most cases, the Greek or Hebrew can be translated numerous ways. So to compare translations give you a better understanding of the original text. It’s not a matter of choosing which version to opt in
@@maxwellhufford7115 Colossians 3:16? Of all the major translations, the ESV is the only one that instructs to "sing" Psalms... vs KJV, NKJV and NASB instruct to "admonish with" Psalms... Sing Psalms vs Admonish with Psalms.
Does it matter to sing Psalms or admonish with Psalms? I ask, coz you say it doesn't matter if translations differ. I'd say there's a big difference between sing and admonish, wouldn't you?
🗨 ATTENTION ALL 🗨 Was the Bible written to study different translations or to study God's Word? I get the impression from this video, this channel and from the comments that the Bible was written to study different translations. If this is the case, please show me from the Bible where it says we're to study and compare different translations?
Besides, what's the point to compare translations if different wording doesn't matter anyway?
I consider the ESV to be the closest translation to a standard English bible we have now in practice but would never suggest there must be one and only one. I have an unrelated to the topic question: do you know why the ESV translators choose to not use Hades at Matthew 16:18 and instead render it as hell? They are consistent with using Hades everywhere else.
It's certainly a strange choice. Perhaps the translators were trying to swing in the opposite direction of the RSV, which had translated this phrase as "the powers of death." But yes, the more consistent choice would be "the gates of Hades" (ASV, NRSV).
Excellent video - I had never heard the argument about real politik and the KJV. How interesting!
Loved loved loved SIRI
So good!!!
Three times might have been a little much though haha
Trick brick stack LOL
I do get concerned about church unity discussions
While nothing you said was wrong I often wonder about my theistic evolution friends who make the same claims AGAINST YEC scholasticism who say something very similar to what you say against the KjV - there's something there that's troublesome
Irrespective, fantastic video!
I get that, Dustin, I do. And I think YEC folks have far more actual PhDs than KJV-Onlyism does.
Yeah, I checked the Noah Webster 1828 Dictionary. The dictionary all KJV lovers use to learn the definition of King James Biblical words. It’s also the dictionary recommended by most KJV groups. It also agrees with you, Dr. Ward, on the definitions of these words. I definitely recommend Noah Webster’s 1828 Dictionary to everyone. It is the first American dictionary and the definitions are what they were meant to be and Mr. Webster gives Biblical usages and examples (or should it be samples? Lol) of the words.
Absolutely excellent! I should’ve thought to look there.
He's their hero when it comes to his dictionary, and their villain when it comes to his Bible...
@@fnjesusfreak , He’s not their dictionary hero in this case. The definitions match exactly what Dr. Ward told us.
I'd add that this is also a problem given Webster's purpose was to document and standardize the American dialect (which he called the American language) and not to document older English idioms. Of course the OED is expensive, and isn't going to favor KJOism anyway, but . . .
@@fnjesusfreakyou are spot-on there, which is a shame because his translation (from what Ive seen) is excellent…
So it would be safe to say that the 1769 version was not then or is presently a translation in common English?
Right.
The KJV was written in the Modern English period of history, which we are still in.
@@igregmartagreed.
Originally, I thought this video was about the English Standard Version (ESV), but no it is about a Standard English Version (SEV).
Right! ;)
I am grateful for all your great work.
I was brainwashed by King James
Only crowd. It has taken me years to break free. Thanks to your videos I've learned a lot and now i am free. I am free to love and study more than one translation at a time.
Mat 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
@@shannonashley7224 So now you're telling people that they're going to hell if they don't use the KJV. That's heretical. That's not Christianity.
Sorry, let me rephrase that: you're strongly implying that non-KJVOs are going to hell while leaving room to say that people are "assuming too much" when you're called out on it.
@@MAMoreno as I’ve said about assumptions, when we make assumptions, we fill in the information that we can’t prove or that we don’t know with our own personalities, our own motives, our own ideas.
You’re assigning motives to me that you have no proof of and you’re filling those motives. with aspects of your own motives.
Your accusation is more a reflection of your character than it is of mine.
The premature gotcha is the dead giveaway. I’m very simple, but I’m not stupid. And I have never suggested someone’s going to help for reading other translations. My mother reads the NIV. I assure you she’s not going to hell.
Do I hate the NIV? yes. But I don’t think what translation you read is a salvation issue, which is why I wonder why you guys are making it such an issue. (KJV only ism that is)
relax friend Jesus Christ has not called us to keep the Throne of judgment warm for him.
@@shannonashley7224 My opinion of the NIV is not much higher than yours (albeit not for the same reasons), but I wouldn't go so far as to post the words "wide is the gate . . . that leadeth to destruction" when someone says that they're using the NIV instead of one that I consider to be reliable. How do you expect anyone to take that statement as something other than, "You're going to hell for using this translation"?
@@MAMoreno what I said is not incorrect what I said is not untrue.
I now have to figure out why you are protesting. The only thing I can think of at the moment is you are protesting the application of the post that I made. Or to be more precise you do not like the application of the verse I posted in the context of this conversation.
Am I correct?
As a Greek person , the "Koine Only" is very much a part of the church , even though in recent years modern Greek bibles are tolerated , the argument that we didnt need a Modern Greek bible because Koine is the same language , but in its purest form was very popular
because of this linguistic nationalism it was often denied that people couldnt understand Koine Greek even though most people clearly couldn't because it didnt conform to the narrative that Koine and Modern Greek are the same language , it was seen as "unpatriotic" to even accept the fact that they are not mutually intelligible
also the common arguments were that koine was the purest form of Greek and Modern Greek is top vulgar and casual for god's work
and also the argument that is also often used is that the Koine Bible (Septuagint & TR ) has been the standard for the last 2000 years ( even though the TR is far more recent it is often claimed to be the original New testament of 2000 years ago)
Also these same arguments arent only used for the bible ... but to also argue for the continued use of Koine in the liturgy and church services
All Greek Orthodox Church services are in Koine Greek , NOT Modern
Imagine church services exclusively being delivered in Elisabethean or Middle English ... that is the reality of the Greek Orthodox Church , and although it has lost the battle for the Bible , Church Services are still Koine-Only
So its really funny to me to see so many similarities with the KJV-Only movement
I would really love to interview someone who could say these things on video. Are you that person, or do I look for another? Could you email me? Byfaithweunderstand.Com/contact
@@markwardonwords Im sorry but I am no expert not do I know any, Im just a Greek lay person describing the reality of the Greek Orthodox Church
I’m desperate to hear from an authoritative Protestant source on this, an actual Greek. My wife is Greek, but her relatives are long lost and not Protestant.
@@mariolis Could you still contact me via my contact form, and let me know that you are "mariolis" (sometimes people use my contact form and forget that they used a pseudonym online!). I have a question or two for you! This comment of yours was exactly spot-on!
Mark, I know you prefer the ESV and I enjoy that version, too. English is my second language. I’m Portuguese. I would like your input as using the NIV as a study Bible. Thank you. I really enjoy listen to you.
NIv is great!
I love the NIV! I've read through it multiple times!
I highly recommend the New Living Translation NLT as well. Easy to read and understand and very accurate.
I encountered the ensample/example distinction a few years ago in a podcast, but not from a KJVO source. I thought it goofy at the time, but I wasn't in a position to check it.
There is a difference between "stop" and "estop"; could that be a source for the (e)stablish distinction? As a matter of personal perversity, I will claim that "stablish" is the original form, while "establish" is a modern (Internet-era) usurper: "We used to stablish, but now that we do it online, we establish." This is a hill I will let someone else die on, and I'm sure volunteers will rush to do so.
The OED really is the best source for this sort of thing unless there's a very specific paper in a linguistics journal that goes deeper than the OED editors did. With the variant words discussed, each one may have possibly carried some slightly different nuance in specific situations back when they were more commonly in use, but arguing from etymology (while problematic on its own) gets you nowhere because they ultimately have the same etymologies, and looking for prefix rules is ultimately misguided.
Right. Prefixes get baked into words and then those words themselves change, often moving away from what the prefixes once meant.
@@markwardonwordsTechnically, the _e-_ isn't even a prefix. Many Romance languages have a problem with initial _s_ consonant cluster, so they place an epenthetic _e_ before the _s_ (which, especially in French, often drops out anyway). So French added the _e,_ which we dutifully borrowed.
@@socksthemusicalcat I didn't have a dictionary handy at the time. Anyway, it isn't even a prefix: it's not Latin _e(x)_ at all. Any difference in meaning would have arisen from a folk etymology.
@@stephenrice2063 Brother, this is brilliant. I do think that in "example" the "ex" could still be called a prefix-checked the OED here (though it's complicated). Or perhaps, better, a vestigial prefix. But in "establish" and "stablish," you're exactly right. There is no prefix. I should have thought to look at the etymology, and I did not. Thank you!
Great content Mark. This video is in the top 5 of best videos you have put out (IMHO). Not just because of the material, but because of the reach I think will have as a resource. I can see this being one of those “go-to” videos I’ll be sending to KJVO brothers needing a stepping stone into the rational side of the debate. Keep it up!
Thank you, Josh. Means a lot coming from you!
A “Standard English Version”opposed to an “English Standard Version”?
You mean words like awesome?
I would love it if we could decide on one standard English Bible translation. however, it's a matter of money. people come out with new translations so that they can sell more bibles.
This is a malicious and untrue statement. Where is your evidence?
@@markwardonwords Huh? You don't think that publishing houses are motivated to make sales and profits? Let's not be naive.
@@seth101-hv4st I know multiple people in the evangelical Bible publishing industry. No, they are not motivated by sales and profits any more than those who publish and sell KJVs.
Money sometimes is a motivator, but it's typically to save money in the long run, not to make it. The cost of producing a translation will eventually prove cheaper than working out a long-term licensing deal with the organizations and Bible societies that own the rights to the current versions. (This trend has been especially true in regard to the NIV.)
The more common factor is a general dissatisfaction with the "one standard English bible translation." We had one in 1952: the Revised Standard Version. And what happened to it? Fundamentalists burned it. Then some conservative scholars came together to offer an alternative in 1971: the New American Standard Bible. And what happened to it? People declared it unreadable and refused to use it in the pulpit.
So in 1978, we got a translation that was far more evangelical than the RSV and far more readable than the NASB: the New International Version. But since its readability came at the expense of its literalness, it was rejected by a vocal minority. Meanwhile, Christians who disliked the modern critical text wanted their own modern standard, so we got the NKJV in 1982. And with that, we ended up with four standards instead of one.
@@markwardonwords Considering that the KJV's crown copyright is not honored in the United States, a publishing company has every reason to stick with the KJV if all they care about is sales and profits. It costs nothing to license, and it has a strong user base. Making and promoting a new translation is extremely expensive by comparison, and the risk/reward ratio is far less favorable to them than it is if they just throw out some cheap KJVs.
Great video, thank you.
One of the panelists at the end of the session argued that the KJV is easier to memorize than modern versions. He asked when was the last time anyone memorized large passages from modern versions.
Two pieces of anecdotal evidence:
1. Bible Bee is a national scripture memory program and competition. A 6th grade boy who attends our small church placed second last year, having memorized hundreds of verses. It’s really encouraging and convicting to watch! He did not memorize from the KJB, nor do most of the contestants from what I’ve seen.
2: Scripturefests are events hosted at local churches where Christians gather to proclaim scripture that they have memorized. Each event has a theme; our church hosted a Psalms fest in July. My family memorized Psalm 139 from the NKJV. In all, attendees quoted 45 Psalms, mostly from modern versions.
And my friend Andy memorized all of Rom and 1 Cor in the ESV.
Also, regarding the need for a standard, no one was confused at the Scripturefest I attended as Psalms were quoted from ESV, NASB, NKJV, KJV, and probably others.
IFB?
Independent Fundamental Baptist
Copyright is a problem with all newer translations, including the NKJV. You can update the KJV but without a copyright. Copyright changes the text, not only in ye's and thee's but in meaning and amount.
It's under copyright in the UK: www.cambridge.org/bibles/about/rights-and-permissions/rights-and-permissions-kjv
The main downside of releasing a translation without a copyright is that a publisher can release just about anything in the United States and still call it the KJV. Copyright laws protect the integrity of the text. It's not all about licensing rights.
@@MAMorenowhich means the updated version NKJV has to be different. It can't be exactly the same. It’s no wonder you have KJV only. The differences between the translations cast doubt on the newer translations.
@@Playlist849236 And differences between the KJV and its predecessors cast doubt on the earliest English versions (1535-1611). If disagreement between scholars makes you unable to trust translations, then I guess you're stuck learning Hebrew and Greek. You can't avoid it otherwise. Every translation is faulty somewhere--none of them are inspired in and of themselves. You either learn to live with it, or you give up on the very idea of translating the Bible.
@MAMoreno the earlier English Bibles like Tyndall were used to help create the KJV.
@@Playlist849236 And the KJV was used to help create several modern versions. But the KJV blatantly contradicts those earlier versions in several places. That's a natural consequence of having scholars who disagree on the text and the translation.
7:34 "Do we need a Standard English Bible?" ...is this a subliminal reference to the English Standard Version ...? ESV Onlyism...? 😂 ...but seriously, really appreciate your work, always thought provoking 👍🏼
Nope, though I dearly love my ESV!
The only type of "ESV Onlyism" I've come across would be something more like "ESV Sufficiency," which is in the same realm as the perfectly harmless "KJV Preferred" position. Someone who exclusively uses the ESV will not think that a person who uses the NASB is a "Laodicean Christian." At worst, the ESV user may simply think that the NASB user has no affinity for literary excellence and only cares about inflexible literalism. (In other words, the ESV reader is being a total snob.) But thinking that you don't need any other translations in your studies is different than thinking that other translations are evil.
Excellent video, as always! Worth reviewing those 10 points.
I’ve had the privilege of discipling a young Brazilian believer for about a year. He started out using a Portuguese translation based on the KJV (I have no idea where he got it). He was influenced by some popular reformed preachers in Brazil to switch to another translation that comes from the original languages. During our last study, he asked me about KJV onlyism. I told him that many churches in the US hold this view, and he was utterly bewildered. He understood instinctively how unfair it is to hold all believers of one tongue to one standard translation (we hadn’t talked about this issue before). I think if more Pastors in the KJVO movement talked to believers like this, they would realize how foreign a concept of one standard Bible is to many international ears.
I observe-unscientifically, I admit-that KJVO missionaries leave KJV-Onlyism at a greater rate than KJV-Only pastors. For reasons similar to what you mention.
The TR versions from KJV going all the way back to the Tindale has always been the standard and everything else that agrees, just commentary to make it better. the standard is not about perfect grammar or English, it's about Seniority and the Church,
Personally, I'm Tyndale only, why should we use a modern revision like the KJV, which waters down the pure words Tyndale used by making the pastor a bishop or using the word charity rather than Tyndale's love in 1 Cor 13 so that they could align with Catholic views.
OK obviously that isn't my position, but it is interesting that IFB KJVO proponents miss that very real problem.
I like how you didn't take the stance there are no advantages to a standard text for an organization, but rather that there are values in multiple translations. Good work.
Thank you again, Kevin!
I guess we'll have to go to the dictionary to find out what a crisping pin is........................
Yup.
Clearly the standard bible needs to be in numeric form. We just need to find a way to translate words to numbers :P
2468!
I think your framing around a standard is a bit off.
standard
An exact value, a physical entity, or an abstract concept, established and defined by authority, custom, or common consent to serve as a reference, model, or rule in measuring quantities or qualities, establishing practices or procedures, or evaluating results. A fixed quantity or quality.
I like to break this idea apart into
Standards
standard example
God gave us Standards in His Word about transmitting the Word of God, I've heard you read at least some of the verses on your channel.
The KJV stands as a good example of a good standard example as to how to produce a translation to Gods Standards. I think a few others do as well (english).
To give an example, I currently have 4 translations I consider primary (KJV, NKJV, NASB95, LSB). While I read other translations as it's an interest I'm frequently checking odd readings against those 4 versions. As a couple of examples, there are somethings in the ESV that give me concern, minor, but concern enough I only use it as a reference and it's checked against the 4. I'm almost done with the NLT, I've really enjoyed it, but I've hit a few places where it's not making the primary list anytime soon. There are of course english translations I just avoid/ignore.
So to my example, I have at least my expectation of Gods Standards that should be followed in a translation.
Add to that all the other issues around having an over abundance of translations, motives, etc... and yea there's cause to be alert and a watchman.
Is KJO the answer, nope.
Do I have a solution? nope.
I appreciate your content, more so your ministry for the Church right now. I find it useful to my walk in The Lord.
Thanks
Thank you for the kind words!
Recently switched from the CSB to the NKJV as my primary translation choice (mainly because I am worried that modern versions have unknowingly taken out portions of Scripture that were originally included in the Bible)
That’s fine, my friend. Enjoy the NKJV!
I love the MEV. In my opinion, it’s the best and my go-to.
Great!
Very good video, Brother Mark
How do my KJV only friends go about podcasts, social media, etc? I found that all of my favorite pastors use a modern English translation.
They're there! You just have to look!
All my favourite pastors use the KJV. As the Americans say, “go figure”.
@@glenn1611 what’s your recommended pastors?
@@glenn1611 Glenn, give me some names! I have LONG wanted to hear the best KJV preachers of the day. Is Peter Masters one of your faves?
Not that I know much at all, but the more I learn to read and understand the biblical languages, the less "dogmatic" (if that's the right way to put it) I am about any single evangelical Bible translation, because I see strengths and weaknesses or advantages and disadvantages in nearly all good evangelical Bible translations.
Right!
I equate pure words with perfect words. We have God's pure, perfect words.
Please interact with the arguments made in the video.
Maybe we should just create a Greek and Hebrew class in all New Member Classes in every church, teaching everyone Greek and Hebrew and doing away wih all English Bibles. Lol. 😂😂
Thank God we don’t have to!
No!
“…completely different underlying NT..” is a hyperbolized exaggeration (intentional redundancy to make the point) of the truth and they (whoever they is) know it.
Sadly you & I KNOW they‘ll NEVER admit that.
I’m gonna make ‘em. I’ve got a plan!
I'd like to see you do a refutation of "New Age Bible Versions." I have a friend who cites this book all the time when the subject of bible versions come up. He is staunch KJVO
It’s such unbelievable foolishness on page after page… I’ve long felt there’s nothing I can say to people who find that sort of thing persuasive. They are too far gone. Someone else will have to reach them. I cannot. Maybe I’m wrong in this. I find it viscerally terrible to consider reading a page of that crazy drivel. :(
@@markwardonwords I understand brother. I enjoy your work. God bless you man
The craziest thing is when I see videos of KJV-Onlyists trying to defend the book against people who say that Riplinger didn't accurately quote the things she quoted. And they'll be all like "Maybe you should actually read her book. Then you'll see, just like I have, because I've looked at all the sources that she's cited, and they are accurately quoted." Her supporters will outright *lie* (and yes, it is indeed a lie).
There were plenty of changes to English after 1769.
True
It’s almost humorous, Jehovah’s Witnesses regularly hear how we have our “own bible” or in this context a “standard bible.” While it’s true having a “pulpit standard” clearly has its grand advantages, (how thrilling it is when attending conventions of tens of thousands or even a hundred thousand, and virtually everyone is using the same New World Translation!) We regularly use many other translations in our talks/sermons and in Watchtower publications. As such Watchtower publications are printed in well over 600 languages and more, many translations from those languages are also incorporated. Likewise, over the decades, in our door-to-door work, if someone prefers to use a different translation of their choice, we gladly accommodate them. Sadly, in recent years, most people don’t even have a bible in their homes, and don’t even know how to look up bible verses. In this regard, when millions of people get their first “hands on” experience with the bible, it’s the New World Translation. All in all, we’re happy to use any of the most popular translations. Incidentally, the NWT also uses “example” in Philippians 3:17 and 1 Timothy 4:12.
True, poor exegesis unfortunately doesn't require a specific translation, and Athanasius didn't require a KJV to refute Arius.
The NWT IS also the only translation to mistranslate ego eimi in John 8:54, as in that passage, very clearly Jesus there claims to be Yahweh. As I recall they didn't fully obliterate the Deity of Christ in Hebrews 1.
Thanks for your kindly reply. My intent is also to be respectful and nice about this.
There is a large difference in "poor exegesis" and just 'different exegesis.'
ua-cam.com/play/PLXEVxxaD7DiK4U5fnFv2o_0d8H81HsO2M.html&si=IV8xdIaULjcpjNiL
Actually, the NWT isn't "the only translation to translate ego eimi into I have been." Please note what even James White has to say about it....
ua-cam.com/video/kq0mgRxZlYM/v-deo.htmlsi=eGsJ1CSz-x_orK8R
@@kevinshort2230 Just another quick thought on John 8:58, after having a little more time.
Quotes from other translations;...
Anderson New Testament
Jesus said to them: Verily, verily I say to you, before Abraham came into being, I was.
Young’s Commentary and Newcome’s Translation say “I am he.”
REV "I am the one"
American Standard Version “came into being”
Goodspeed American Translation “I existed before Abraham was born.”
Moffat “I have existed before Abraham was born.”
Fair enough, there are other bad translations on this regard, I stand corrected. But, in this case and context, those translations do not work. There are limits to the use of the so-called historic present, this passage doesn't fit.
@@kevinshort2230 It depends on what scholars we heed. Did you catch the video link in the above comment with James White?
Hi Dr. Mark,
I grew up and was trained in KJV only churches and institutions and so am familiar with many of the KJV only arguments. I have heard the “zenith” of English argument many times. I would say that this line of argument goes hand in hand with the other common argument,ent that “modern Bibles dumb down the Bible.” It is commonly argued that contemporary English does not posses the capacity that “KJV English” does to accurately convey God’s Word.
Right! This is a line they toss off over and over and over. I've never heard them respond to any counterarguments. They act like it's utterly obvious.
Wait…isn’t the CSB the Christian STANDARD Version??
The S does stand for "Standard," yes. This naming convention makes little sense because the translation has no ties to the ASV. However, it probably came about because the Southern Baptist Convention was originally hoping to secure the rights to the NASB for their publishing wing. The plans fell through, and Holman instead adapted the Logos 21 translation developed by the late Art Farstad. But since the NASB was a major influence on the translation, the SB part of the name was borrowed for the HCSB.
@@MAMoreno Fascinating! I did not know this!
RV1885
ASV1901
Both 👍
Excellent video Sir! While it would be nice if everyone could agree on a single translation. I know KJVO people who absolutely will not switch and I personally will not switch back to the KJV. I just get so much more from reading the modern English versions and I feel so bad for people at Bible study when I hear them “halting / limping” 😅 their way through the KJV because some propaganda has made them afraid to read a modern version. Thanks again for all you do Dr Ward. God Bless
Well said!
Interesting side note, a major part of the "reformation" was the concept of priesthood of the believer, yet, the KJV was promoted by an entity who was fanatical on the divine right of kings and believed that his god given authority made him the head of the church, and even suggested he should be called Father.
Seems like KJV-onlyists are willing to sacrifice the priesthood of the believer, and the ability of each believer to approach the Savior through the Holy Spirit, in there own language, even modern English. The Holy Spirit is not limited in speaking to the believer by Elizabethan english.
I hear the comment from the KJVO crowd that they need to be teaching their people to read the KJV better a lot. It seems like they're trying to allow for a sliver of common ground on the readability issue while also appearing vulnerable by admitting some personal fault in the matter. In reality, however, it's little more than a cop-out. First of all, who says that teaching archaic English is a preacher's responsibility? For them to pretend it's partially their fault (beyond demanding exclusive use of an archaic translation) is a bit silly if you ask me.
More importantly, do they seriously believe that they have the resources and capability to teach that sort of thing, and a significant portion of their members have the time it would take to measurably improve their fluency? Thinking practically, plays by Shakespeare are standard works in high school curricula, but daily classes are necessary to make any headway in that material with most students, and little of that is retained past graduation (except maybe with nerds like us). Now try doing that for adults with jobs and children who haven't taken a class on anything in a decade or more. Even if you replace your Sunday evening and Wednesday evening services with King's English classes, is that going to be enough? How would that affect the spiritual life of the church? Would it be worth the sacrifice?
A big part of the question is whether seminaries need to be devoting any of their time toward teaching ministers how to understand Jacobean vocabulary and grammar. Do the would-be presbyters need to take a semester of Hebrew, a semester of Greek, and a semester of Early Modern English? If a Bible college doesn't think that such a course is necessary, then said Bible college shouldn't claim that using the KJV is necessary.
@@MAMoreno That's true, I briefly forgot that WCBC was the context. Since Jacobean English is ultimately their ecclesiastical language of choice, it really ought to be formally taught in institutions like theirs. I think they do realize on some level that there's something wrong with putting it on the same level as the actual biblical languages, but their solution is to stick their heads in the sand instead of confronting the real issues.
I have to agree. They simply will not engage my arguments about readability difficulties in any detail. There are a tiny few exceptions, of course. But Read was not one of them. =(
I occasionally am reminded that you are actually engaging in a polemic with KJV-onlyists in amongst making all your wonderful videos about how to understand Elizabethan English.
I'm glad to hear this! Because for me, of course, it's not occasional. Almost every video is a kind of polemic. But the great thing is that I can be constructive and positive; I don't have to be negative all the time. I can just explain what the KJV means, and that's polemic enough to those with ears to hear.
@@markwardonwords I am sure I see your debate from a very different angle than you. I found your channel as an ex-atheist, currently outside any church (I hope to fix this soon), looking for advice about bible translations (currently reading the ESV). I do think that if I were to try to read the King James again I would need to read your books on KJV language first. Thanks so much for your videos presenting the common-sense idea that we should take advantage of all the excellent English Bible translations that bless us today and find the one that works well for us. Many other peoples elsewhere in the world have to read the one version of the Bible that happens to be available in their language. They don't have the opportunity to argue over different translations. Thanks again for doing the Lord's work.
Something very interesting that I learned. In my apartment complex there is a table where people can put things they dont want anymore that anyone can take. I stumbled across a duay rheims catholic bible and I picked it up just to check it out. There are very short chapter introductions and was curious how they differed from similar short introctories in the esv bible and thomas nelson bibles which are often very helpful. Well, I flipped to Romans and the introduction said this: "The letter to the Romans was written in Greek but translated into Latin at the same time for those who couldn't read Greek."
I was really baffled and scratching my head not sure if I was reading it correctly at first. Then it struck me. They are saying that to try to keep their Roman catholic heritage belief that they are the one true apostolic church and that their Latin bible was inspired and has been around as long as the original autographs. I was really shocked at this just obvious blatant fallacious lie! I mean it's historical fact that Jerome translated the bible into Latin in the late 300s. About 300 years after the original autographs. The Roman Catholic church has to lie about history to try and substantiate their claims reading their traditions into history. There are so many similarities to the JKV Only movement. They do the same kind of things. Anyways I thought that was interesting and worth sharing. Sad, but interesting and hopefully useful information when having conversations with friends and family about these kinds of topics. God bless
Yup, the Douay-Rheims is pretty much the KJV for Catholics. If you look up critiques of The New Jerusalem Bible or The New American Bible, a lot of them are critiques of where they differ from the Douay-Rheims, completely ignoring whether or not the newer translation is more accurate.
There is an “old Latin” translation that existed before Jerome. But I’ve never heard anyone say that it goes all the way back to the time of the autographs. Wow. Any chance you could take a shot of that and send it to me at byfaithweunderstand.com/contact ?
@@markwardonwords Here's the introduction in some editions of the D-R:
*St. Paul wrote this Epistle at Corinth, when he was preparing to go to Jerusalem with the charitable contributions collected in Achaia and Macedonia for the relief of the Christians in Judea; which was about twenty-four years after our Lord's Ascension. It was written in Greek; but at the same time translated into Latin, for the benefit of those who did not understand that language. And though it is not the first of his Epistles in the order of time, yet it is first placed on account of the sublimity of the matter contained in it, of the preeminence of the place to which it was sent, and in veneration of the Church.*
@@MAMoreno Wow! I can't believe I've never heard this before.
@@markwardonwordshey Mark ya I will try to see if I can find it.
In this modern ‘woke’ world and words being redefined. When does progress become regression? God through Jesus by the Holy Spirit!!
Yes, there are a tiny few words being redefined. I'm against transgenderism as much as you: it's a deep lie. But there are also many, many words that are just slowly morphing over time the way they have always done. To see many of those, check out my Fifty False Friends in the KJV playlist.
Do we "need" a Standard English Bible? You're right in saying that we do not--we do not have one (and really never have), and God does not promise one. Indeed, there is no Bible at all in the "heart" languages of millions of people*, and if we roll back the clock about 500 years, there was no Bible at all in the native language of most of the planet. If the church needed such a thing, God surely would have provided it. As you also say, there would be considerable benefits to having a "standard" translation in any given language, but there are also benefits in having a variety--even though I suspect we long since passed the point where Yet Another English Translation ceased to give any real benefit. The biggest benefit I see is the ability to compare translations when a passage is unclear. Sure, I can use a dictionary (even though I sadly lack an OED--I'm still kicking myself for passing up the "compact" OED I once saw in a thrift store), but that isn't especially helpful if the phrasing is awkward or otherwise confusing. But if I compare, say, a NASB, a ESV, a NET, and a CSB, I'm probably going to get a pretty good understanding of the meaning. I'm not a scholar of Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic, and doubt I ever will be (even if gaining some facility with Greek is on my to-do list), but "in a multitude of counselors there is safety" (Prov 11:14).
*Why is English special? Or perhaps the real question is: why can't the KJVO folks see how limiting this is? God's elect comprise "a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues"--that is, languages (Rev 7:9). But only the native speakers of one language get God's True Word in their language? I think I'll have to stop this line of discussion, because I won't be able to follow your example of graciousness if I continue.
Yes, this is terribly sad. One of the biggest weaknesses of KJV-Onlyism is its insistence that "the text is the issue" paired with its refusal to consider any English translation based on the same texts as the KJV. One of its other biggest weaknesses is its refusal to think through the implications of their viewpoint for Bibles in other languages.
Esvce❤
ESV!
Ha! Yes!
@@markwardonwords
I think it would be the next most viable option for another standard translation. If there was one
@@ejwoods2457 It has some factors in its favor. For instance, it appeals to RSV users who were dissatisfied with the NRSV. That group includes many Catholic, Orthodox, and mainline Protestant Christians. It also connects with many evangelical Protestants who felt that the RSV was the best modern Bible translation (in literary beauty, scholarly clout, or both) except in places where the modernist scholarship came at the expense of traditional Christian interpretation.
But it also has some major barriers holding it back. And most of those barriers were created by the very people who produced and promoted the ESV. The translation is almost unshakably associated with complementarianism, Calvinism, and hostility toward the NIV committee. Some people who would otherwise enjoy the ESV have vowed never to touch it simply because they don't want to support the guys behind it. Perhaps there's still hope--after all, the Catholic edition is proving popular in the UK--but it may take a generation to shake its general reputation.
I would prefer that there be a standard English version, as having a standard version isn't the same as having only one acceptable version for liturgical or private use. I appreciate the note on the front flap of the NEB's dust cover: "It is not a revision of the Authorized Version, nor is it intended to replace it." If you position your translation as a supplement to the standard English version, you still leave room for a standard English version. (Imagine one of those tacky Coexist bumper stickers, but now with the logos of the major translations.)
Of course, such an idea has been impossible ever since reactionary evangelical translations came out to muddy the waters in the 1970s. You can turn that back around and blame the RSV for stirring up controversy in the first place, but the fact remains: if you make a translation for the sake of directly competing with the standard English version, the ultimate result will be the death of the very concept of a standard English version.
And maybe it wouldn't be so bad if the evangelical versions weren't also competing with each other for dominance. The NIV wasn't positioned as the secondary translation to be used alongside the "standard Bible" offered by Lockman, despite both translations sharing many of the same members. Instead, it was a rival to both the RSV and NASB. (Again, contrast the NEB, which filled a different niche than the RSV and resisted presenting itself as a superior alternative.) And then the NKJV positioned itself as better than the NASB on a textual basis, better than the RSV on a theological basis, and better than the NIV on a methodology basis. As so often happens on the more conservative end of the Christian pool, the factions start fighting among themselves instead of presenting a united front against theological liberalism, and further fracturing occurs.
I am compelled to agree. This is a lot of wisdom.
A standard translation has some value, for liturgical purposes, particularly recitation, although sadly too many Baptists at least have become too informal in their liturgy.
But, it doesn't seem to me this leaves us with secondary translations, because different institutions will prefer different translations for different reasons.
I was TR only at one point in my life, before I learned Greek. I fell in love with Tyndale's 1534 edition from a reference copy at Mack Library, and used it regularly for devotions. Like Mark, due to a professor I greatly admired, Dr Stewart Custer, I became a devoted user of the NASB.
The first time I read the ESV, I fell in love, it is my favorite translation for everyday use. Part of this, however, has to do with the seasons of my life, the NASB better suited where I was at that time, the ESV where I am now.
If I were starting a school or a church, it would be the translation we would use as a standard. I know other people that would do the same. Some organizations have different standards and would adopt the NKJV for textual reasons. Some Mennonite groups, I'm sure, would still object because it lacks the apocrypha. Catholics have their own distinct translations. That is, standard translations it seems to me will have denominational considerations. I admit, I see signs of the ESV becoming the Evangelical standard, but I think that is due to people recognizing its virtues, not by some group making a decision go use it.
And Mark is right, I usually follow along with an app from a small company call faithlife you might have heard of. My standard desktop there has four versions tied together, the ESV for the initial reading, the Greek and Hebrew for the body of the sermon and the Clementine vulgate since I am working on getting Latin up to speed. It would be useful for church's to have one translation to read aloud, etc., but for individuals, different translations will meet different needs.
@@kevinshort2230 The RSV and its two updates, the NRSV and ESV, have the advantage of offering both Catholic editions and editions with the expanded Apocrypha (which contains all of the books accepted by Eastern Orthodoxy). They actually try to be a "standard version" in an ecumenical sense, whereas other translations are mostly content to be Catholic or Protestant exclusively.
The issue, of course, is that we have competing updates of the RSV instead of one edition that is accepted by everyone. The whole reason the ESV exists is because some evangelicals wanted a more conservative RSV. The whole reason the ESV Catholic Edition exists is because some Catholics felt the same way. Meanwhile, other Protestants and Catholics stick with the NRSV.
So the division isn't merely denominational. It's a battle of complementarian factions and egalitarian factions or inerrantist factions and non-inerrantist factions within the same faith tradition. And the result is that you have one congregation reading its preferred "Standard Version" while the congregation across the street reads a mostly identical "Standard Version" with only a few meaningful differences.
@MAMoreno yes, and? The issues between religious liberals and Christians (see Machen for my point on why I do not consider liberals to be Christians) are issues that are going to impact preferences in pulpit translation, which was my point. The liturgical advantages are denominational by nature. A translation, such as the ESV might arise to prominence as the KJV did, by multiple denominations finding a particular translation to have certain virtues that make it neutral enough that everyone uses it, but that isn't guaranteed, and on some point neutrality isn't always a virtue, since you have to take a stance one way or the other on what you believe X is trying to communicate. The Geneva was popular in many circles for more than a hundred years after the KJV, as I recall there it even made an appearance or two in mid-nineteenth century tracts.
@@MAMorenoactually thanks, I think I agree further with Mark than I did before. Some differences in sects are different enough that we are in completely different traditions, see (MacIntyre Whose Justice, Which Rationality on this point). We shouldn't expect that different intellectual traditions will accept a single translation as a standard one.
Do we need a standard bible? Ask the folks who wrote the ESV, the LSB, the NASB. It seems that everyone wants their version to become the standard bible. I find it odd that you only concerned about the KJV fans.
PS. I like to study the Bible. There is nothing wrong with changing some meanings to meet the needs of today.
Not concerned about the KJV fans-I'm a KJV fan! Concerned about the doctrines of KJV-Onlyism.
Give me a name of a person that is NLT only.
You make a good point about all those versions claiming to be a "Standard" by their names. Also, you forgot at least two more, the CSB and the BSB. So we now have several "Standards": the English, New American, Legacy, Christian, and Berean.
I think all of these truly are very useful, but they all can't actually be "Standard." It is not good that this word has become the new "standard" naming convention.
We now are rich in available resources, but there truly was a great value in having a standard or commonly accepted translation in English.
@@markwardonwords CT has it's fanatics, so does the TR.
@@P_Ezi BSB made that as a recent change. They changed Study to Standard. Personally I think it was so they didn't have to change the BSB logo.
That'd be a Standard American Bible, then! In Elizabethan English. What you're battling against is nothing less than cultic thinking. And then, of course, there's a whole Christian world out there that doesn't speak English. Beyond the borders of the United States, that is...
Right!
@@markwardonwords I just can't understand those who want to make it harder for English-speakers to read the Bible. In effect they are creating a KJV-only Magisterium which keeps the Bible at one remove from their congregants. Do they have a Syllabus of Erroneous Bible Versions as well?
Do we need a standard English Bible ? No. Rather, a sincere Bible reader needs an ACCURATELY translated Bible, regardless of the language it is printed in, in order to prevent from being "lost". The apostle Paul pointed out of the need for "accurate knowledge in abundance" at Philippians 1:9-11, saying:
"And this is what I continue praying, that your love may abound still more and more with accurate knowledge ("abound....with accurate knowledge", Greek perisseuo epignosis, meaning "to superabound, be in excess of precise and correct knowledge") and full discernment ("full discernment", Greek perisseuo aisthesis, meaning "to superabound, be in excess, of perception, discernment");"
"that you may make sure ("make sure", Greek dokimazo, meaning "to test, prove, examine, scrutinize") of the more important things, so that you may be flawless ("flawless", Greek eilikrines, meaning "to judge by sunlight (that shows even the slightest mistakes), i.e. tested, effectively found pure") and not stumbling others ("stumbling others", Greek aproskopos, meaning "inoffensive, i.e. not leading into sin, not causing to stumble") up to the day of Christ; and that you may be filled with righteous fruit, which is through Jesus Christ, to God’s glory and praise."(New World Translation)
The King James Bible reads here: "And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge ("knowledge" is the Greek word gnosis, but falls far short of epignosis or accurate knowledge) and in all judgment; That ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ. Being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God."
This is just ONE example of "missing the mark" of accuracy by the King James Bible (and many other Bibles, such as replacing God's name of Jehovah with titles of "God" and "Lord", so that "the Sovereign Lord Jehovah", Gen 15:2, and found some 218 times in the Bible "book" of Ezekiel, is unknown by the majority of Bible readers), in which there are so many too numerous to address here.
If a person is traveling, but the map he or she is using is inaccurate, will he ever reach his desired location by "sticking to the map" ?(Note: recently, Google was sued by a family in North Carolina because a bridge was out (or had been out since its partial collapse in 2013) that was not identified on the Google map, that the family says led to the father driving off the bridge at night, whereby he died; CNN article dated Sept 23, 2023)
For example, the King James Bible mistranslates the Hebrew word negeb, that means "south, specifically the Negeb or southern district of Judah", in almost all of its places, as at Genesis 13:1-4, whereby it says that Abraham is going south to Bethel, but accurately, he is is going north to "the Negeb" or southern district of Judah, just below the Dead Sea.
The King James Bible reads at Genesis 13:1-4: "And Abram went up out of Egypt, he, and his wife, and all that he had, and Lot with him, into the south. And Abram was very rich in cattle, in silver, and in gold. And he went on his journeys from the south even to Bethel (which is some 12 miles north of Jerusalem), unto the place where his tent had been at the beginning, between Bethel and Hai; Unto the place of the altar, which he had make there at the first: and there Abram called on the name of the Lord."
The 2013 New World Translation accurately reads: "Aʹbram then went up out of Egypt to the Negʹeb (traveling north, NOT south), he and his wife and all that he had, together with Lot. Aʹbram was very rich in livestock, silver, and gold. He camped in one place after another as he traveled from the Negʹeb to Bethʹel, until he arrived at the place where his tent had been between Bethʹel and Aʹi, to the place where he had previously built an altar. There Aʹbram called on the name of Jehovah."
If a person wants to "stay in the dark", they can stick with the King James Bible, but the 2013 New World Translation provides what sincere Bible readers needs, accuracy, and accuracy can lead a person to living forever, for only with "accurate knowledge" does a person do as Jesus said in prayer at John 17:3: "This means everlasting life, their coming to know you (or accurately know you), the only true God (Jehovah), and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ."
Hello (Brother?) timhaley. I was born and raised on the KJV and about 50 years ago was introduced to the NWT. I think a lot of kindly folks react to the NWT as I did at first. "It's different therefore it's wrong." Of course as we study and examine it, we learn being different isn't so bad, if it is bad at all. Many newer bible translations still hold the basic pattern of the KJV. The NWT was set to "start fresh" thus some of its differences. Translating the original languages to another often leads to more than one way to translate. Every instance of the NWT has been translated within correct scholarly methods and backing. It's easy to see that the KJV has a definite bias towards the trinity, as any truly honest scholar would notice and admit. Examples 1 john 5:7, 1 Timothy 3:16 and Acts 20:28 for just a few. As we also find, non-doctrinal issues are much more precise in NWT as well, and nearly all "orthodox" scholars that have checked will agree. Those are the areas that are helpful for others to realize. Sadly, they primarily focus on the parts they disagree on and many don't even realize that those scriptures are still backed up in Christendom's lexicons, expositories and such. Have you a copy of the NET bible 'Full Notes Edition'? Many of the notes and comments in that volume regularly endorse the NWT!
I have made a very informal series of videos during the covid shut down (since our door-to-door work was temporarily on hold) explaining the more major differences that some people we meet disagree with. They're production value isn't real 'professional' especially in just using our family camcorder, but the research is a compilation of 50 years of notes and references. Here's the link to the playlist. Watch and leave comments. :) I hope to hear from you.
ua-cam.com/play/PLXEVxxaD7DiK4U5fnFv2o_0d8H81HsO2M.html&si=vPPibyPr1tM5SQDZ
@@19king14
Yes, I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses, being baptized in 1970, and my parents started studying with a pioneer brother in 1953, just before I was born. And I enjoyed watching a couple of your videos, New World Translation Curiosities Intro and No 1.
I delve into the Hebrew and Greek of the Bible (though am in no way a scholar of either language), using a program that is no longer available from Scripture4all, no. 2.1.3., that shows the accuracy of the 2013 New World Translation, but which I also realize that Jesus said that "few" would listen, even in the face of overwhelming evidence (such as the resurrection of Lazarus, John 11:53; 12:10). But pressing on is what a loyal servant of Jehovah God does, for "we are not the sort who shrink back to destruction, but the sort who have faith for the preserving of our lives.
"(Heb 10:39)
@@timhaley3459 Great to meet you! I, too am one of Jehovah's Witnesses, started in 1973 when I was still in 12th grade high school and then being baptized in 1975. One big advantage of being one of JWs is that, as a way of life, we meet all kinds of people with all kinds of "doctrines" (and learn how to stand up to/against them) and are thus well outside of the circle of sectarianism, something even many of the most "scholared" haven't done nearly to our extant, thus we have 'wider horizons' and end up learning things not taught in the best of colleges. I'm presently working on another video on "Worship" or the Greek "Proskuneo." We have some Greek speaking JWs in our area. One has been studying Biblical Greek since the late 1960s. His native language is Greek as well. He fully sees the difference in today's Greek and biblical Greek. Since his native language is Greek, he had a strong head-start on learning biblical Greek. He's 75 years old which puts him well ahead of many of today's Greek scholars that may have only started learning it in college and are much younger.
@@19king14
Glad to meet you too. When one becomes one of Jehovah's Witnesses, this should cause them to "dig deep" into the Bible, taking on challenging scriptural topics that requires an extensive personal study and serious meditation, as the apostle Paul wrote at 2 Corinthians 6:13, to "open your hearts wide", though in this context, of widening out in showing agape love, and NOT put on pretense of being "loving", which Jehovah can "see though".(compare Prov 28:11)
The examination of ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek is a study within itself, and with the use of Scripture4all 2.1.3 (along with all the other Bible study aids), I can put into more perspective what the Bible really teaches, able to break down Hebrew and Greek words used in the Bible so that to do as Jesus said at Matthew 13 concerning ' understanding the sacred secrets of the Kingdom '.(Matt 13:11)
At Matthew 13, Jesus used the Greek word (or lemma or base word) syniemi, that literally means "to mentally put the pieces together" six times (Matt 13:13-15, 19, 23, 51; Note: this word is explained under the topic of "Understanding" in the Insight book), which reminds me to work diligently to figure out prophetic statements throughout the Bible, as well places and locations (such as where was Beersheba located, or Shur, or the wildernesss of Paran, or the Moabites or Amorites, or Ammonites or Amalekites, the Philistines, and who they were, etc in relation to the nation of Israel), the culture of people living some 2,000 to 4,000 years ago in the Bible, what the circumstances were surrounding any given situation, so as to grasp "the truth".(John 8:32)
Any way, I have said enough, so you have a good day.
@@timhaley3459 I felt a little honored when I got to actually video chat with Mark for an hour. He was most pleasant. We agreed to be friendly and respectful and the conversation really went well. Sadly, since then, I don't get much response from him at all. It seems (Mark was NOT this way) so many people want to 'bash' us or otherwise not bother with us. Mark does seem to be doing so as well. The "Jesus Freak" friends I had back in the 1970s were also like this. Over the years, in my places of employment, I worked with two different clergymen that held full-time jobs. They, too, just wanted to 'bash.' Once we were able to establish a respectable rapport, they also stopped talking, especially about the bible. Other people I know of have also been this way. They just wish to bash us or leave us alone. I don't understand why.
The KJV is the only translation where all the gematria works. There has to be something to that.
There is something to it: doctoring the books. When you manipulate the numbers until you get the result you want, then of course the gematria will work.
Dr. Ward at 17:32-52: "Indeed, tenth and finally, to insist that other churches adopt the same standard your church has implies an authoritative human structure above that of the local church... I don't see the New Testament setting up clear structures of authority above the local church."
Response:
1. These statements perfectly encapsulate the Baptist understanding of ecclesiology that can be traced first to England with the early 17th century independent congregations which were permitted to be separated from the established Church of England. Subsequently in the American colonies, this Baptist ecclesiology began with Roger Williams who in 1636 was banished from the established Congregational Church of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. With Bible in hand, he traveled by foot to what eventually became the Rhode Island colony and founded the first Baptist church in America, understood as separated and not established, at Providence Plantations in 1638.
2. However, in Chapter 15 of the Acts of the Apostles, there was a council in Jerusalem (circa 48 - 50 AD) that was convened to resolve disputes occurring in other churches, particularly in Antioch, regarding the integration of Gentiles, Antioch being the first place the followers of Jesus were referred to as Christians. After receiving counsel from Peter followed by the testimony of Paul and Barnabbas, the Jerusalem church presider James (who was one of the twelve apostles), declared publicly that Peter's speech had fulfilled the words of the prophet Amos 9:11-12 and then gave his proposal which was accepted by all in attendance and became binding upon all of the churches. Acts 15:23-29 (ESV) provides the text of the Jerusalem council's letter that accompanied those returning to Antioch: “The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. Since we have heard that some persons have gone out from us and troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”
3. Regarding the beginnings and development of the New Testament canon evolving from the original preaching during the apostolic age, Irenaeus of Lyons, provides an insight from his book Against Heresies, but first let Orthodox Wikipedia display the regard with which he is held in Eastern Orthodoxy:
ST. IRENAEUS, SECOND BISHOP OF LYONS
"The holy and glorious, right-victorious Hieromartyr Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130-202) was bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, which is now Lyons, France. His writings were formative in the early development of Christian theology. He was a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna, who himself was a disciple of the Apostle John the Theologian. His feast day is August 23."
4. Circa A.D. 180, Irenaeus composed Against Heresies whose Book III, Chapter 3, No.1 contains the following:
(1.) We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.
[From the New Advent org website /fathers/0103301.htm]
5. From Irenaeus, one can ascertain that the four gospels originated from and first were prominent in their own particular geographical location: (A) the eye witness Matthew, written for Jewish Aramaic speakers in Israel/Palestine; (B) the secretary Mark, recalling what Peter preached to the Romans; (C) the physician Luke, writing down what was researched, documented and preached by Paul in their missionary journeys throughout Greece/Asia Minor and (D) the eye witness John, residing in Ephesus in his old age.
I’m still praying for you. I don’t know why you decide to spend so much time railing against the KJV,with all this Contant you could have explained the KJV. Explanation of the Bible is what a Bible scholar or teacher does.
The only question I have is how much would satan agree with you about the KJV?
I often wonder the same question about atheist as well.
But with all the issues that are plaguing America today, I find it odd that you pick this one. But hey, at least you’re in vogue with all the rest of the media,content creators, that criticize the Bible, God Jesus and the Christian faith it is after all strategy that works. Why are you explain it when you can just criticize it. Interesting personal choice, but it is your choice and for that I will continue to pray for you.
I'm sure the Judaizers wondered why Paul spent so much time on the "forcing Gentiles to be circumcised" issue, too. It's a distortion of the gospel to say that it must be presented in 400-year-old English. In some circles of the KJVO movement, it's even a different gospel altogether, as it's seen as a salvation issue. If you, being a King James Onlyist, live like a 21st century American and not like a Renaissance fair performer, why do you compel 21st century Americans to read and speak like Ben Jonson?
Friend, can you see a difference between railing against the KJV-which I never, ever do-and railing against KJV-Onlyism?
@@markwardonwords so when you talk about false friends, are you talking about the king James Bible translation or are you talking about king James only ism? From what I understand false friends is more of a literary term than a ism term. I know for a fact you are not calling people who read king James only only as false friends Therefore, it is a criticism that the KJV translation has false friends or confusing terms not KJV only ism. And I’m not saying the KJV is the easiest thing to read but you could be explaining what these mean and lifting up to work towards men’s understanding. But instead you show a different work, there is a motivation for that decision, and God knows your heart. I am just pointing to the obvious that you chose to make the content that you have chosen to put up.
@@shannonashley7224 Thank you for making an effort to understand; please give me another minute of effort! False friends are nobody's fault. They're not the KJV translators' fault; they're not our fault. They come from the impersonal force of language change, which happens in every language.
No one-no one, and this is not a boast but the simple and clear truth-is doing more to teach people how to read the KJV than I am. Have you watched the Fifty False Friends series? ua-cam.com/play/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc.html
Does that make sense?
@@markwardonwords Gen 3:1 Yea, hath God said, ~ Serpent (Satan) And every modern Bible translation adherent. Notice how they sound the same?
I’ve only noticed that is the massively, intelligent people that have such an issue reading the KJV. Perhaps it confounds the wise like James White and so on. (no I have not put you in his camp yet or I have not watched enough of you to determine such things nor do I know the motivations of any man’s heart I can only guess.)
I was given a KJV Bible when I was 10 years old. It wasn't impossible to decipher for my 10 year old mind. I mean it is Modern English. After buying an NASB version I came to the conclusion people were just looking for loopholes for their favorite sins.
That is an extremely uncharitable thing to say about other Christians. I read multiple Bible translations in order to close loopholes for my sin!
That’s ridiculous
@@markwardonwords I am currently reading through my eighth translation of the Bible, the Legacy Standard Bible, which is now the newest. The oldest I have read through is the 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible (3 times). Have I been able to gain a better insight of what Scripture teaches from the newer translations? No. In fact I have gained more from the older, Geneva Bible. I even reference the Wycliffe and Tyndale, now those are a challenge.
So what other conclusion may I be allowed to arrive? My heart has been exposed, my rebellion against my Creator. It is a painful process. Some, if not most would wish to avoid that😢.
No.
Agreed!
@@markwardonwords No, we are not in agreement. You have completely misinterpreted my earlier response to the question asked in the title of this video.
@@vilmamannarino7310 Then tell me what you're thinking, friend.
When a man makes it his life’s calling to put down a translation that has served mankind for a few centuries, one must question his motives. Does your content glorify God? Does it cause division within the church? Do you publicly put down and discredit others? Do you justify your position by boasting of your education achievements both here and at Faith for Life? I, I, I. Perhaps it’s really all about selling books and pushing your own new perfect translation.
I love the KJV! I do not ever put it down. What causes division within the church is untruth-like the doctrines of KJV-Onlyism.
*When a man makes it his life’s calling to put down a translation that has served mankind for a few centuries, one must question his motives.*
...said the skeptical Catholics about the early Protestant translations.