Is Strong's Concordance Part of a Conspiracy to Undermine the KJV?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 гру 2022
- And is it wrong to refer to the Greek and Hebrew? An evaluation of a recent video by KJV-Only leader David Baker. And I'm adding "corrupt" to my official false friends list, as number 68.
🎁 Help me end Bible translation tribalism, one plow boy at a time:
✅ / mlward
✅ buymeacoffee.com/mlward
📖 Check out my book, Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible:
amzn.to/2r27Boz
🎥 Watch my Fifty False Friends in the KJV series:
• 50 False Friends in th...
👏 Many, many thanks to the Patreon supporters who make my work possible!
Name, James Duly, Robert Gifford, Lanny M Faulkner, Lucas Key, Dave Thawley, William McAuliff, Razgriz, James Goering, Eric Couture, Martyn Chamberlin, Edward Woods, Thomas Balzamo, Brent M Zenthoefer, Tyler Rolfe, Ruth Lammert, Gregory Nelson Chase, Ron Arduser, Caleb Farris, Dale Buchanan, Jess English, Aaron Spence, Orlando Vergel Jr., John Day, Joshua Bennett, K.Q.E.D., Brent Karding, Kofi Adu-Boahen, Steve McDowell, Kimberly Miller, A.A., James Allman, Steven McDougal, Henry Jordan, Nathan Howard, Rich Weatherly, Joshua Witt, Wade Huber, M.L., Brittany Fisher, Tim Gresham, Lucas Shannon, Easy_Peasy , Caleb Richardson, Jeremy Steinhart, Steve Groom, jac, Todd Bryant, Corey Henley, Jason Sykes, Larry Castle, Luke Burgess, Joel, Joshua Bolch, Kevin Moses, Tyler Harrison, Bryon Self, Angela Ruckman, Nathan N, Gen_Lee_Accepted , Bryan Wilson, David Peterson, Eric Mossman, Jeremiah Mays, Caleb Dugan, Donna Ward, DavidJamie Saxon, Omar Schrock, Philip Morgan, Brad Dixon, James D Leeper, M.A., Nate Patterson, Dennis Kendall, Michelle Lewis, Lewis Kiger, Dustin Burlet, Michael Butera, Reid Ferguson, Josiah R. Dennis, Miguel Lopez, CRB, D.R., Dean C Brown, Kalah Gonzalez, MICHAEL L DUNAVANT, Jonathon Clemens, Travis Manhart, Jess Mainous, Brownfell, Leah Uerkwitz, Joshua Barzon, Benjamin Randolph, Andrew Engelhart, Mark Sarhan, Rachel Schoenberger
Dr. Ward, thanks for the upload. Don't worry about video length. We're weirdos. Most of us don't mind videos that are hours long. These things can be rather complicated so a long video is bound to happen from time to time. God bless.
Thanks for that! That helps!
Long??? I’m upset when we get 20min vids. Give me more give me more!! You hit the nail on the head with your sledgehammer analogy. I continually feel as though I’m getting something less than the Bible(aka KJV) because I prefer the ESV translation. I must admit at times they do create an uneasy feeling within my mind. Then I go take a look at the KJV and I remember why I prefer the ESV rather quickly. That’s just my preference and I definitely do not bash any reputable translation KJV included.
Mark, I would imagine that your audience and Mike Winger’s audience overlaps somewhat (especially after he released his very thorough critique of the Passion Translation). He recently dropped a 6 hour video on 1 Corinthians 11 and head coverings. Not only did I listen to it, but I enjoyed it! So that should tell you how willing some people in your audience are to watch long videos! 😅
A helpful point!
lol he’s right. I was disappointed it was only 52 minutes
While I strongly disagree with David Baker's opinion on this topic, I would say that he isn't entirely wrong. Two thirds of the time I hear a pastor say that "the Greek (or Hebrew) really means..." they are simply wrong. Far too often these wrong conclusions are the result of using a Strong's concordance (or computer program) and simply picking the meaning they like best without regard to grammar or context. The reason that people who read Hebrew or Greek do not use Strong's is because it does not provide any of the grammatical or contextual information that is critical for understanding word usage i.e. the same things we expect to find in our English dictionaries when looking up the meaning of English words are absent in Strong's.
Second, while he states that he "learned" Greek and Hebrew, his statement about using Strong's every day strongly suggests that his learning of these languages was inadequate and that he cannot actually read these languages; these are not the tools one would use if they had any competency in understanding the biblical languages. It is inadequate training in the biblical languages combined with tools like Strong's (or programs like Logos) that allows one to fool themselves into believing that they can translate these languages that they do not understand and that leads to the all too frequent claim that "the Greek (or Hebrew) really means...." statements that are far too often simply wrong.
I actually agree here-profoundly. I’ve worked at Logos to push back against this kind of misuse of Hebrew and Greek in the pulpit.
The first day of my Koine Greek class our instructor said he would automatically fail any student who brought in a Strong's. Not sure if he was serious, but you can be sure we never got close to a Strong's after that!
Good point! I minored in Koine and i can’t fathom picking up a Strong’s and kind of wince inside when people talk about it…😂
It amazes me that KJV only peoples seem to believe the greek manuscripts were tra slated from the King James Version.
As soon as he said, “New Age Bible Versions” and “Ms. Riplinger”, I literally said out loud, “oh no, brother!”
Yes, she has no credibility with me. Anyone who takes her ideas seriously is someone I am unlikely to be able to reach.
Yes, talk about destroying all your credibility in one statement.
I felt the same! As soon as he said Gail Riplinger…. Nothing like going to an extremely biased source!
Eye opening.
I think you showing the actual words, tone, attitude is really enlightening to your challenge. What’s so disheartening is how these folks seem to fall into the error they themselves so condemningly (is that a word…. a “new friend”?) “preaching” against.
Mark, you’re such a brother after my own heart. I usually listen between 1.5-2x speed…so that guy came on FAST😂
Ha! I know exactly how that is!
“Is set before him” = “is placed before him”: that commentator, writing in Early, Modern English, is describing an artist who can faithfully draw or paint from the model that’s positioned before him to copy from.
By the way, the common notion that “imitation” can only be fakery or plagiarism (or otherwise something bad) is a VERY modern notion. Until a couple of centuries ago, in just about every culture on this planet, imitation was considered to be more likely a good thing than a bad thing: this is still the default attitude in tribal societies, and other non-industrialized people groups around the world, where successfully imitating a good model of behavior/perfonmance is highly valued (as in learning, tribal traditions, learning to perform a craft or other practical life skill, etc.: think of the attitude that we still have when it comes to such things as learning how to write, learning a craft , learning to play a sport, or a musical instrument, etc.: where you are striving to follow precisely - to imitate - someone else’s demonstration/ example of how to do it.performance.). The notion that imitation can only ever be mindless cheapjack fakery didn’t become prevalent, as far as I can find, until the Industrial Revolution had pretty well set in: because, now, imitation was finally starting to be a thing that even a mindless machine could accomplish.
So your KGB only friend who said that the word “imitation” (in English, or Greek) could only ever be _bad_ was adding into the text and attitude that did not exist at the time of the King James version translators, let alone at the time that the original manuscripts were written: an attitude that would have seen incredible and bizarre to the original authors in translators. Don’t ask me why someone who unthinkingly copies-and-pastes present-day attitudes into 2000-year-old documents (or into 400-year-old translations of those documents), would accuse anyone ELSE of altering the meaning!
✔
Geneva Bible
“For wee are not as many, which make marchandise of the woorde of God: but as of sinceritie, but as of God in ye sight of God speake we in Christ.”
2 Corinthians 2:17
RIGHT! "Merchandise" is a word from the marketplace. Those translators were seeing what contemporary translators see.
Mark, don't apologize for the long videos. The youtube meta is very clearly shifting to reflect the preferences of young people- we like 4 hour documentaries as youtube videos. Longer is better, the metagame has shifted hugely over the last five years.
Thanks for this. Helpful point.
@@markwardonwords this is becoming the standard for video length. A lot of my friends in college just throw a massive youtube video on in the background as they study (that's me right now with a playlist of five of your videos I'm stepping through as I study for my ochem final).
If you look at channels, what you'll see is that the massive videos often get WAY more impact. I think the recipe that I see most successful is a maximalist exploration of the most fine-grained minutae possible.
This is valuable to me. Will consider.
Hi! I'm just now starting to search out for other resources for reading the Bible. I was taught KJV but with that as my base learning I'm exploring other translations, such as the Living Bible and even other belief Bibles such a The good news Bible, The Jerusalem Bible because I'm super interested in the apocrypha since it was removed from KJV. I'm looking into all these for study purposes.
I found a New Strongs and a Strongest Strong's concordance at a used book store when i was originally hoping for a lexicon, but now I'm gaining understanding that there are many different lexicons as well. I came across this video trying to figure out which concordance to keep and which one to give to my sister. So since you do not recommend the Strong's, what is your recommendation for a concordance? Is a concordance and a lexicon the same? I want to learn Hebrew and Greek. I have a Greek Bible to read one day! I love older books and I love to learn. Also, if you wouldn't mind, even though you don't recommend the strongest concordances, could you recommend which version I should keep the new one or the strongest strongs? So far what I found, I'm leaning toward the new one which was actually the older one hehe.
By the way, I think your video is very fair and informative.
Approximately 18:30 Baker says the original material oftentimes wasn't Greek.... but what we have from Paul's network of scribes and orators traveling the Greek and Roman cultural centers was very Hellenized as they were the dominant players in all things philosophical (the much later Islamic Golden Age was influenced by Byzantium and/or Hellenized too, it didn't really stop till the Renaissance). Paul specifically went to those places to flip those assets towards Christ and he did it, we better have a bunch of Greek texts to recover afterwards!
Is there a printable list anywhere of false friends and obsolete words in the King James Bible
No. The closest thing to this will be in my forthcoming book with Lexham Press: KJV Words You Don't Know You Don't Know (2023).
@@markwardonwords will definitely be looking forward to that I highly enjoyed your first book I guess I will have to make my own list I am putting something together for a few people at my church and didn't want to have to type out each individual word and definition LOL thanks
@markwardonwords
Also could you give me your opinion and thoughts on Acts 5:30 in the King James translation
@@markwardonwords i've started such a list, will send to you if it would help
I sometimes use youngs analytical concordance. Are there similar accusations against this work alsp?
I have not heard them. KJV extremists tend to focus on discrediting resources that are commonly used, and Strong’s is far more commonly used than other concordances.
Note that he asserts that Riplinger confused the ASV and the NASB.
A lot of KJVOs seem to think of the ERVASVRSVNASBNIVNWTNKJVNRSVNEBREB as one monolithic whole, The Modern Versions®™©, often accusing the NKJV of translating from Nestle-Aland even when they're not, or even when it's not even the New Testament.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING! Strong as long dead before the NASB was even conceived, and died even before the ASV was completed.
Thank you for this video. I would love to see more like it. I can't tell you tell you how much I want to agree with David Baker. I think this is because I want to be on the "conservative" side. I hate that there are so many people who see me as an apostate liberal because I prefer the critical text. However, you are unquestionably correct and I love God and truth more than I love being the most "conservative" man in the room. Thank you for your ministry please keep up the good work! I would love to hear you talk more about good Bible interpretation and making proper use of the original languages in preaching and teaching.
I'm with you more than you know. I feel safer being conservative. But my commitment to truth, to discipleship, has to be greater than my commitment to something as nebulous as "conservatism." What are we conserving? KJV-Onlyism thinks-and I totally get this-that it's conserving the important doctrine of bibliology. But actually it's giving it away slowly (and in some places quickly) by applying to a translation what the Bible applies only to the originals. This causes numerous problems: it prejudices interpretation, it stunts the need/desire for the study of original languages (just see the David Baker video!), and it causes division.
I will talk more about good Bible interpretation, for sure, and more about making proper use of the original languages in preaching and teaching-for sure!
@@markwardonwords I agree. KJVOs perceive themselves as more conservative, but belief in the inerrancy of the autographs is far older than the KJV. It is we who hold to the position of the Protestant reformers (for example), so, in one sense, we are far more conservative than they.
Presupposing the KJV as the standard and pitting it against the Bible in the original languages is more than contrary to the principles of the Reformation’s ad fontes, its sets the KJV above the standard of Christ and the apostles who used copies of the Hebrew text in the synagogue and quoted the LXX in the epistles.
Right! This feels SO clear to me. God, open KJV-Onlyism's eyes!
About 51:20 you said something along the lines of "if you practice these methods you will become inured to..." I thought you said, "you will become a nerd, too". Shoot, if I weren't a nerd I wouldn't be watching this! Love your videos. Thanks for all you do for the kingdom of God!
Ha! Love this! Now you have clearly revealed yourself to be a nerd!
I had a pastor I considered a friend, from my prior church who began to go down a road of very strange theology and one of his thoughts was that he believed Greek and Hebrew dictionaries where there to confuse us. No way I could reach him. Just told him my understanding and found an actual bible believing and teaching church. He was of course KJV only fundamentalist baptist.
I feel for you. And I feel for him, even though he's sinning. I was in his spot as a teenager-or on that road.
My favorite false friend is “quit you like me” in 1 Corinthians 16:13-14. A pastor once interpreted this as “quit behaving like carnal men”.
Love that one!
@@markwardonwords
Did you include that one in your list? I like to think I made a new suggestion, but maybe I did not.
Yes, I have a video on that one. ua-cam.com/video/BbD9EtlWDLw/v-deo.html
@@markwardonwords just added "quit" to my list of English words in the KJV that changed in meaning. Had a real Florida "cracker" Sunday School teacher once who read that as "Quiet yourselves as men" and had problems with "sh'bears" (she-bears)
James Strong died in 1894 so how did he sit on the NASB committee?
Baker conflates the NASB with the original ASV.
Thank you again for this video! I appreciate you digging into the languages. Personally, I was at least casually aware of the conclusions you provided on "corrupt" and "imitate", and I feel it's a shame when a King James Bible believer is not, either from not looking into it themselves, or not really paying attention. In the future, I'll have to make some videos on the excluded middle you mention for my own channel as it is seen too often in our group (I'm a KJV believer).
The main issue I do have with your video, Mark, is that James Strong did say at the beginning of his concordance (in early editions) that many of the words align so closely with the ASV because he used the ASV translation as a reference in define the Greek and Hebrew words. He was simply providing the ASV translation so his readers would know what the translators thought and what the up-to-date version rendered. If I remember correctly, these words were marked with an obelisk in the early editions (there was an old one at the church I grew up in that I used to use all the time). No conspiracy for David, but also no conspiracy theory, either. Just fact. Gail was correct, and even she doesn't make a huge deal about it, she just points it out in her book Hazardous Materials to show why it agrees with the ASV (and hence with the NASV) so frequently. It seems that she points this fact out in order to dispel the false impression it has given many (including Rice) that the NASV is almost 100% faithful to the original languages (not just a decent fairly literal translation).
I hope in the future to be careful about what conspiracy bandwagons I jump on. I do remember taking issue with "corrupt" being made "peddle" when I was young, but I figured out most of why they did that pretty quickly and saw that the modern rendering expands on the accurate KJV reading. Thank you for expanding on it further! Now I have to get me the OED! 🤣
"Follow"/"Imitate" was very easy to see why they would do that and that there is not necessarily a conspiracy there. I do, however, have to bear in mind that part of the New Order of Barbarians is to slowly retranslate words from their Biblical meaning to more interfaith-friendly terms. Maybe that's why the more liberal translations agree with the KJV in odd places? No real need to manipulate these Christians toward the new religion? Just thinking out loud. 😁
Thanks again for calling King James Bible believers out on things like this. We need to be sometimes! God bless, merry Christmas, and have an awesome day! ☺
Sincerely,
Joseph Armstrong
PS: Have you heard of Sextus Julius Africanus and the account the wise men wrote about being in Judea? I would love to hear your thoughts about it. If you get a chance, we made a flyer about it which you can read at repentyepeople.com/merrychristmas. We hope you find it a blessing!
It's completely fair to say that Strong had both the KJV and the RV in mind when he made his concordance, and it is obviously a reflection of late 19th century scholarship. And it's also fair to say that seminary students who are learning Biblical Greek are likely to be impressed with the NASB (especially the editions from the 1960s and 1970s) because it "agrees" with the translations that they would produce on their own with a set of basic reference tools.
What's less fair is the assumption that the KJV translators would find themselves completely at odds with the translators of the RV or the NASB. (They would take some exception to the Unitarians involved with the ASV, perhaps.) Miles Smith might complain that their English prose leaves something to be desired, but he wouldn't fault them for using the most up-to-date lexical information available.
(As an aside, I know that Riplinger insists on calling it the NASV, but doing so obscures a very important point: the NASB was essentially a conservative knockoff of the RSV that didn't really have much room to claim itself as the "Standard Version." The acronym NASV gives the false impression that the Lockman Foundation had the rights to the ASV, when in reality, they were taking advantage of the ASV's expired copyright. The B in NASB is a subtle hint that this version is the "generic brand" alternative to the RSV. That's not to say that the translation itself is a work of poor scholarship, but its name is a marketing gimmick.)
The title surprised me because most of the people I know who use Strong's extensively also tend to favor the KJV (whether exclusively or just preferred). I had not heard Baker's line of argument before. Are views like his widespread in your experience?
No. This is the first time I’ve heard this. Seems to be coming from Riplinger.
I think when he says "Imitator is one who copies, follower is one who does the same thing" shows he is trying hard to make an issue where there is none. He proved with his own statement that a Bible that says imitator is not in conflic with one that says follower.
I've always had trouble with insisting that a version is the preserved text. Have you ever translated something into another language, and then translated it back? It just doesn't seem to work! My one criticism of the KJV is the idea of not adhering to 'an identicality of phrasing', though the meaning remains the same, the thing you miss out is the constant hammering of a specific term Paul uses to drive a point home! I'll invent a word to describe this... Metameaning... Translations tend to cover up metameaning.
Sure! And who gave us this situation? God did. Most Christians must encounter the Bible in translation or not encounter it at all. Apparently, this is ok! We can live godly lives without getting all the metameaning that might be available to us if we were to be native speakers of Κοινή Greek and biblical Hebrew. In fact, I love what someone pointed out once: there have very likely been *zero* native speakers of both languages in the history of the world. Paul surely did very well in biblical Hebrew, but I don't think he was a native speaker of it. It was a liturgical language. And it changed over time.
@@markwardonwords Absolutely... I like what Jeff Riddle said, stay with me, brother! In one of my interviews with him he said something along the lines of "We don't read the Bible as single individuals" (loosely paraphrased), the point being, as Christians we talk about it, we share what the Holy Spirit illuminates to us, We flock to a building on Sunday to hear someone preach a passage for 40 minutes! It's not reasonable to suggest that they lay person know the original languages, but when I preach it, if there's something significant in the original language, you bet I'm going to share it! We do need people who have facility in the originals!
@@Dwayne_Green I agree with Jeff Riddle on this point!
On the example of "which of you by worrying ...," where the second part of the statement could alternatively be translated from the Greek to refer to length of life rather than physical height, it's important to ask what difference it would make, since the point would be the same in either case. In this regard, it may make sense to stay with the traditional reading because to do otherwise might lead casual readers into focusing on unimportant details.
James Strong (August 14, 1822 - August 7, 1894)
The NASB New Testament was released in 1963. The complete NASB Bible was released in 1971.
Did James Strong figured out how to travel through time?
I'm going to assume he is mixing up the ASV (American variant of the much-maligned RV) with the NASB, which was a revision of the ASV. It's hard to say whether the error is in his research, his memory, or Riplinger's explanation. Probably a combination of the three, since she's hard to follow, and he doesn't seem particularly interested in positively or accurately representing variants of "Satan's Bible."
Baker is acting as though the NASB and the ASV are essentially the same translation (with the NASB being a second edition, perhaps?). This claim is obviously false: it's the RSV that has the greatest claim to being the official revision of the ASV, while the NASB was basically a case of an organization taking advantage of copyright expiration.
Misleading. Strong helped write the original American Standard version of 1901.
I always enjoy your linguistic angle. It would help to see other places where Scripture uses the same term. I appreciate your insight that our language use changes over time, which demands a translation that accords with our speech patterns. Your call seems to come back to this issue every time. Well done.
Thank you! Yes, you picked up the theme! I’ve been fascinated by language change for so long. It came as a shock to see that many fine, intelligent people seemed to be unaware of its tendencies-and its effect on their ability to understand the KJV.
He seems to define “Bible” as only the English bible, and the letters originally written in Greek as somehow inferior to the English translation. Logical fallacy.
Right!
My translation here: "For we are not like the many, _trafficking in_ the word of God; but as from sincerity, but as from God, in the sight of God, through Christ we speak." (2 Cor 2.17 TTT)
Vulgate has "adulterantes" (adulterating, plural subject); Erasmus has "cauponantes" (trafficking, trading, plural subject). I suspect ONCE AGAIN the explanation is they used the Latin in favor of the Greek.
WOW!!! I just realized, the first KJV only person I may have met was one of my friends in 1979-81. I was debating him, after buying my Strong's and other resources, why I should use KJ when NAS has a word that I don't have to look up? I don't think he was a KJV only, but he did make many of these arguments. Thanks for the memories.
Why do you say Vine's Expository Dictionary is irresponsable? Was he bad in Greek and Hebrew or something else?
I'm not trying to be nasty-or to say that Vine's gets everything wrong. This is a rather complex matter. But if you wish to understand why I say that, I'd have to send you to Moisés Silva's Biblical Words and Their Meaning. Vine's tends to read theology into Greek words that is not present.
This video does a good job of properly addressing this topic with great care. I have my issues with modern bible translations and personally tend to prefer TR/KJV over CT, but this particular argument of "don't make the greek a god" is just not a good stance. It is equivalent to covering your ears, closing your eyes and going "lalalalala." One of life's biggest frustrations is seeing people you agree with in principle use bad logic to get there. You just end up being painted with the same broad brush.
These kinds of arguments are almost inevitable once someone takes a firm "King James Only" position. A more reasonable perspective will naturally lead to some level of compromise, such as the following two examples:
- the NASB New Testament is a good translation of a flawed Greek text, and it is useful to the degree that it agrees with the Textus Receptus;
- the NKJV is not quite on par with its namesake, but it is a generally reliable translation that can be used by believers who favor the TR.
At that point, you're not exactly part of the "King James Only" crowd. You're "King James Preferred," even if that's a strong preference. (That seems to be the position you're taking in your post.) Once you've accepted that the KJV is made by human hands, you open yourself to appreciating other translations alongside it, even if that appreciation is begrudging and not to a degree that would lead you to use those versions regularly.
The "KJV Preferred" perspective allows for the idea that non-KJV (and even non-TR) churches out there are legitimately Christian and that God has continued to work through a variety of English Bibles in spite of their textual differences. The KJVO position, if taken to its logical conclusion, does not allow for this idea. There's a vital theological difference between "I tend to use the King James only" and "Only the King James can be used," as the second position suggests a doctrine instead of an opinion.
Agreed, Chancy. I've felt this way about some Young Earth Creationists. I'm on their side: why do they have to make me look bad? Please know that I spend so little time on men like Baker because I try to listen to the best and most responsible proponents of any given viewpoint. But I also have come to feel that it isn't right to totally ignore the extremists, not when their numbers and influence is so large. Even then, I picked a pretty reasonable extremist, one who was able to put forth some very sound arguments regarding ἀγάπη and φιλέω.
@@markwardonwords I take no issue with you discussing and properly dispelling poorly formed arguments such as the one in this video. I too wish that views like this were not so prominent.
I just know from experience, as someone who has some deep concerns over the current status and trends of modern Bible translations, it is often hard to have a simple, calm, and logical conversation. This is due to both people who have impossible to defend KJVO views, and people who see any defense of KJV or criticism of modern translations as no different to being an irrational KJVO.
@@MAMoreno I think your explanation is a very sound and well put together one. My stance is definitely not "KJV is the ONLY WAY."
My view is more a general disagreement with some logic behind the CT and how modern scholar place more value on a few manuscripts over many others. Possibly even more of a problem though is my general dislike for constant revisions and how we now have dozens of major translations, with many more assuredly to come.
I have no problem with creating modern tools to help readers understand better and no problem with scholarship around language change. I do however think we have done some real harm by infusing a significant amount of variability into the one thing that we as Christians say should be the singular tool to build lives around.
And while I openly admit most major modern translations do not vary to a MASSIVE degree today, if you mapped out Bible translations on a chart over the last 500 years, the last 50 years has been an absolute explosion of translations and revisions. And I do not see this trend slowing down any time soon. It leads me to have major concerns about where 'the Bible' will be 500 years from now.
There is a genuine value in being slow to change.
@@ChancyC I do agree somewhat on the frequency of revisions and (especially) the excessive number of new versions.
On the former, I'd argue that a span of at least 20 years between revisions is preferable. Biblical scholarship and English usage do change, but they don't change *that* fast. The ESV should be on its second edition (at most), not its fourth.
The rare exception might be the NLT, which was in such desperate need of improvement from the 1996 edition that the committee could not afford to wait. And perhaps the CSB was a necessary course correction due to the HCSB's sheer strangeness to its target audience's ears.
As for new committee-based translations, I can't imagine a serious need for one ever again. Just revise the ones that are already out there! The motivation behind so many of these versions is a publisher's or organization's desire to own and oversee a Bible of their own.
One might already ask why we needed the HCSB, NET, or CEB when we already had the NIV, but we certainly didn't need all four. And those are just the ones that gained traction in churches: who remembers the ISV or EHV?
I've learned more from you about the King James Bible than I will ever need. The reason I continue to listen to you is because of your demeanor. The way you speak the kindness the gentleness the softest of your voice is impressive. And I would love to imitate you in that way. And I will continue to listen to you thank you
Pray for me, brother!
@@markwardonwords yes I will continue to
You sir, give a life lesson in humility and civility in every video. In a world that has lost both, it may just be your greatest ministry. Thank you...
Thank you! Please pray for me! I was jut reading again the verses that call for "perfect courtesy toward all people."
I’m so glad you addressed this.
My pleasure.
Brother Mark,watched the whole thing AND...trust you and your well-rounded,highly trained good intentions.🙄 Frohe Weihnachten to you and yours 🌹🌹🌹🌹
Thank you. Pray for me!
@@markwardonwords Will do,my Brother in Christ!!!🌹
the conspiracy it's impossible to retranslate the greek, because the kjv translators were the last ones to know what the greek meant, which is why they also say you have to use the kjv to translate to other languages
The leaders of the KJV Only “position” prey on the ignorance of those they preach to to not explore Bible history or translation history outside of what they’re teaching them. Most KJV Onlyists do not even know what version of the King James Bible they’re using. Let alone what manuscript tradition it comes from. If you can convince your audience that the people who hold different views are evil ,and therefore have no information of value to give, then you can effectively silence their opinions and ideas. I believe ministries like Dr. Ward’s are of tremendous value. through equipping us with discernment. Including, and especially, to discern of what we do not, or can’t, know.
The sad thing is that, in my experience, the vast majority of the promoters of the viewpoint are ignorant of what they’re saying as well. Very few can read any Greek. Almost none can read Biblical Hebrew.
Interesting. Realizing the case for the KJO position was essentially questionbegging and ad hominem (their conspiracy theories attack the man rather than arguing the point). was my first big step out of the TR camp. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Right. So sad!
Though I love the King James Version, I recognise the need for modern translations. The KJV Onliests (by extension Catholicism's Douay Rheims Bible* (DRB) Onliests) verge on, if not, fall into, idolatry.
There's modern translations that can be rightly called modern equivalent to the KJV (or DRV). The NKJV? / MEV? / Orthodox Study Bible* (OSB)? for the KJV (or Knox Bible*? / Catholic Public Domain Version* (CPDV)? for the DRB).
Also, the British and Foreign Bible Society published a British dialect edition of the NKJV.
* Includes Deutercanonicals / Apocryphal books.
Quick story. I was saved two years before going to the IFB church I attended for 15 years. I had been using the New American Standard Bible during the entire time, largely due to the reasons mentioned at the beginning of this video. The English words and grammar better reflected the current usage than the KJV. The pastor of my church knew Greek and used it quite a bit during his messages. I suppose he was KJVO-Lite. I actually was blessed to have a pastor, although using the KJV for the English, would get into the Greek and state that “this word actually means this.” I would even smile outwardly when I would see that the NASB had precisely the meaning or verb tense he was conveying. So, this pastor, at least, knew that the people in his church benefited from a good explanation of the text from the original languages (he knew Hebrew as well). I know many did not have this kind of experience and, instead, may have had a pastor who hid behind conspiracies and a fear to explain hard-to-understand KJV words from the Greek. Thank you Mark for presenting all this material in a spirit of genuine love for all fellow Christians.
Yes, a pastor like that can counteract the negative effects of KJV-Onlyism.
Thank you sir for another informative video with solid truth. My CSB quotes “for we don not market the Word of God for profit like so many.
Even the CJB is seemingly the same “ for we are not like a lot of folks who go about huckstering Gods message for a fee. Lol
✔
Thank you Mark for addressing conspiracy theories relating to KJV, study resources and modern translations. You have made great points. My study habits include reading from a variety of translations including formal and dynamic translations to gain a broader understanding of textual context along with Logos and other bible software. There's a problem with placing the KJV at a level that supersedes meanings from the original languages. Openness to truth is critical to understanding. Thank you again.
✔ Right!
I am currently in the Old Testament in my morning Bible reading.I was reading Genesis 36 and came across the word Duke refering to the sons of Esau and I got to thinking what was the Hebrew word that was translated Duke in the KJV.Since I have a Strong Concordance and found chief and governor as the correct word instead of Duke.I can understand that during King James times the word Duke can be understood by common people but I don't think a plowboy know what Duke means.Since I got own copy of ESV where it is translated chief and as well as the NKJV where the word chief referring to the sons of Esau.I enjoy this video very much since I don't know much Hebrew or Greek I will continue to use Strong Exhaustive Concordance.
A fascinating example!
The idea that Strong’s is part of a conspiracy to undermine the KJV is laughable, but there are good reasons to not make Strong’s your only concordance or source of the meaning of words in the Bible.
Agreed on all counts!
Haha I do the same thing where I watch a lot of youtube videos at 2x, so when you watched his video at 2x speed my video was playing it at 4x speed... needless to say it was completely unintelligible, so thank you for slowing it down.
Ha! Love that!
At 15:00 ish he starts talking about the differences. You cover it a little at about 20:00, but isn’t another option in addition to language change the addition of scholarship? We have a better hold on the Greek now than in the Elizabethan era and since that time many lexical and grammatical advances have happened. The Granville sharp construction comes to mind.
I guess I’m saying we stand on the shoulders of giants and in availing ourselves of all available resources we do not diminish the contribution of those that came before.
I LOVE that last sentence! I believe you're exactly right.
I will offer a charitable (and not imaginary) interpretation of his argument on Greek "definitions" correcting "the Bible".
His argument, as he states it, doesn't accurately describe the KJVO concern over the use of the Greek in the pulpit, as a matter of real experience. KJVO's believe that preachers who lean towards modern textual criticism have a strong tendency to correct the Bible that people hold in their hand, regardless of which translation that happens to be, too casually and self-servingly with condescending phrases like "regrettable translation". There are two kinds of "Bible correction" (admittedly, neither of which the KJVO's tolerate; but they loath one more--or perhaps just differently--than the other):
First is the scholarly, consensus based correction of a few, very specific texts based on modern textual criticism. This is not the preacher arriving at some textual epiphany from his own study, but rather communicating a serious and impactful update to the proper translation of the text.
Second is the one mentioned above. The "Eeny, meeny, miny, moe" selection between a lexicons available synonyms of a given Greek word and passing that off as a better translation than the one chose by serious scholars working in committee with better knowledge, training, and tools.
I don't agree with the KJVO's position, but I do share their disdain for the second. I don't have any statistical data, but from my own experience, the vast majority of times that the preacher "corrects an unfortunate translation" in the Bible (regardless of which version it is), it is of the second type. It often seems to be not only lazy "exegesis" but also an obsession with wanting to appear learned and innovative without actually being either.
Granted, KJVOs are not good a differentiating between these two very different accusations, but in the context of the second, and dialing back the overstatement of the "made Greek a god" indictment, they have a fair point. However, it isn't just a problem with amateur Greek scholars. A good portion of KJVO preaching does the exact same thing with the English. It is quite common for them to build an entire sermon on an alternate definition of an English word (e.g. Apt, Study, etc) that is incompatible with the proper meaning of the text. While they don't say they are correcting the standard meaning of the English word, that is exactly what they are doing. Perhaps if they understood their argument a little better, they might be more aware of their own transgression, and more sympathetic to it being a 'feature' of our fallen humanity and not some diabolical plot.
👋 Hi Mark I listened very carefully to your video and I agree with everything you said. It's true man live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Mark what do think about the Majority text? Thank you very. 😊
I like Matthew Everhard's reasons for liking it. I'm not persuaded of the viewpoint, in part because it still requires traditional textual criticism at points where the Majority is unclear. So why not at all points? But I just don't see Majority Text proponents being jerks online, and Maurice Robinson is brilliant. So I respect the view very much.
Deuteronomy 23:2. No mixed blood in the Kingdom. What blood you may ask your self? Lamentations 4:7. Whiter than snow. The people of Nazareth.
I myself don't use a Strong's, because Strong's doesn't have any relevance to me. I use Cruden's, which is more in line with what I myself need a concordance for. And that probably makes me sound a bit ruckie, because Cruden specifically indexed the KJV, but if I'm looking for a specific verse, it's probably in the KJV form that I know it, so it makes the most sense to look for the verse in Cruden's.
Have we made English a god? How we made the KJ Version a god? It is possible to confuse the concepts of venerate (reverential respect or respect) for worship. I greatly respect my wife but I do not worship her as a god. Likewise one can highly regard both translations and study helps without elevating them to some mystical level of perfection.
I agree, friend.
Ironic that "corrupt the Word of God" is most often wielded against critical text advocates, given the whole project largely exists to remove what they believe to be interpolations. What could be a more textbook example of adulteration than mixing the words of mere men (even pious ones) with the inspired words of God?
Right!
I just wish people could just agree to disagree on this issue and focus on preaching the Gospel. This issue does nothing but divide the church and cause more harm than good. People who are staunch KJVO won't listen to an opposing view because they view the KJV as THE standard
I, too, wish we could agree to disagree. I'm prepared to do that. But the other side is calling my Bible corrupt and causing division. They are also insisting on the exclusive use of a translation that is no longer fully intelligible. If it were just the last point, I think I probably wouldn't mind as much. I could focus on teaching people how to read KJV English. But by actively attacking contemporary translations as corrupt they are causing division. Something has to be done for the people who wish to know the truth.
I don't think you're disagreeing with me… And I'm not with you: I wish we didn't have this debate. I will "disagree" with only one statement: some staunch KJVOs do listen! They contact me all the time!
Mark, I use the KJV, but I'm very open-minded, and I believe I'm like-minded to yourself in that I want to have the best understanding possible of the Bible. I'm perhaps just not very far along in my journey. However, your work has been a blessing and an amazing resource for understanding what we read, and I pray the Lord uplifts and directs your endeavor to the utmost!
On "corrupt":
If the Greek word came to mean, or even "almost came to mean" adulterate, as BDAG asserts, wouldn't a responsible translation preserve this sense? Or, if, as you said, the word is somewhat ambiguous and can mean both to corrupt and to peddle, shouldn't a translation preserve both senses? I don't see the word "peddle" as doing so. Only perhaps the vague sense that "peddle" has a disapproving connotation or illicit implication.
I guess I don't understand the possible justification for the use of a sense that doesn't in some way mean or imply "corrupt," especially when that use gives credence to those who accuse a translation of corruption.
Can you shed more light on this?
It's been a while since I made this video and looked into the details, but I believe this word really is ambiguous. It's a good example of the kind of word that requires translators to make a judgment. If a given language doesn't have a word with the same ambiguity, it has to choose one option or the other. The way to "preserve both senses" is to use a footnote-which is exactly what the 1611 KJV did. I only just noticed this; I should have mentioned it in the video. I hope that helps!
@@markwardonwords it does, thank you! I've kept my photographic reproduction of the 1611 New Testament on the shelf too long apparently. I should have checked as well! Many thanks!
Many thanks for your efforts! Been listening to you after ENDURING the KJV-only cultists. Back 1985-87 time period i was chatting with a friend who was going to teach on the cults, and i said that the KJV-only are turning into a cult. Sad. BTW have you reviewed the KJV 2016? Just became aware of it yesterday and started checking my (still growing) list of English words that changed. They hit on many but not the one that broke my heart. Back to topic, term NASB was used, but i'm wondering if they meant the ASV. Strong was dead before the NASB was conceived as well as dead before the ASV was released. He was around for the release of the BR, and he was on the faculty of DREW (which Bible-believing SOUTH Jersey UMs think is Rev. 2:13). Suggest and request clarification as to which Bible is meant where and when. Philip Schaff originally chaired the ASV committee, and they had Unitarians on the translation staff, I wouldn't even have them around to take lunch orders. Schaff was imported by the German Reformed Church, made a mess out of their Chambersburg Seminary, and then moved on to make a mess out of Union T.S. (NYC - New School Presbyterian). Shame is that the German Reformed sent out a warning in 1807 (? need to verify the year, but it was during the Napoleonic Era) about seminary grads coming over here having strange doctrines that they were not prepared to refute, be on your guard. The "red herring" the KJV-Only Gang brings up (per Dr. David Brown) is that the NIV committee claims to have fired her, but she told him (Brown) that she had not been fired, nor is there a "letter" stating such. True, they asked her to resign. Anyone exposed to workplace politics knows that game - you're leaving, do you want to have "fired" on your resume or "quit"? I am NOT SAYING that the NIV gang did this for this reason but business employers prefer you to quit so that they don't have to pay unemployment benefits. The correct question to ask her was "Did you initiate your departure from the committee or did the committee initiate?" The Industrial Revolution brought massive changes to the languages of the industrialized world, but before that there were changes. The author of "The European Discovery of America, the Northern Voyages" (LOVED that book, read it for extra credit in 9th grade) says that when the English called the Natives "Red Men" they meant "copper colored", the term has been retained but the definition of "red" has changed. Imitator vs. follower, if you're apprenticed to learn a skill, you imitate/follow your instructor learning what to do, how to do it correctly, do it their way, and what not to do. This is how the skill is passed on. I don't see a problem in the translation.
Regarding the different types of love, I seem the remember getting that from Wuest, but I may be mistaken.
So glad GOD delivered me from kJVO!!
Yes, he talks about the word that way.
Oooh, I like that Chronograph!
I used the money I got for my 40th birthday two years ago, and I got an awesome deal at a local Citizen outlet store-50% off. I really do love that watch! It's got great features, like radio-controlled time and perpetual calendar.
@@glenn1611 Hilarious!! Wish I had thought of that one!! Excellent!
@@markwardonwords What model watch is it?
@@DrGero15 It's a Citizen Blue Angels watch. I got it for WAY less than the current asking price, but here's an affiliate link: www.amazon.com/dp/B008RNKIV8?tag=3755-20
Another good consideration of texts. Just as a little more input, The NWT does use "peddlers" in 2 Cor 2:17. Since the NWT keeps a closer eye on the "tense" of the Greek, they have "become imitators" at 1 Cor 4:16 as does Young's Translation, also monitoring the "tense" in the original languages.
In all fairness, Papias of Hierapolis and St. Jerome both claimed that there was a ancient Hebrew Book of Matthew.
I have Drew Longacre writing an article on this topic for the Logos blog. I myself am not prepared to make a detailed argument for the status quo.
@@markwardonwords I recall author John H. Dobson advocated that knowledge of Hebrew grammar helps in understanding Biblical Greek, contending that Biblical Greek often followed a Hebraic grammatical form and noting the frequent usage of chiastic poetic structure. All that being said, I don’t think that it necessarily follows that Biblical Greek is a translation from Hebrew.
Ultimately, God chose to preserve the writings in Greek-irrespective of whether it was written originally in Hebrew or not-so I don’t think it really manners all that much.
The idea that Matthew wrote a gospel in a language other than Greek began with Papias of Hierapolis, c.125-150AD. In an ambiguous passage , Papias wrote: "Matthew collected the oracles (logia - sayings of or about Jesus) in the Hebrew language (Hebraïdi dialektōi - perhaps alternatively "Hebrew style") and each one interpreted (hērmēneusen - or "translated") them as best he could".
Papias' reference to the "Hebrew language" - if that's what he meant - would most likely be a reference to the spoken language of Israel in the first century, which was Aramaic (but not the Syriac dialect on which the later Peshitta is based).
Few doubt that there is an Aramaic source behind the Gospels. However, that falls far short of providing evidence, let alone proof, that any of the New Testament was _originally written_ in Aramaic (or Hebrew).
The very fact that the Greek texts of the Gospels contain transliterated Aramaic & Hebrew expressions and their Greek translations tells against the Gospels being translations from Aramaic or Hebrew. There are also well-recognised Christological Greek hymns in some of the gospels and epistles (e.g. John 1:1-17, Colossians 1:15-20, Philippians 2:6-11, etc.) proving them to not be translations from Aramaic or Hebrew.
Hope this helps.
Ohh boy! I thought Strongs was there to help us understand what these words mean. They see the modern translator using corrupt Hebrew and Greek text.
He is!
@@markwardonwords I was using a little tongue and cheek but I am doing some research and I found this video. Apparently, the Greek languages were written by and translated by those in the modern translation board of the NIV AND modern translations. According to KJV Only ua-cam.com/video/npdwV9oG72A/v-deo.html
I find this often where the KJV onlyists put their English translation over and above the original languages. Thank you for bringing this out very clearly!
It makes sense from their perspective: they think that for a Bible translation to serve as the standard for doctrine, it needs to be perfect. That runs counter to what the KJV translators themselves said, however, in their preface.
@@markwardonwords Which is why some of them go so far as to say that that preface was put in there AGAINST the translators' will, as they do the notes. 🙄
I bought my nephew ( in prison) a NIV with cultural background, I thought it would be easier for him to read. But he sent it home to his mom because it wasn't a KJ.
These stories are so, so sad to me. Hopefully my next book-which I'm literally working on this moment (well, before and after I write this comment!)-will help him out. It goes through the various false friends I've adduced.
@@markwardonwords when do you think the new book will be available?
@@mikehopper1674 Probably not till late 2023. =|
@@markwardonwords I'm sure it will be worth the wait. :)
Every time I hear KJO speak I feel like I lose brain cells
I don’t mean to be rude but man these arguments…
He did go to HAC
I later confirmed this, too. And I observe that he's been involved with Independent Baptist Online College? I find it alarming that anyone who'd take Gail Riplinger seriously would be an educator. But I sincerely meant it when I praised his discussion of ἀγάπη (agape) and φιλέω (phileo).
Dear Mark, I know this isn't exactly germaine to this video, but it does address an issue you have addressed before, specifically "jots and tittles." That entire argument seems misplaced to me. Since Jesus was referring to the TORAH, why are folks arguing about it regarding the NT, and specifically the Received Text and the KJV?
Good question. I think that is a common Christian move-I make it myself-to apply to both testaments statements about the Old Testament, like 2 Tim 3:16. But it surely cannot apply to a translation.
If I may, it is a legitimate inference to apply this theologically to the entire corpus of Scripture. Sometimes, we just take a shortcut when we present that inference.
Mark, it just occurred to me that what people need is a study Bible, hard copy, that points out all of the false friends in the KJV. Not that modern versions don't do that, but one that doesn't change the KJV text yet points these things out. It could even do so inline or under it like an interlinear Bible. Surely someone like yourself has the connections to make that happen. Just make sure to give me credit somewhere in the published version. ;)
@@Whitedoves78 awe man, I thought I had an original thought.
Seaside Agean is correct. Just one clarification. There are two different KJV full color Study Bibles. The one with the word definitions is published by Thomas Nelson, NOT the one published by Holman.
I have seen Bibles that use the KJV as the base text but changes archaic words to modern words and underline them.
ON THE MONEY!
Thanks!
If you are KJVO, everything is a conspiracy.
Highly unlikely. Use Strongs with Thayers …. Be CAREFUL what dictionaries /lexicons you use because some have wrong definitions - like claiming that hagiazo (set apart, separate, dedicated, ie consecrated, holy) means “cleansed” - it means no such thing but they use bad logic to claim it does.
I have used strongs & sometimes thayers and never came across anything that conflicted with the King James.
Though it should be noted that KJV is not “perfect”… it says “Easter” (name of a oagan celebration to a false goddess whose symbols btw are bunnies and eggs) instead of PASSOVER which is what the Greek Pesach means and is how it is translated in every other passage. There are things easily misunderstood simply bc of the King James English - ie “be angry and sin not” means don’t be angry and don’t sin, not , its ok to be angry but don’t sin as many assume. Another passage says of the conflict between the Spirit and the Flesh …”so that ye cannot do as ye want”. which many assume means we literally cannot stop sinning. This is a wring understanding - the phrase means you are NOT to do “as you want” because what the flesh wants is in opposition to the Spirit of God. Elsewhere the scriptures tell us that the anger of man does not work the righteousness of God.
But no, after almost 40 years studying the bible ysing strongs concordance & lexicon in. KJVGreek Hebrew study bible, and also strongs online , which includes info from thayers , (usually Bible Hub if I am not mistaken) I don’t believe strobgs is some kind of subversive dictionary .
I can’t watch your video right this second but will watch later to see if your points change my mind. But I highly doubt they will
I agree with you! Hope to hear your thoughts.
NO!!!
Right!
David Baker and his half Baked logic. This bloke reminds me of some people who live in the bush in Tasmania. Similar to the people who live in the Ozark mountains. very very strange beliefs and the sound of "duelling banjos" resonating through the forest.
even if we all read greek, there would still be multiple denominations.
Agreed!
Greek is not a God but it is the original language of the New testament. If we understand the original language and its parts of speech it will lead us to understand Scripture better. I was absolutely floored by his supposition to begin with. It seems to fly in the face of linguistic logic.
5:55 (x2)×(x1.5) was pretty funny. I share your sentiment on "normal speed". My max for your videos is usually 1.5
Amen!!
Is he not making KJV a god?
He has invested divine authority and perfection in the KJV that God did not say he placed there. I passed "Immaculate Conception Catholic Church" today on my way to drop my kids off at their Christian school. It seems this is a common tendency: to invest the merely human with special divine sanction.
I heard once that the kjv translators supposedly ritualistically bathed and would anoint their quills in oil every time they went to translate to purge themselves of the presence of sin, which is why the kjv is a perfect and holy translation translation
You're thinking of the Jewish Masoretes who copied down the Hebrew Bible in the Middle Ages, not the KJV translators.
@@MAMoreno Im not, I was told once the kjv translators did this, the person telling me was probably conflating what the jewish scribes did with the kjv translators and using it as a justification for the claim only the kjv is holy
I have not ever found the Strong's concordance wrong! It is a dictionary, there are several words and to know which one to use has to come from the context.
Me either I use it and allow the spirit to lead me in studies…. Is the spirit handicap from guiding you into all truth..No if you receive incorrect info the spirit through Gods power with direct you properly…
"did we make Greek a God?"
Thanks to watching so many of your videos my first thought was..
"Let me flip that around and ask you "did we make the KJV a God?"
Right! He begins his video by insisting that we can't put the Greek before God, but he doesn't seem to entertain the possibility that he might be doing that with the English.
@@markwardonwords A better question would be "what qualifies as "the word of God?" And for that I'd point him to your KJV video series you did with a different Hixson. I watched every video at least twice and it's something you 4 covered earlier on in the series.
12:00 so he knows he is teaching what the greek didnt say, but the kjv is superior to the greek
David seems rather confused. The Bible was written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. If one doesn't understand the Greek one cannot understand the Bible. David is using a self-defeating argument because he himself is proclaiming that the KJV is at the level of God's inspired word. That is completely absurd. David is hoisting the KJV above God himself. This appears to be an extreme version of the Sola Scriptura Doctrine.
I would modify your statement to say, "If one doesn't understand the Greek, one cannot understand the New Testament with with 100% precision." Translations cannot bring over every single nuance of the original texts (such as untranslatable wordplay), but they can convey sufficient information for understanding those texts on a general level.
One of my word studies in KJB is "Straight is the gate". Matthew 7:14
....some versions say narrow. A winding road can be narrow!
It doesn’t say “straight”; it says “strait.” These are two different words.
I am sure that you mean well.
By God's grace, I do, friend!
@@markwardonwords What do you do when the line that separates truth and lie is so faded that it is hard to know where the middle ground is? Everything in the world has a natural bend towards Satan, and the only way we can change that bend towards God is by following His holy Word--the measure for all conduct. How can you find the middle ground between wo Godless politicians (one conservative and one liberal)?
Proverbs calls it wisdom. I’m not saying I have lots of it. But I think my dad gave me some.
@@markwardonwords I do not like the middle ground.
It is not always the right place to be.
The Greek Critical Text by Westcott and Hort 1881 changes doctrine not just words. King James Research Council videos show the evidence in their annual conventions.
My friend, the New King James Version and the Modern English Version both use the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts as the King James. And they translate those texts into fully intelligible contemporary English, which means they meet the principle of 1 Corinthians 14, edification requires intelligibility. I recommend the NKJV and MEV to you.
modern Greek Critical texts aren't just taking the work of Westcott and Hort without question
I look at the copyright listings below the scriptures on Bible Gateway....it is overwhelming! KJB is listed Public Domain. One has to change 2000 words to qualify for a copyright. Then constantly updating modern versions for copyright control.
This is not true. I have a video coming out about this.
The KJV is protected by royal prerogative rather than copyright. Royal prerogative predates copyright. Copyright merely supercedes royal prerogative. The KJV's royal prerogative remains protected under s.171(1)(b) of the UK's Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
No lol it just tells you the original word in Hebrew and Greek
My KJV Only opinions on this:
Note: Mark watches professional sports. Must be a sin there somewhere.... ;)
I think what he is saying is if a pastor says the Greek disagrees with the KJV, the pastor is saying he knows better about Greek than all the Translators that spoke Greek. I would agree with this.
Personally I find that a good pastor who really knows the Bible will use other passages to reinforce what they are saying and not pull the "I took two semester of Greek in College" card. I personally think the Greek should never be used from the pulpit because there is no way for the common man to know if the pastor is telling the truth.
Conspiracy? No, I don't believe that, but I do believe with someone like John Sailhammer who believes in Historical Creation works on Genesis for the NLT and CSB his theology will impact translation decisions. That is not conspiracy, it is human nature. I am sure the Webster Bible aligns perfectly with Webster's definitions.
You can understand that there are slightly different TR editions, but God's word has to be preserved in something. The idea that the "correct" reading of Genesis 3:16 and Gen 4:7 of "contrary to" did not come out until 2016 in a major Bible translation is a far bigger stretch than saying we think the correct TR was used.
Do some of the new translators "corrupt" the Word of God? Oh, I would say yes, they might make changes they believe are correct but I think there are many changes made just to be different enough from another translation to support copyright. This is especially true in Job, Song of Solomon, Minor profits, where people don't really pay attention to word changes of some what similar meaning. You can't have a new translation and have the book of Jeremiah be the same as another translation even if you are using the exact same Hebrew.
2 Cor 2:17 is "chop & chaunge" in the Bishops Bible 1568 and Tyndale Bible 1534. So, it was "corrupt" would be much closer to the historical translation for a long time.
1 Cor 4:16 "folowe me" in Tyndale 1534, "folowers of me" Bishop 1658, "Foleweris" So, it was "followers" would be much closer to the historical translation for at least 640 years.
I think in your analysis you missed going to the Bible's the KJV was based on. These two verses were translated this way for almost 500 years. That is a long time for it to be wrong.
This may be a minor nitpick, but the NLT already had the "desire to control your husband" interpretation in their footnote for Genesis 3.16 back in 1996. That interpretation made it to the main text when they revised it in 2004. So too, the ESV offered the alternative translation "against" in the footnotes all the way back in 2001. See also the NET Bible.
This interpretation dates back to the 1970s. For an earlier interpretation, see the Douay-Rheims, which translates from the Vulgate. It states that "thou shalt be under thy husband's power" (cf. Wycliffe's translation, "thou schalt be vndur power of the hosebonde").
@@MAMoreno The NLT in 2022 appointed Dr. Lynn Cohick to the NLT Bible Translation Committee (BTC,) to be part of the ongoing updates for the NLT. Given this, I think you will be seeing a lot more changes to the next NLT related to female leadership and husband/wife relationships.
You are not being nitpicky at all. I appreciate being corrected. The footnotes usually wind up in the text give a couple revisions. They are part of the Copyright of the text.
Not going to even pretend I know Hebrew, but looking at Strong's H413 in every place the KJV translates the word "against" (which would be the same as "contrary") you could replace "against" with "towards" and the sentence do not change meaning. (Gen 4:8, Lev 20:6, Jos 8:33, 1Sa 3:12)
Nope... after looking at the information on Blueletterbible.org, the Stong's definition, Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon, and all the verses Strong's H413 is used... I am calling BS on the translation "contrary." Actually, if you put the ESV "contrary" in every time the KJV uses "against" the sentences makes no sense. "Contrary" never work in the context Strong's H413 is used.
The Holy Spirit promises to help us with understanding!
Then why do we need a translation in the first place?
There is no Easter in the Textus Receptus thats all the undermining you should need... read the original KJV preface for a good laugh.
Please please please on future videos don't use that creepy porn music for the countdown
That's not creepy porn music. Just because it is different doesn't mean you should impugn it.
@@DeepDiveDiscipleship
Just being honest about what it brings to mind every time I hear it
It's just one of the options UA-cam gives you when you do a premiere video. I don't know what makes it "porn music" and I honestly don't want to know. It's just music.
But when they sincerely want to destroy Hod then I take them at their word.
I'm afraid I'm not following your comment!
Jesus was American
A.I is writing a new version.
Broad is the pathway that leads to destruction. For it is written.
Complacency with the Word of God is Wickedness
Please interact with the arguments made in the video.
No pearls for the pigs! You are accursed because you preach another gospel. Your next book should be titled "Mark Ward of the beast"
1 Timothy 6:3-5
3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
@@christopherpeterson6004 In what way is he preaching another Gospel? please elaborate
@evanarmont
Well firstly, you would have to agree that every single modern bible is corrupt. You would have to believe in God's promise to preserve his pure Word, and you would have to agree that God holds His Word above his own name. If you truly believed that you would find the truth.
But Mark knows full well which version he will attack - subtlety - without concern for the many blasphemies in every modern "bible". A constant false piety of concern for those who are "deceived" by the belief in the Living Word of God.
No I don't think the Strong's concordance is a conspiracy - it's wicked men who use this tool like a synonym generator to correct the KJB. As if a "root word" analysis should supercede the clear context and the plain English of the KJB. These become doctrinal differences that undermine the deity of Christ, the Godhead, and the path of Salvation.
Never mind the thousands of words missing in the Alexandrian based Revised text.
Here are two definitive examples corrupt in every modern bible:
Are you saved by your OWN faith in Jesus Christ? If you're not 100% faithful, will God say I never knew you?
Galatians 2:16 KJB tells us it is by simple belief in the faith OF Jesus Christ
Are you "washed, sanctified, and justified"? Could you get mad at someone who cut you off in traffic and lose your salvation?
1 Corinthians 6:11 KJB tells us we ARE already washED, sanctifiED, justifiED. (not "you were" or "are being")
@@christopherpeterson6004 alright, but could you explain what changes he is making to the Gospel, aside from newer Bibles using a different verb tense?
The King James Bible isn't just a translation though. It is The Holy Bible in English. Once you've seen the intricate patterns and details laid out from Brandon Peterson using a Bible software, you can't deny it was written by God. His channel is called Truth Is Christ. You will be blown away by all that he has found so far.
The KJV is an excellent translation-but if you're going to read it exclusively, you need to understand that it was translated into a form of English no one quite speaks or writes anymore. So there are going to be some places where you think you understand but, because of language change, you're going to miss the intent of the KJV translators. For help discerning when this is the case, I encourage you to check out my "Fifty False Friends in the KJV" series on UA-cam for help reading the KJV! ua-cam.com/play/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc.html
@@markwardonwords The Webster's 1828 dictionary works just fine for definitions. The Bible really isn't all that complicated like people make it out to be. God is not the author of confusion.
@@SupplementalSenseI challenge you to watch ten of my Fifty False Friends videos. See if Webster has been enough for you! ua-cam.com/play/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc.html
"Truth Is Christ" Brandon Peterson shows the numerical of the perfection of the KJB.
Revelation 22:18-19
Yeah, "conspiracy theorists"? Your Dad taught you to dismiss others you disagree with as "conspiracy theorists"? Unsubscribed.