Do KJV-Only Pastors Understand the KJV? (NATIONAL SURVEY Part 2)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 жов 2023
- The second half of my survey, plus wrap-up comments.
🎁 Help me end Bible translation tribalism, one plow boy at a time, by becoming a UA-cam member:
✅ / @markwardonwords
📖 Check out my book, Authorized:
amzn.to/2r27Boz
🎥 Watch my Fifty False Friends in the KJV series on UA-cam:
bit.ly/50FalseFriends
👏 Many thanks to Jonathan Burris of @pastorburris for editing this video as a volunteer support to my little ministry!
👏 Many thanks to my respected friend @DiscipleDojo , who recently passed 10,000 subs (!), for the aikido video!
👏 Many, many thanks to the many supporters who made this work possible!
Meghan, John Black, Deborah Reinhardt, Corey Adams, Desert Cross Tortoise Fox, Robert Daniels, Rick Erickson, 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, Luc + Eileen 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.
👏 Thank you especially to Caleb Richardson, whose put many hours and much expertise into this project.
![Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0tYm41hb48o/mqdefault.jpg)
![Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD]](/img/tr.png)
So needed! I have spent years in a rural area where literally every single church in my county is KJV only, and it breaks my heart. The trends you show are totally real world applicable. I teach kids and teens, and I primarily focus on helping 8-18 year olds understand a 400 year old version of English, when I believe my time would be better invested with helping them understand who Jesus is and what He wants for their lives! Thanks for the hard work you and your team put in, and I hope the word spreads. I'd share it on facebook, but I'd be labeled a heretic and excommunicated from my church!
I first woke up to the need for newer translations when trying to help a 4th grader who was brought by herself to AWANA decades ago in a rural church. I quickly realized I might as well be trying to help her memorize in Jerome’s Latin for all the truth that she was getting from the it. Many people stop comprehending the instant they run into a “thee” or “saith” when they haven’t spent a long time around it. And that’s true for almost all the easy portions of the Bible without the confusing vocabulary Ward is demonstrating here
This is why I do this work! 100%.
@CheriFields
I’m s😢d for you
@threeqtrthrotle
I’m s😢d for you. Consider starting your own in your home - that was reality 2K years ago
When you come to word in the king James Bible, it needs to be explained to the person that doesn’t understand you do not need to change the text and make it a corrupt text, which all these new Bibles are corrupted texts from corrupt manuscripts they’re not from the same source, the king James Bible comes from Also the first and second person pronoun are more accurate taking that out makes the Bible in correct that seems pretty simple
This channel is my nerd hit TV show. I'm now texting a friend I turned on to the channel, HAVE YOU SEEN THE NEW EPISODE? I have to remind myself to like and comment so the network picks up another season.
ua-cam.com/channels/KRmL7BMyCeLE4KUo73RDzw.htmljoin ;)
The false friends issue was the issue that was the straw that broke my back and moved me away from KJVOnlyism and forced me to advocate for an English update of the TR.
Grateful for your friendship, brother, as you know!
Would the NKJV not suffice, dear brother?
I believe the NKJV is a great alternative
Ha! I knew the old meaning of "miserable" from the Anglican daily office prayer referring to "miserable offenders".
"hit the books" vs "be diligent" is an astounding difference
I think so.
Love how you handled all of this Mark. A blessing. I pray it is seen that way by the target audience.
Thank you!
Thank you Brother Mark. Keep up the good work! God Bless you.
✝️📖🙏🤍
Psalms 119:105 NKJV
Your word is a lamp to my feet And a light to my path.
Thank you so much!
Mark, your humility, and obvious love for your brothers is so encouraging! Thank you for this very encouraging study!
I appreciate that!
Dr. Ward,
I have a theory as to why the respondents did so well on question #8. That verse and its context are preached on extensively at "Faith Promise" missions conferences. This verse is coupled with the great promise in verse 19 "my God shall supply all your need..." to say that if you give to the cause of world evangelism God will supply your needs (but only if you give). I am a missionary supported by nearly 100 KJV-only churches. I have attended several hundred multi-day conferences dedicated to raising funds for mission work all in KJV-only circles. This passage and the word communicated were mentioned and specifically explained in nearly every conference. Even if the main text was another passage this passage was brought in as the big kicker to motivate you to give.
I am not commenting on the validity of this interpretation. I am merely pointing out that this interpretation is very widely preached and this argument specifically hinges on understanding that word correctly. So I believe that this can account at least in part for why that "false friend" was familiar to many pastors.
YES!!! I did not realize this. I used your answer today in a podcast interview!
I would love to listen to that podcast. Could you share it or how to find it?
@@markmariner2461 Yes, I'll share it on the community tab, too! player.captivate.fm/episode/0dbe926f-76eb-4b0c-9ff0-a6bc0d1a2400
Thank you Brother Mark. I love your work. You are a delight and a necessary voice in the translation discussion. ✝️📖🙏🤍
You are very welcome!
i think they got "communicated" right is because of the heavy emphasis on faith promise missions giving. that text is pretty well used/explained during missions conference.
EXCELLENT! I did not know this! My last KJV-Only faith-promise missions conference was probably 26 or 27 years ago!
That's exactly right
Thank you, Mark, for your labour of love on this. This can be such an emotive issue in some circles, and it can distract the church from focusing on its core mission.
Right!
I found this portion very fascinating because I knew these words, not because I know the Elizabethan English or read KJV, but because I know the verses in the ESV with the modern translations. Point made!
Aha! Yes!
This is a response to both videos. Your study confirmed the fears I have had for a while now.
I have run into this a lot recently attending revivals and hearing many different preachers at them. One sermon was entirely about a word italicized and as you know those words aren't even in the original text but this preacher (and most of the congregation) thinks those words are more important. The sermon literally turned the passage on it's head. I believe it was the "and" in Proverbs 22:1 and that isn't the only time I have seen it done.
While I use the KJV myself exclusively as the best available translation (and reference all TR Bibles plus Wycliffe and the Douay-Rheims, putting more weight on Bibles as old or older than the KJV) and I am at least somewhat competent with it (I got 20/20 on your survey) I now fear many/most preachers are too ignorant to use it despite it being better in my opinion. I know (as a layman) I definitely know more about it than the pastors in my area that I have personally heard. (I recently found out our pastor seems to think Revelation was written by Jesus Christ due to the first verse and looked down on my Bible as "wrong" because it titles the book "The Revelation of John" which is also what the older editions KJV's called it but his text only version just says "Revelation") This combined with a strong tendency to spiritualize and metaphorize the text in Baptist/evangelical circles leads to some really weird and unbiblical "messages"(Peter stepping out of the boat to go to Jesus means we should step out of the Pews and go to the "altar" because that is where Jesus lives, In the Altar of God, and we shouldn't look around or we will sink like Peter did to a mighty chorus of "AMEN BROTHER" and "PREACH IT"). This isn't even touching on the preachers I have heard that seem to misunderstand the text on purpose to change it's meaning to something they like better or to provoke a certain response which the congregation then misses due to the vagueness of the text to an uninformed reader in 2023. (often related to giving money, altar calls, or personal pet issues like alcohol or pants on women etc.)
I am torn and fearful, what good does it do to have a more precise "better" bible if we are too dumb to read it? If our pastors are misunderstanding it so badly they mangle God's word to the point of becoming false teachers what hope is there for those in the pews? (I heard a preacher turn James 2:1-7 *against* the poor and for the rich having the better seat.) If the pastors from KJV only educational backgrounds are this bad I don't know if the decline in understanding of the older and "better" English is reversable. Especially in the age of emojis and smartphones. The average person knows less English than they did even 20 years ago and if you don't believe me ask an English teacher or look at the sharply declining test scores in schools.
I don't want a new class of Roman Catholic Clergy (Who are, naturally, unquestionable as the "Man of God") reading weird "messages" from our version of the Vulgate. At the same time I am uneasy of a new translation from different texts or of over focusing on the Greek and Hebrew like the Roman Catholics did with Latin. (Which I have seen some more reformed churches tend to do.) So I must concede and conclude the KJV needs to be carefully revised and the English updated just like the spelling was so many times and I wish the TBS would get behind this. If you manage to pull something together I will happily donate what I can to the effort and use the produced work. In the meantime I eagerly await your upcoming book to add to my study helps and to try to get the members of the church (maybe even the pastor) to consider using. I think they will use it if it doesn't cast doubt on the KJV or try to get them to change versions.
This whole thing (along with other big issues I have seen) makes me very upset and worried about the future and I wish I could talk to my pastor about it. Please pray for me as we are off to another night of revival and this is vexing me a lot.
Are there no other evangelical churches in your area? I just couldn’t persist in attending a church where my pastor mangled the Bible. :( What you’re seeing is anti-intellectualism. Not all Christian circles are guilty of it.
@@markwardonwords Not really, I am from and live in a rural area in the southern Appalachian mountains. It's all Baptists and Pentecostals and if you go to the nearest town, about 15-20 miles away you can find a few very liberal mainline churches as well as a Catholic church.
I think there is/was an ACNA church about 35-40 miles away but I am strongly Credobaptist. There is also the fact I'm not a Calvinist depending on how you define it.
You are right in it being anti-intellectualism, there is no planning of anything because that wouldn't be spiritual enough (We have not had the Lord's supper since Christmas and that was because "the Lord laid it on the pastors heart" and It took over a year to get a baptism done because "you aren't any more saved having been baptized so it really isn't that important as long as you walked to the altar and asked Jesus into your heart") and the spiritualized messages often contradict the literal sense of the text and lead to seeing the Bible as a collection of stories we use kinda like a Ouija board to make messages out of. It is really more "Bapticostal" and Pentecostal around where I live.
It is kinda depressing me and my wife. (we could probably be loosely described as High Church Baptists) I don't want to be misunderstood though, they are all good people and we care a lot for them. They are like family. They are just wrong and can't accept it since they have always done it this way. I am reminded of a passage:
Amos 8:11-12 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord: and they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it.
Near me there is a loosely SBC( the church I attend, which pays no attention to the convention and is IFB in all but name and degrees of separation) IFB, VERY IFB(Amish with cars), IFB Cult (ala Steven Anderson), some Holy Rollers/ faith healers and even a snake handling church. All KJV only with no training or college and proud of it.
WOW! That is really honestly hard to believe but quite discouraging if you have honestly listed all your church options. Just wow!
@@debras3806 It is very discouraging please pray for us.
I grew up in a church where my pastor would read from the J.B. Phillips translation of the NT. And I remember in the late '60s/early '70s discovering the TEV (Good News Bible). Finally, a bible I could understand! Of course I still have my KJV presentation bibles from Sunday School in the '60s, and I treasure them as momentos of my upbringing, but I am so thankful for updated translations.
Amen to all!
If you are unsaved you CANNOT understand the KJB, because God’s Word is SPIRITUALLY discerned. Once you get saved, it will suddenly be easy to understand. God bless💖
You hit the nail on the head. The biggest potential bugaboo to me isn’t words or phrases you cannot understand, because they will catch our attention and we (as in a common person) can look them up… its those words which have changed in meaning over time like halt, or study .
Fascinating work !! May God richly bless you for your labors.
I didn’t even know that KJV only churches existed, but I’ve been watching your channel to educate myself on this topic… so that, someday, if I come across someone who feels trapped by that ideology, I might be able to help them and also direct them to your channel :)
Amen!
@@ritadyer9295 You are right!! I live in the mid-west :) Your deduction skills are impressive. I live ~15 mins away from one of the colleges mentioned in this video. I didn't know that they were an KJV only college.
Fascinating results!
I actually wonder if the respondents did *better* on the false friends section than they would have otherwise during normal study, since the respondents could safely assume a survey question about the meaning of a common-sounding word must signal that the definition must be different than the one they would typically think of.
I thought the same. But the only way around this would have been to perform a misdirection or ask them to explain a paragraph.
Meet brought to mind "It is meet and right so to do." from Eucharistic Rite One of the Episcopal Church.
Right! That, too, is an older sense of the word.
Your points are well taken and your work is appreciated. As someone who is still building out my own understanding of this issue, recently I have been on the hunt for copies of the KJV Bible that include definitions or synonyms in the margins for these very things. I have come across the Thomas Nelson Reference KJV, Tyndale Reference KJV (Filament enabled), and of course the Defined KJB by DA Waite. None others that I’ve come across provide this. It’s at least one good next step for those who are convicted of the need to stick with the KJV because they do not yet see the other TR translations as suitable.
The concept of false friends has been so helpful. It's what I always understood and observed in my King James brothers and friends, but couldn't put it into words. Thank you
My pleasure! I had the same experience!
As with Part 1, brilliant! Thank you and the Lord bless you.
Same to you!
These vids continue to be a great source of translation education for me. Keep it up, brother!
Thanks, will do!
KJV onlyists remind me of Roman Catholicism because of the way the Catholics used to only preach in Latin {another lost language} if it weren’t for stumbling on your UA-cam videos and seeing there were other “understandable” versions, I wouldn’t have started to read the Bible again. I was always understanding that our Lord and Savior wanted us to understand his word. Thank you for showing me other translations. I now have and read the KJV, ESV, NASB and the NIV. The others help me to understand the KJV and GOD’s word.
Heartland Baptist Bible College is my school! Glad he got it right. I represent one who has changed his mind, partially thanks to your videos.
Thanks for sharing! Stay humble, friend. You’re in a tough spot. (You are a current student?)
@@markwardonwords no. I graduated in recent years. I’m currently an intern. My young, small family moved to the Northwest recently, as I’m working at a church here with a likeminded Pastor. We still use the KJV corporately, but are on the same page regarding the need of versions such as the NKJV and MEV. I still haven’t purchased one though😂. Old habits die hard, I guess. I do value the information you’ve presented in your videos and book and the spirit in which you present it.
After 24 years of my life reading the KJV, I finally learn that "you", "your" and "ye" in KJV are plural...Lovely! Well, at least now I know. Also that "so that" is a consequential term "if only." I feel like I have been reading the Bible wrong all these years! Nonetheless, I am glad my church member recommended your channel to me, this video series have been very helpful for me.
Thanks a lot for the work you do brother, I pray God that will reward your efforts abundantly!
So glad to be of service!
Thank you!
1) This helps me understand where people are coming from, when they study the KJV in English.
2) But it puzzles my head, that a "pastor and teacher" would get 2 Timothy 2:15, "study", wrong.
Surely you would preach on this text once in a while. Hence, study the Greek Textus Receptus. Therefore see that the word is "spoudason". Think, sounds like "speed", not "read". And look it up in the lexicon!
That is, actually STUDY IT!
:--}>
RIGHT!!
Thank you, Brother Mark ⭐🌹⭐
Welcome!
That’s it. I’m learning Greek and Hebrew. I’m convinced that the only true way to understand the text perfectly every time is to just do that
If only that were the case! Alas, there is no means to perfect understanding except dying in Christ.
Yet another 🎯 😎👍📖🙏BTW: I find the JPS TANAKH (in English!) useful in clarifying OT readings. And it honestly notes when passages are unclear in the original Hebrew.
Thanks for sharing!
The plough boy didn't have access to dictionaries, commentaries etc. Even in modern times you might be somewhere, where you dont have access to them. Maybe cant afford them. Sometimes you just want to sit down and read the Bible without having to look up and double guess every single false friend.
I agree.
VERY nicely done, Mark. For an expanded survey, you have probably considered a web-based one where you can determine beforehand who you want taking the survey, contact them and give them an access code, and then tabulate the results. Maybe some Christian computer nerds can help you with the project "gratis" or maybe for credit at their Bible college computer class. Or something.
This is good. I had my eye not just on possible ways of getting data but on ways of getting data that helped me be truly persuasive for the truth. I felt that talking to real-live pastors would be the best way. I also wanted to get those men themselves to listen, and I thought talking in person would help. It turns out that it hasn't helped. Only one of the pastors got back to me. But I'm still hopeful!
Good work my friend. 100 people is a small surevy, if it is ever repeated, might I suggest putting together some questions on their reading habits, favorite commentaries, etc, and theological proclivities.
Questions like have you read Calvin's institutes (even if you are strongly anti-calvinistic, you ought to have read the book. I'm not a fan of the New Atheists, but I've read a fair number of books by Dawkins and Dennett). Have you read the City of God? How many hours a week (minus sermon preparation) do you spend reading or listening to books? Which Systematic Theology is your favorite? Name your 3 favorite NT commentators, etc.
I wpuld suggest the larger study you discuss might be a University project, maybe a D Min project?
Good thinking! I'd love to do a bigger study; it may happen.
@@markwardonwords as I said, it might be something a D Min student might take up, or a Seminary that might have a bit of money behind it, though most D Min survey projects, to my understanding, are mailers.
Another great and informative video, Mark. Again, I notice you’re not aggressive at all trying to present or prove your point.
Thanks for that!
"insistent demands of gravity?" I love that!!
;)
Thanks for this information.👍
No problem 👍
I watched this video 2 days ago and I thought to myself, "Of course we can use any vast number of translations at our disposal. But for people like me who prefer to memorize out of the KJV, what options for helps are there for having something readily available to understand *inside* of a KJV? There are some KJV Bibles that do, and I have commented on videos before about how these editions are have attempted to show updated words in either the text, margins or footnotes. I am not sure why King James Only pastors do not have Bibles like these. I am not King James Only, but I memorize exclusively from it, and these Bibles have been invaluable to me.
So today I sit with 7 different King James Bibles before me -- yes, 7. Here's the dealio: each one contains some type of help for the reader so that he or she understands the modern reading of each word. So, the question I asked myself yesterday was, "How thorough is each of these Bibles in helping the reader understanding words which have fallen out of our modern usage?" (There may be more Bibles like this, I just don't own any of them)
Here are the Bibles:
- Thomas Nelson KJV Single-Column End-Of-Verse Reference Bible with modern readings of archaic words and phrases in the footnotes. Calling it the "TN SC Reference".
- KJV Cambridge Cameo Reference Edition. Cambridge Bibles appear to use the marginal notes that the 1611 translators included, as well as from the other KJV editions. "Cameo"
- KJV Oxford New Scofield Reference Edition - Obsolete and archaic words have been changed to modern renderings within the text, and the original KJV reading appears in the center column. "New Scofield"
- KJV Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible containing spelling/vocabulary changes in the text. (I am using the 1991 revision. It has been revised again since then, but I don't have the newer ones.) "Key Word" (Also, I found it hilarious this one in particular has updated the word "beeves" as "beefs" rather than as "cattle" or "oxen" as other KJV with modern renderings have)
- KJV Dickson New Analytical Bible" with American Revised Version renderings in brackets next to the original KJV word in the text. "New Analytical"
- King James Version Easy Reader with archaic words underlined and modern reading at the end of the verse. "KJVER"
- Tyndale KJV Life Recovery Bible with modern renderings found in the footnotes. "Life Recovery"
If I don't list one of the Bibles in the verse, it's because it didn't contain an alternate rendering.
Genesis 2:18 "an help meet" (bear in mind that in the UK, they still consider the " soft h" as a vowel and speak and read this way (example: "an historic event", "an hospital", "an house") which is why I included "an" in the sentence. "an" before "h" happens all over the place in the KJV ("a city that is set on an hill cannot be hid") -
TN SC Reference: "an helper comparable to him"
Cameo: "HEB. as before him"
New Scofield: "an help fit"
Key Word: "a help meet"
KJVER: "a helper suitable"
Life Recovery: "suitable helper"
1 Timothy 4:3 "meats" -
TN SC Reference "foods"
New Scofield: "foods"
KJVER: "foods"
Life Recovery: "foods"
2 Timothy 2:15 "Study to shew" -
TN SC Reference "Be dilligent to present"
New Scofield: "Study to show"
Key Word: "Study to show"
New Analytical: "Give dilligence to present"
KJVER: "Be dilligent to show"
Life Recovery: "Do your best to shew"
1 Kings 18:21 "halt" -
TN SC Reference "will you falter"
KJVER: "limp"
Life Recovery: "will you waver"
1 Corinthians 15:19 "miserable"
TN SC Reference "pitiable"
New Scofield: "pitiable"
New Analytical: "pitiable"
Proverbs 22:28 "remove not the ancient landmark" - all of the Bibles had no alternate reading for the word "remove", but they did for the word "landmark"
TN SC Reference: "remove not the ancient boundary"
Cameo: "remove not the ancient bound"
Key Word: "remove not the ancient bound"
1 Kings 8:25 "so that" -
TN SC Reference: "only if"
Cameo: "Heb. only if"
Key Word: "Heb. only if"
Philippians 4:15 "communicated" -
TN SC Reference: "shared"
New Scofield: "shared"
New Analytical: "had fellowship"
KJVER: ""share" (the footnote appears for verse 14, which contains the word "communicate". They decided not to repeat it for verse 15.)
Life Recovery: "share" (again, the footnote appears for verse 14, and they didn't repeat it for verse 15.
Matthew 13:21 "by and by he is offended" -
TN SC Reference: "immediately he stumbles"
New Scofield: "immediately he is offended"
New Analytical: " straightway he stumbleth"
Life Recovery: "immediately he falls away"
John 16:1 "be offended" -
TN SC Reference: "made to stumble"
New Scofield: "Lit. caused to stumble"
New Analytical: "be made to stumble"
KJVER: "caused to stumble"
Life Recovery: "fall away"
So based in this survey, we see that there is a need for people who (for whatever reason) prefer to read, study, memorize etc the King James Bible to have these alternate word renderings either as the text (which probably wouldn't go over too well with many traditionalists), next to the original word in brackets (which I like), at the end of the verse (which I also like, but doesn't work well with paragraph Bibles) or in a footnote (which works well but tends to get a little messy at times). Hopefully a Bible like that will someday be available. But in the meantime, there are King James Bibles that are putting the work in to make alternate readings possible
What I probably ought to do is put out a study Bible, or work with Thomas Nelson to amend their standard (?) KJV footnotes.
@@markwardonwords I think that's an excellent idea, for several reasons. For starters, KJV only/traditionalists that like to stick to the King James more than likely won't use something else, that's obviously the main reason. But along with that, you have won the respect of so many in the KJVO camp through the work you've done! You've built bridges, and have done so very diplomatically. And because you have done so much work over the years to look at the "false friends", the archaic words, and still hold the KJV to high esteem, I think the majority in that camp would welcome it.
Along with that, it would be a resource to help Christians who love their "Utah" LDS friends and want to share the gospel with them, as "Utah" LDS members also exclusively use the KJV (I make that distinction because the Community of Christ AKA the "Reorganized" LDS also use the Joseph Smith version and not strictly the KJV).
So, there could be many benefits to doing a project like that. I think one of the things that really struck me about your channel was that it made me look more closely at my different KJV footnotes as I've continued to memorize from it, and I'm grateful for all work you've put in.
Did I see a Disciple Dojo in his martial arts uniform?
Yes! A favor for me!
His channel is very good.
Wonderful Ward with winsome words! ✝️
Dr. Ward, your content is enlightening, but what REALLY has me coming back again and again to your videos is your way with words.
❤❤❤❤❤❤
Wow, thank you!
if one wants to study this KJV English, what dictionary to use? Can you give the edition number? Thx
OED.com is literally the only truly suitable dictionary.
As far as free resources go, Samuel Johnson's 1755 dictionary will get you closer than most, but even it is 150 years after the fact. Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary is a nice supplement to Johnson's, but it's even further away from the work of William Tyndale and his earliest revisers. And the problem is that you may not think to look up a certain word if a modern definition seems to make sense at first glance.
For instance, think of all the times that the KJV uses the word "conversation" to mean "Behaviour; manner of acting in common life" (Johnson def. 4; cf. Webster def. 1). In some of those instances, you could be careless and conclude that it means "A particular act of discoursing upon any subject" (Johnson def. 2). In Galatians 1.13, for example, you might get tripped up by the KJV's use of "heard" in the same clause: "For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion." It's an easy mistake to make.
I've been thinking about this survey a lot. I don't see how any reasonable person can continue to deny that KJV readability is a problem. What they are left with is the belief that all modern translations are part of a giant conspiracy to undermine (or at least water down) the Bible. I don't know I could have come out of that belief w/o learning to read Greek and that's certainly not a reasonable thing to ask most laypeople to do.
“I don't see how any REASONABLE* person can continue to deny that KJV readability is a problem. “
*pride is the issue of the vast majority of KJVOs hence their UUreasonableness.
IME “Arguing with a KJ Onlyist is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what you say or the volume of irrefutable evidence you provide, they will knock over all the pieces, crap on the board, and then strut around like they won.”
For Matthew 13:21 you referenced "by and by " but did not comment on your false friend "offended". I looked all the way back to my 1885 RV which reads "straightway he stumbleth". So several of these 10 verses were found in the RV and few more in the ASV. You really challenge us to understand the Holy Bible .
Yes, for all the claims that the RV ruined the beautiful prose of the KJV, it did successfully update a good number of its predecessor's "false friends." (And it got rid of the unicorns.)
All 10 hardcopy versions/translations I have are The Holy Bible. I can read them, study them, compare them, and be confident that God's words are inspired and inerrant.
Do you feel you have discovered all of the false friends in the KJV or do you believe there are probably more? BTW I enjoy your videos. Thanks.
More! More are coming! I am certain more are left to be discovered, too!
Do you think English has stopped changing over time? I have been surprised at the need for new dictionaries in my own lifetime.
We need you on the job of Translation Tribalism across the board Mark! Sadly, many Brothers seem so ready to criticize translations - and the life and motives of the translators - based on hearsay and suspiscion. Not only so, they quote scholars who they favour on translation choices, yet have zero biblical language training to be able to weigh up the arguments! Can you believe it! It's heartbreaking that the church is rife with those quick to slander but slow to listen and learn.
Right! And the Bible has some things to say about slander!
That Pastor really shouldn't have insisted on leaving a comment.
I tend to agree!
Not a pastor or kjvo. I definitely would have missed 'halt', although it's not clear to me that it makes any real difference in the overall meaning. 'Miserable' and 'communicated' would be tricky. 'By and by' is the kind of thing that would be easy in the right context, but in the one you chose I'd probably miss it.
It makes sense that 'communication' would be less misunderstood, because I've heard that explained before by kjv users.
The strange part is, if you're asked questions like this you have to be thinking the answer isn't the obvious, right? I wonder what kind of answers you'd get from different groups of people. It could be that idolization of the kjv makes people feel more confident that they understand it than they would be otherwise. Or maybe below average language ability contributes to belief in king james onlyism.
Regarding legalism-bundled with the KJV-only stance-I highly recommend the novel Wisdom Hunter by Randall Arthur. It seems to be the premiere novel illustrating the destructiveness of legalism. It's an international bestseller. Many call it a “classic.” I understand that the author was even fired from his Independent Baptist mission agency because of the novel. I think the book was even banned at Bob Jones University.
The story about your daughter made me laugh. When I was a child I only wore shoes to Church. They already came off in the car on the way home.
I made her wear shoes during the fireworks last night. She didn't fight me too hard. ;)
Hello mark! This is an interesting video but how do I become a Christian to start? Do I need to get saved if it’s called that?
Here is an article on the gospel from Emmanuel Baptist Church: www.ebcmv.org/the-gospel/
You can be sure that Mark agrees with that statement.
@@MAMorenook thanks. I was reading it. I understand the parts about Jesus, but I don’t really get this part. Does this mean I need to stop whatever bad things I am doing in my life to be a Christian?
“Repent (turn from) of all that dishonors God. It is more than just being sorry for what you have done
You must turn from your sin and turn to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
You must submit everything about who you are (will, desires, hope) to Christ. “
@@biblerules7 Ask the apostle Paul: www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%206&version=NKJV
@@MAMoreno also sorry. How do you know Mark believes this? Does he have a video on how to be saved or something like that? I couldnt find one. Idk this is something I want to know more about but theres so much informaton out there
@@biblerules7 Mark Ward sometimes preaches at Emmanuel, so it's safe to say that he agrees with their statement. His videos tend to focus on his particular ministry, but he may be able to recommend videos from other channels that deal with salvation.
1582 Rheims old English reprint might help❤
A bit of a side question:
Do we perhaps make too much hay out of the singular/plural distinction anyway? In other words, does Koine Greek map as well numerically as the KJV would have us believe?
In thy video, thou spendest a good bit of time on Luke 22:31, but, except in that thou didst include the ESV’s footnote, thou didst not refer to verse 32, wherein the number doth switch. (Ok, enough: /elizabethan) Our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters (Gk: brothers) make much of that number switch, saying that Satan desired all twelve, but Jesus prayed specifically for Pope Peter I, making him unique in his perseverance among the Apostles. I assume you and the 100 respondents to your survey interpret that differently.
Is Matthew 5 perhaps a key to that non-papal interpretation? Most of the time, Jesus addresses his pronouns to the gathered crowd. But in many of the specifics he gives, he switches to the singular.
Was this a rhetorical trick? As in: “It is said ‘Don’t murder,’ but I say ‘Don’t even speak ill of your brother. If you-you, Mark-remember a rift, leave your gift and go make amends, then come back and deal with your gift. Y’all get it?”
Or was it that the shift from plural to singular is grammatically more subtle somehow in Greek than in English? For instance, we’re left with the somewhat numerical nonsense of 1 John 2:1: “If any man sin, we have an advocate…” Was that much more natural in Greek? Such that Jesus’s switching from you to thee in the Sermon on the Mount was more natural (and perhaps his switch in Luke 22)?
In other words, does the clarity of Elizabethan pronouns itself qualify as a bit of a false friend?
I wish you wrote the rest of your comment in Elizabethan English. I was forced to stop reading it because it no longer retained the precision of second person plural pronouns and doth.
@@eternallogic6394 reading Her Mafesty’s noble tongue is one matter, yet writing it is quite another. I think that’s a major point the KJVO crowd misses: they are translating the KJV text mentally into modern English; they are not reading it for what it is. The latter requires fluency, and they don’t have fluency because they can’t create the language. I’ve never seen an attempt at writing something new in Elizabethan English that hath not flaws the sight of which giveth man cause to know the provenance thereof lieth in today rather than in that time. Even to get that last half sentence mostly right took far longer than the rest of this comment. None of us are fluent in that language.
This is where Logos software is super helpful. Although my version is old (32.1), it is a helpful tool. I use NASB, but came from a KJV-only church. Quite certain our pastor would've scored a 100% on your test, but certain the scores of most parishioners would've been much lower.
100%? Wow! He must be exceptional. I'd really love to have you give him the quiz!
I’ve heard the kjv is more easily memorizable than other English versions. It’d be cool to have a version that did nothing but update the false friend words (maybe even updating some spelling choices) for those who wanted to memorize their bibles.
I've heard this, too. I don't believe it's true. I think it reflects the fact that most people who are saying it grew up on the KJV and found memorization easier as children.
But I'd support a minimal update of the KJV-just dead words and false friends-if I could get KJV-Only institutions to sign on in advance and help me do the work.
@@markwardonwords
That’s wicked. God promised to preserve His Word-we have NO business changing it.
@@clairebordeaux I'm asking seriously: did the KJV translators change God's word? There were multiple existing English translations. Why does what you've said apply to me and not to them?
So, the KJV translators would have interpreted the gospel song that was written over 2 centuries later, "In the sweet by and by" very confusingly:
"In the sweet immediately, we shall meet on that beautiful shore..."
Eh, maybe not immediately... 😂
Ha! Yes!
I've made this point earlier in my other comment. I want to say this because it is a fun fact. In English, we have the word "Lord." It can mean Master, God, sir, and so on. But in Malayalam, there are words that mean "Lord." If you're referring to God, you use കർത്താവേ and തമ്പുരാൻ. If you are referring to your master/Lord, you use യജമാനൻ. If you are referring to a male official or a male ruler or a king or a prince or a rich man, you use the word pra-bhu. For some reason, when I paste the actual word in actual language, it's messed up.
Interesting! Thank you for this!
@markwardonwords You should read the comment I wrote before. Regarding translations, you have difficult choices to make. In English, you don't know what you are talking about even if you read the context sometimes. Connect that with what I said about the word, "Lord." You don't know which "Lord" you are talking about unless you are very specific in the sentence or paragraph. I'm going to make a video on this. I'm almost finished editing it. You should make a video on this fun fact. 😉
@markwardonwords You should make a video on this. I am uploading a video soon on this very fun fact.
Nice job finding a "red-headed, mildly-whiskered" stunt double! I don't think anyone will confuse you and J.M., though! 🤣
I love this comment! JM is a valued brother.
If your pastor cannot understand the KJB, he is likely unsaved. That is the reason people cannot understand the KJB; it’s NOT the old English, it’s because the Word of God is spiritually discerned.
So 99 of the 100 pastors who took this test are unsaved?
Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.
As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith. The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.
Yes, this is indeed a problem among KJV-Onlyists. =(
"Just teach people what the KJV English means... it's super easy."
A very common proposal. However, two very obvious things strike me every time I hear it.
One, if the call is to be a demand to educate folks in "KJV English" (as we already know, if for no other reason than Mr. Ward has highlighted it so well even from the mouths of "KJV Only-ists", it is its own English and not quite Elizabethan) then why is the chosen language English at all? Why not demand an education in Hebrew and Greek (with as much of a splash of Aramaic as we can muster as well)? It would seem to me that anything less might suggest that English-speaking nations are somehow superior to others. (I wonder how my brothers and sisters in Christ in Cambodia or North Korea, for example, would feel to know that.) Besides, going straight to the original languages would avoid the entire "problem" of English translations. Surely there are no Christians who believe that the King James Version of the Bible actually corrects or supersedes the original communication direct from Holy Spirit to "scribe". Baffling.
Two, for those of us who occasionally leave our homes and actually attempt to share the Gospel with other human beings, just asking that they grasp God's word in it's simplest form (self-paraphrased, by you, the evangelist/sharer) is already quite a tall order. It leads me to believe that Christians should "just not worry about the world" and only "focus on training the flock". But, I know that can't possibly be a view held by any Christian. Perplexing.
All in all, I suppose this issue remains insurmountable by mankind. 🤔
I’m obviously with you! I don’t think KJVOs have thought their argument through.
Do folks who are KJV only hold translations of the KJV into other languages with lower esteem?
Not sure. Good question. I almost never hear them talk in any detail about translations in other languages.
No! They don't understand it.
I would like for KJV onlyists to explain the following discrepancy in the KJV text. KJV 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads “ Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord.” I know that there are some really bad eight year olds, but I don’t think that there are any that you would truly describe as evil.
2 Kings KJV 24:8-9 reads “Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem. And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, according to all that his father had done.”
To its credit, the NKJV in its footnote on 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads “Heb. mss., LXX, Syr. eighteen and 2 Kin. 24:8.”
Most critical text Bibles (NIV, ESV, NASB, NLT, NET, LEB, CSB, REB) use the Septuagint in 2 Chronicles 36:9, stating that Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king, and note in footnotes that the Masoretic text states that Jehoiachin was eight years old.
So was Jehoiachin eight or eighteen when he began to reign? I think that the Septuagint makes more sense in this case than the Masoretic text in regards to 2 Chronicles 36:9.
If the theory is that each person can simply interpret the meaning of the Bible as they wish, then it is extremely important that hey have a translation they can actually understand. If one is against centralized Bible interpretation, then one cannot be King James Only. That said, perhaps the “to each their own” interpretation theory is itself on shaky ground.
But do we have to default to the Anglican interpretation of the early 1600s, then? Therein lies the problem with any "one-translation-only" stance: to affirm a single translation is to affirm the doctrinal views of the translators. That's true if it's the KJV, ESV, CEB, NJB, or whatever. There's surely some middle ground between "to each their own" and "let's stay in our very narrow theological echo chamber," right?
Great video!..
A very brief NWT Supplemental;
Gen 2:18 - “complement”
1 Tim 4:3 - “foods”
2 Tim 2:15 - “Do your utmost”
1 Kings 18:21 - being mindful of tense - “be limping”
1 Cor 15:19 - “are to be pitied”
Prov 22:28 - “Do not move”
1 Kings 8:25 - “if only”
Phil 4:15 - “shared with me”
Mt 13:21 - “at once”
Mark 6:25 - “right away”
John 16:1 - “stumbled”
Might you ever do a study on another possible false friend "worship," Greek; "proskuneo"
While προσκυνέω can mean something less forceful than "worship," it would appear to mean exactly that in Matthew's Gospel, considering that 4.10 states that προσκυνέω is something reserved for God alone.
@@MAMoreno Glad to hear from you. It's been a while! Is it προσκυνέω that is reserved for God alone, or is it λατρεύω "him only shalt thou SERVE (λατρεύω)? Matthew 4:10 προσκυνέω is applies to humans "obeisance" many times in Greek, even in the LXX.
ua-cam.com/video/vbUmTmlYeIs/v-deo.htmlsi=dXHWbWVXgcPFLQJA
@@MAMorenoThank you.
@@19king14 Just so you know, your comment was eaten by UA-cam thanks to the link, but I did read it! I would argue that the parallelism of the clauses in Matthew 4.10 suggests that they are synonymous statements: to "worship the Lord your God" is to "serve [the Lord God] only."
@@MAMoreno Hmmm... I'm not sure what that means that my comment was eaten by UA-cam thanks to the link, but just in case, I can repost my comment without the link, if that helps..... :)
Glad to hear from you. It's been a while! Is it προσκυνέω that is reserved for God alone, or is it λατρεύω "him only shalt thou SERVE (λατρεύω)? Matthew 4:10 προσκυνέω is applies to humans "obeisance" many times in Greek, even in the LXX.
Mark Ward recommended a book by Moises Silva "Biblical Words and Their Meaning" that devotes a whole chapter on προσκυνέω and the two meanings of Godly worship and secular "obeisance" both meanings being applied throughout the NT as nearly all scholars suggest. Instead of a link, you can search; New World Translation Curiosities Worship for the information.
That's why I asked Mark if he can research προσκυνέω since it seems to be a "false friend."
There's another pervasive false friend like the thee/thou ye/you in KJ English that I didn't realize for the longest time. In sentences like, "I will do x," "will" usually means somebody wills to or wishes to do something, and "shall" means somebody will do something in the future. I'm not sure if it's true 100% of the time, but it's held up whenever I've checked it. Bringing volition into the "will" passages often makes a arguably significant difference. I couldn't find if you'd done any videos on that yet, but these last two vids made me think of that!
I'm reminded of a remark in the NRSV's preface:
*Another aspect of style will be detected by readers who compare the more stately English rendering of the Old Testament with the less formal rendering adopted for the New Testament. For example, the traditional distinction between shall and will in English has been retained in the Old Testament as appropriate in rendering a document that embodies what may be termed the classic form of Hebrew, while in the New Testament the abandonment of such distinctions in the usage of the future tense in English reflects the more colloquial nature of the koine Greek used by most New Testament authors except when they are quoting the Old Testament.*
@@MAMoreno interesting, thanks for sharing!
How dare you! If KJV was good enough for Jesus and the Apostles, it's good enough for us! ;)
LOL
That joke's as old as Methuselah, but if I get to heaven and find Jesus doesn’t speak in Jacobean English I’ll be bitterly disappointed.
Mark,
Nice work on the survey. We are attending an IFBC that claims the KJV is the only version we can count on. He barely stops short of calling it inspired. In fact, I was told not to publicly reference any other version while teaching. Our Pastor discourages the congregation of personal studying and not to use commentaries. He opines the thought of diligently studying God’s word on our own. Daily devotions is all a person needs. His “degree” is from a church ran “Bible Institute” and his lack knowledge of the doctrines shows.
It really seems as though you’ve lost your respect for this man. Unless you can regain it by focusing on his strengths, this doesn’t sound like the church for you. If those are his weaknesses-and they are indeed weaknesses, I bet I can guess at his genuine strengths. But you have to see them for yourself.
@RLP1957:
Your pastor is correct; you should show him more respect.
The regular pew person in a KJV only church sadly believes their pastor in the way Roman Catholics trust the pope.😮
That's unfair. Plenty of Catholics are critical of Pope Francis. 😛
@@MAMoreno It's not unfair because it's what the majority do, because it consistent with church dogma.
An interesting study. I agree that there are “false friends” and they need to be classified and clarified, as you have done. Over the years I have noticed them, and “done my best” to “study” them out and annotate them in my good old King James Bible. I have to ask why you say at the end of this video that the modern versions are based on the same Greek texts as the KJV. Do you not know that the traditional text and the critical text are two different texts?
Thank you for this!
I think you misunderstood one small thing: the NKJV and MEV are based on the TR. I'm sure that's what I said. I didn't say "modern English versions are based on the TR" but "the Modern English Version is based on the TR." Does that make sense?
@@markwardonwords Yes. Thanks for the clarification.
@@BroDaveMartinSRBC I need to be careful how I say it! I may have been unclear!
@@markwardonwords I had heard of the MEV, but Modern English Version threw me. Didn’t realize that’s what it stood for.
Yes! Right! Bible preachers and teachers MUST use a modern-English translation: intellegibility is vital. Just ask yourself: if you were translating a Bible into the language of an as-yet unreached people-group, would you choose (a) the language of that people-group as it is today or (b) as it was hundreds of years ago? It's not really a choice, is it? Well, this applies also to the unreached people-group who speak modern English!
RIGHT!
@@markwardonwords After all, there is a huge mission-field out there in your country, as there is in mine (the UK). And these people speak MODERN English. So speak, preach and pray in MODERN English!! And in so doing, use a Bible in MODERN English!
Could you respond to the video from counsel and might by Dr. George Antonios. KJV VS Other Versions & why you're reading a Jehovah's Witness/Catholic Bible It makes many good points and is hard to refute for KJV only.
I have no plans to do so.
While "study" may not have meant what we think it means today, I would argue that the current meaning is superior doctrine. Studying is indeed part of preparing yourself. You can not be prepared, unless you study. Or is Eccl 12:9-12 a lie also? If study does not mean study then this word has been used wrong for centuries. So explain this notion a little more, please.
The line here is between accurate interpretation and reasonable application. A translation should be focused on the former: show what Paul actually meant when he wrote these words. A preacher (or a study Bible note, at least) can do the latter.
Here are a few translations that do a particularly good job at conveying Paul's meaning--
CEV: Do your best to win God's approval as a worker who doesn't need to be ashamed and who teaches only the true message.
GNT: Do your best to win full approval in God's sight, as a worker who is not ashamed of his work, one who correctly teaches the message of God's truth.
NCV: Make every effort to give yourself to God as the kind of person he will approve. Be a worker who is not ashamed and who uses the true teaching in the right way.
In the context of the letter, Paul is talking about how Timothy should be accurately preaching the correct gospel message in opposition to the false teachings of his opponents in Ephesus. The "word of truth" is the gospel itself (cf. Eph. 1.13 and Col. 1.5). Now, in a modern context, Bible study would be an appropriate application to draw from the verse. After all, we now have the gospel message in the form of the New Testament texts, not just in an oral tradition passed from teacher to student. But to force that modern-day application back into the base meaning of the text itself is not right.
Good, M.A.!
@@MAMoreno This all sounds highly intelligent, and most possibly true. But that was the whole message of that letter. Now let's get back to my, apparently, ignorant question. You see, Paul was a scholarly Jew. If you pay close attention to his letters you will see that he directly uses Old Testament concepts, heavily, in practically very line. So is the word "study" an all around lie, or is that exactly what Paul said? Was Paul citing Eccl 12:12?
I see this as having a different meaning then you want it to. Study, but don't over do it. You can't be a good leader of your assembly if you do not study the only scriptures around- which was still the OT.
Apparently Greek words have several English meanings. You can't just go with your biases.
By the way, how's that definition of broom working out? You better scrub out that modern day image. In those days a broom was a scraggly affair, and the straws tended to break. Sweeping could be a real challenge. That old word was a better word than broom. Some "false friends" are not as "false" as we want.
@@WgB5 Ecclesiastes 12.12 in the LXX uses the word "melete," which is totally unrelated in both etymology and meaning to "spoudason" in 2 Timothy 2.15.
@@MAMoreno LOL, as you wish, but you are forgetting something. Paul was always a Jew. You get your "Greek" from a Latin perversion that was repeatedly retranslated. Besides, you can't get away from the rest of that verse, you know, the one that tells us what that hard work I? To rightly divide the word of truth. Now how are you going to accomplish that without the hard work of studying? This is not something that you can change my mind about.
PS. I just used the Eastern Greek Orthodox New Testament. I think they know Greek meanings. And they are always telling their members to study like crazy.
This would all be solved if KJV only people would just study to shew themselves approved..
The old english word (KJV) "halt" is used twice in the OT (I Kings 18:21, Ps 38:17) and 4 times in the New (Mk 9:45, Matt 18:8, Luke 14:21, Jn 5:3).
Halted and Halteth are eached use twice in the OT and they all signify limping. Halting is used in Jer 20:10.
These 11 uses of the word Halt and the other forms in the AV translate 5 different word forms signifying 3 different meanings.
In the I Kings and Psalm reference halt does not translate "limp" (substituting modern "limp" in both places renders both nonsensical). Strongs defines the Hebrew "to pass over; to limp. Elijah uses the word as a figure of speech for the idea of vacillating between, literally 2 opinions. As the venerable John Gill puts it in his commentary, like a bird hopping from one branch to the other, undecided, not limping. In Psalm 38:17, to fall or stumble is meant (note vs 16 as well), not limp. In Strongs the definition of the original Hebrew means to stumble, fall, slip.
In the 4 Gospel references it does mean "limp". The 2 uses of Halted and the 2 uses of Halteth, they as well signify limping. In Jer 20:10 Halting signifys to fail, to be caught in saying or doing something by which the prophets enemies could catch him in a "gotcha" moment and discredit his message and have occasion to do him mischief...not limping or any form of it.
Websters 1828 dictionary confirms the different uses of the 1611 era english speakers usage of "halt"and it's derivative forms. For example, 1. to stop in walking (the only way we use it)
2. to limp
3. to hesitate
4. to fail, falter (as a "halting" sonnet, per Shakespeare)
Look these references up for yourselves in Strongs Concordance and the 1828 Websters dictionary.
It's really not as simplistic as the video portrays.
The english speakers of the day were able to understand the particular meaning as used in the context as well as ourselves today and the meaning should be as obvious to us moderns as well as to the Elizabethans. Limp simply is not meant in all these places.
By the way, I'm an actual, real life farmboy with merely a 12th grade education. The KJV is only unintelligible to christians who fail to "study (diligently work at, labor towrds) to show themselves approved..."
Some good work here. But what does “study” mean in that passage you quoted at the end?
And why doesn’t “limp” work in 1 Kgs 18:21? I’m not saying “halt” means “limp” every time it appears in the KJV.
In today's modern American english I used a phrase comprised of 5 words, "diligently work at, labor towards". Strongs defines the Greek thus, to be eager, make every effort, do one's best-diligent. My KJV Greek interlinear has it "be diligent".
To your second question, why doesn't "limp" work in I Kings 18:21. Elijah did not pose the question this way,"how long limp ye between two opinions". As Websters old dictionary makes clear, as I listed above, that halt in the English language was also used to describe "hesitation, stand in doubt". The English speakers of that day understood "halt" that way in that passage.
Modern American english would be harder pressed to translate single Hebrew or Greek words with one modern English word, unfortunately.
@@user-uz4to3pb6y On "study"-you're right! So why does the KJV say "study"? That doesn't mean "be diligent." It means "hit the books."
I simply disagree, I think, "How long limp ye between two opinions" makes perfect sense. The Hebrew word there means "limp," not "vacillate." So though the *phrase* "halt [limp] between two opinions" came to mean "vacillating," that doesn't mean that "halt" *means* "vacillate." Does that make sense?
@@markwardonwords
Limp would confuse modern readers of English more than the OE word halt. Strongs #6452 in the Hebrew defines it thus; to pass, "to be limp".
Elijah's challenge, implicit in the question, was "how much longer will you refuse to make a choice, how much longer will you continue to sit on the fence, vacillate, refuse to make a choice, hedge your bets, etc.. The word limp as in having a limping leg is not the same as to be limp, ie, weak, and stubbornly (or fearfully) unresolved in their convictions, thus hopping about from branch to branch like a nervous bird (as John Gill characterizes it). And at that rate, clearly a metaphor...but not speaking of a limping leg.
@@user-uz4to3pb6y You've done some good analysis. I'm not persuaded, brother! But you don't have to be persuaded by this example-I've got dozens more!
I just had a funny idea, a modern translation of the KJV, we leave the Greek and Hebrew alone and just take a KJV and translate the false friends and archacic words and translate them into modern English. I do wonder how the Ruckmanites would respond to that. I'm only thinking about this as a joke, we would most likely just be doing a Douey-Rheims all over again.
See the KJVer and the Simplified KJV.
Unfortunately, for a lot of KJV-Onlyists it would not work. A lot of them base their teachings off of false friends or mistakes in the KJV. So if "study" was replaced with "be diligent," they wouldn't accept it, because they want to teach people to study their Bibles by using that verse. If "Easter" is replaced with "Passover" in Acts 12:4, they won't accept it, because they want to (completely erroneously) teach that Herod was waiting for the pagan Ishtar festival (which is not what Easter was named after) and that he couldn't have been waiting for Passover because it was already passed (they erroneously teach that the Passover was only on the 14th, even though Ezekiel 45:21 calls it a seven-day feast even in the KJV).
To a certain extent, I can understand this kind of thing. A lot of preachers have probably preached on certain passages for years, teaching what they in all seriousness thought was a valid interpretation because they didn't know any better. Having to find out that what you've been preaching is erroneous can be hard to swallow. But the problem lies in the fact that they refuse to accept that they were wrong. They double down on it instead. It's not just a problem with KJV-Onlyists either. There are a lot of stubborn people out there who will double down on what they're saying even if shown overwhelming evidence to the contrary. People don't like to admit when they're wrong. They want to be the smartest person in the room, and they will sometimes go to the extent of having a superiority complex just so they can keep it going.
Surprised that there haven't been a successfully revised version of the KJV. Not talking about the NKJV here which is another translation, but one that simply update the most outdated words like these "false friends".
Agreed. The MEV is like this.
KJV-onlyism considered harmful.
All this and no actual preaching, theologians have surely ruined Christianity. Imagine thinking attacking the kjv will be rewarded on the day of judgement.
It's not "attacking the KJV" to point out that KJV-Only people can't understand it. No one's blaming the Anglican translators of 1611 for the fact that some independent Baptists in 2023 refuse to recognize that 400-year-old English isn't as accessible as they would like to believe.
@@MAMoreno yes it is attacking the KJV, all translations have "archaic words". Yet this is never addressed by anyone in the non KJV crowd. Why not? Why is it only ever about undermining faith in the KJV.
My guess is that the KJV is a spiritual matter and the natural man cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God because they are spiritually discerned.
I'm not a baptist btw so don't create a strawman to lump me in with, it's dishonest.
@@HeisRisen174 I'm curious, can you point to an "archaic word" in, say, the New Living Translation? (Or pick any other recent translation, really.)
BTW, the KJV is not a spiritual matter, it is a linguistic matter. It is hiding the truth of the gospel behind a language that nobody fully speaks any more, and obstructing the way of salvation for the sake of your traditions. When a work of men (no matter how holy) becomes an obstacle in the way of the Kingdom, it is right and Godly that faith in that obstacle should be undermined.
Also, don't take any of this too seriously, it's just strangers arguing on the Internet. (But do think and pray about it.)
@@tb.9kba93g let me ask you a question, which of these words if any in this list would you consider archaic?
Alight. Deride. Unto. Yokefellow. Didst. Dost. Doest. Beggardly. Begot. Bemoan. Paramore. Whet. Assuaged. Asunder. Comely. Milch.
@@tb.9kba93g and yes it is a spiritual matter, Either God is almighty and perfect and can perfectly preserve his Word. Or he can't. I worship a God who can and did.
Akido is a questionable martial art, just like the Codex Siniaticus appears to be a questionable authentic Codex. Do a video explaining how it and the Codex Vaticanus are dated, is it all subjective? Give your proofs to their authenticity.
How well do they agree with each other, if they both are closest to the source, should they not be almost exactly worded, if not, explain. You defended Hort and Westcott well. Now defend these two.
I have consistently avoiding promoting the critical text; that's just not what I'm here for. I just want peace among the warring Christian parties, and I want one party to make or use a translation of whatever text they prefer into fully intelligible contemporary English, in obedience to the teaching of 1 Cor 14, that edification requires intelligibility.
I have one peacemaking angle that I'm hoping to get to. I'd like to help KJV/TR defenders see how *little* Sinaiticus and Vaticanus actually do to our NT. I'm SLOWLY working on that project!
You're not going to stop until people are embarrassed to be seen using a KJB are you?
That is an open distortion of what I'm saying. I am constantly seen with a King James Bible-I brought one to church on Sunday. I'm not against the KJV; I'm against KJV-Onlyism.
The better question is do you critical text people understand the corruption that your reading. Do y’all understand that your reading text that was translated from documents found in the trash at a catholic monetary ? Do y’all understand that y’all are reading a text that was also translated from text that was found inside the Vatican that was barely even eligible due to all the misspellings and scribblings?
I enjoy reading multiple translations.
I am a former KJV only type, then NKJV.
When I learned some history about Erasmus and some questionable choices of his, I expanded my translation choices. The fact that he was a Catholic priest and back translated the ending of The Book of Revelation from the Latin Vulgate were things that disturbed me. Other questionable actions of influence on his part also.
As a former catholic, anything with ties to the heretical catholic church disturbs me.
✝️📖🙏🤍
Trash is a gold mine since it's not intended to be preserved and thus bypasses some biases.
@slickbill9488, why did you change the subject to textual criticism? I did not discuss this in the video.
Slickbill, like so many others, including myself for a time, you are being completely misled. I challenge you, as a Brother in Christ, to actually listen ,with an open mind, to the honest arguments from the other side. Read James Whites book The King James Controversy and Mark Ward’s book Authorized: The Use And Misuse Of The King James Bible. Then you will understand why so many men and women of God, including former KJV Onlyists, have adopted the modern English translations. At very least, you will understand the actual truth behind their decisions. I promise you, you are not going to get the complete truth from KJV Only sources.
Let me restate my previous, now deleted point, to avoid connotations not intended, I was typing quickly while trying to leave for a walk and study before work.
I grew up in a TR only environment, and at one point was in a KJO church that radicalized me, to a certain extent. I understand the points you are making, but over time, due to both research and reflection on the logic inherent in the TR case, I felt I had to change my stance, and did so at some personal cost, in lost friendships. You essentially seem to be trying to make a case that Mark I and others are incorrect in our understanding of this issue (either that or you are simply engaging in rhetorical bomb-throwing, which is probably a more serious problem).
We all have duties in discussions with people who do not share our positions. If you want me to change my mind back to the KJO side of the coin, you have a duty to make a useful argument, and to answer contrary points raised, but you haven't done any of that,the points you raise are bald, undeveloped assertions with no real points that allow me to interact with you. As Mark noted, you didn't even address the point he is making in this video (and Mark has clearly stated he has no objection to the use of translations from the TR such as the NKJV, he is not focused on textual critical issues).
So if you have a point to make, please kindly assist us in order that we can interact with you productively. Why should we believe that textual critical issues are in some sense related to this issue of readability? If textual criticism is the central issue, why should we accept your position? How does this impact modern translations from the TR/majority text/Byzantine text?
I always thought “by and by” meant “eventually”, so yeah! 😂🫢 It’s amazing all of these false friends you’ve uncovered.
I love that one!