Mark Ward did not say the KJV is completely unreadable. At 10:08 Dr. Haifly misrepresnts Mark Ward's position I'm sure not intentionally but nevertheless he should clarify.
Good interview. However, what does one mean when they say, “is it readable”? That would depend on one’s education, language style preference, etc. would it not? Chinese assembly instructions are “readable” 😂
I have listened to a few of the KJVO guys responding to the debate and it comes down to them saying that they don't approve new TR translations or are skepticle because they may contradict their doctrines or make them less clear. So do they bring their teaching to the Bible or the other way around? The Bible should tell us what to believe. We don't tell the Bible what are the doctrines. We shouldn't be afraid of what the Bible really says. God's word is right and we are learning the Bible, not what our folks are saying the Bible says. :)
There are too many people on both sides of this issue that seem to have no critical thinking abilities. Personally, I have no problem with the KJV. I use it every day. However, I know many Godly people who do find it very difficult to read and understand.
Dr. Haifley seems like a nice guy, but the "are saved" vs "being saved" made almost no sense. Greek doesn't have a grammatical sense for "your whole life." This aspect is an action with the end not in sight, while it would require an aorist to be "are saved." This strikes me as, "This translation doesn't agree with my philosophy, so any stick will do to respond to it."
Thanks brother Dwayne. That gave me the chance to understand better where brother Dan is at. He has ideas which should be considered. There is indeed a baby in the bathwater. In fact, the KJV has merits that will stand us in good stead as a bulwark against: (1) feminist, woke, or other politically and socially motivated translations; and (2) the corruption of the English language by bad diction and bad grammar.
Thank you for this video! I will say, as someone who is a year into Christianity, Mark has been amazing, so have you. I'm currently reading the NKJV, but for some reason the KJV 'seems' like the one I should be reading daily. But to be honest, all this talk of false friends makes me weary of even opening it. Why read it at all if some passages I'm reading don't mean what I think they mean? Mark has added a thorn in my eye haha. For better or worse. Any thoughs, Dwayne? How would you handle someone like me who would love to primarily read from the KJV but have almost no idea if what I'm reading is actually what it says. Thank you!
Id say read the KJV :) You'll eventually learn what the 'false friends' are. There's not enough to make things incomprehensible and I think the issue is blown way out of proportion. Watch Marks false friends videos too, they're helpful :) If you still can't make peace with the premodern English of the KJV, use the NKJV. Or you could even read them both together!
@ Thanks for the confidence, I’ll start today. Also, I heard you say you use the KJV as your daily devotional, do you generally use the NKJV for church? This whole translation thing is fascinating and troublesome. I’ll keep asking questions and watching your videos.
Ward always says that people don't want to talk about readability. The thing is, I talk about it a lot. It's very telling that Dwayne, who is a "go to the Greek" guy, is recommending a book about not sticking with exact wording of the Bible. Dan Haifley has come out and said that the KJB basically is an imperfect translation, etc., so he's outed himself.
Yes, his readability arguments are easily refuted. He really means you can not understand it unless your a scholar like him or know "greek"(Luke 24:45 KJB) Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
Haifley admits that he didn't care about much of the debate and just wanted to catch Ward on one thing. I think that is really bad form from Haifley. He was prepared to throw the debate and all the important points just to get one alleged "4D chess move" victory on a single sound bite! What a shocker. He could have been fighting Ward every inch, but instead, gave him everything. Haifley's reasoning, performance and position are just hopeless. It's beyond disappointing, and what's worse, he is proud of what he did! It's very foolish.
Hi Dwayne. I have my own bible which I would like to discuss with you, It points out why so many people are mis reading verses. It is because of their level of reading is very low. It is based on the KJV. Let me know what you think. I think it will give you a lot of insight that you may not have come across
I have read a lot and listened to lost everything that Ruckman wrote and said hat I can find and I really don’t think Ruckman actually fits into what what has become known as “Ruckmanism” sure if you want to take sound bits and phrase out context he can be made to look that way. But the same means I could twist Mark’s words and make him “CT”
Is it reasonable to make a translation based on a TR read like the CT translations while expecting no one to be bothered by that? Does can be equal should be?
What on earth does language style have to do with the base text? Parody argument: why is no one bothered that the KJV reads like the Douay Rheims which is based onhe Vulgate and not the TR?
@@maxxiong The short answer is that the language matters. Speaking for an English speaking audience, the majority of the people out there English is all they have. If you compare an English translation based on the Textus Receptus and an English translation based on the Critical Texts and examine the end product. It is not only about missing verses but what is there is also important. Remember we are looking at the English end product. There are usually at least three different words in English that you can use to translate something. If you take a NKJV and it reads in places exactly like an ESV or NIV, what would you call that result? 100 percent totally Random? I am not saying it is a conspiracy, I am not saying the NKJV is evil. I am not saying it is actually secretly translated from the Critical Text. Dan Wallace said the translators of the NKJV did not like the Textus Receptus. Did they use renderings that could technically be correct to be passive aggressive? I would like to give them all the benefit of the doubt but why even have people that weren't passionate about the work involved? They sound like mercenaries. This keeps getting swept under the rug. I will answer your parody argument seriously: The KJV, I believe, has all of the correct readings in whatever source they quote from. I believe it is essentially its own form of the TR - maybe not necessarily the final form but perfect in the sense of complete.
Perhaps the brightest & best of the IFB's should have came forward and updated the kjv a couple decades ago.?
IFB INDEPENDENT Fundamental Baptists. The key word is the first word. There is no monolithic IFB organization or clubhouse like the SBC.
Enjoyed the video brother.
Mark never says the KJV is completely unreasonable. It’s amazing that Dan can interact with Mark as much he has and believe that is his position.
Mark Ward did not say the KJV is completely unreadable. At 10:08 Dr. Haifly misrepresnts Mark Ward's position I'm sure not intentionally but nevertheless he should clarify.
Also the main reason that Mark doesn’t debate the text issue is primarily because his main rhetorical goal is to use more intelligible English.
Great video!
Good interview. However, what does one mean when they say, “is it readable”? That would depend on one’s education, language style preference, etc. would it not? Chinese assembly instructions are “readable” 😂
We just need better preaching & teaching. Teach your people that salvation is process that once started WILL be completed.
Someone let Pastor Dan know that the MEV just released a 2nd edition, just got mine. Hope he reconsiders.
Good conversation.
Do you have a reference for the changes to the 2nd edition?
I have listened to a few of the KJVO guys responding to the debate and it comes down to them saying that they don't approve new TR translations or are skepticle because they may contradict their doctrines or make them less clear. So do they bring their teaching to the Bible or the other way around? The Bible should tell us what to believe. We don't tell the Bible what are the doctrines. We shouldn't be afraid of what the Bible really says. God's word is right and we are learning the Bible, not what our folks are saying the Bible says. :)
There are too many people on both sides of this issue that seem to have no critical thinking abilities. Personally, I have no problem with the KJV. I use it every day. However, I know many Godly people who do find it very difficult to read and understand.
I wonder what Dan Haifley thinks of the EOB New Testament
Dr. Haifley seems like a nice guy, but the "are saved" vs "being saved" made almost no sense. Greek doesn't have a grammatical sense for "your whole life." This aspect is an action with the end not in sight, while it would require an aorist to be "are saved." This strikes me as, "This translation doesn't agree with my philosophy, so any stick will do to respond to it."
Thanks brother Dwayne. That gave me the chance to understand better where brother Dan is at.
He has ideas which should be considered. There is indeed a baby in the bathwater. In fact, the KJV has merits that will stand us in good stead as a bulwark against: (1) feminist, woke, or other politically and socially motivated translations; and (2) the corruption of the English language by bad diction and bad grammar.
Thank you for this video! I will say, as someone who is a year into Christianity, Mark has been amazing, so have you. I'm currently reading the NKJV, but for some reason the KJV 'seems' like the one I should be reading daily. But to be honest, all this talk of false friends makes me weary of even opening it. Why read it at all if some passages I'm reading don't mean what I think they mean? Mark has added a thorn in my eye haha. For better or worse. Any thoughs, Dwayne? How would you handle someone like me who would love to primarily read from the KJV but have almost no idea if what I'm reading is actually what it says. Thank you!
Id say read the KJV :) You'll eventually learn what the 'false friends' are. There's not enough to make things incomprehensible and I think the issue is blown way out of proportion. Watch Marks false friends videos too, they're helpful :) If you still can't make peace with the premodern English of the KJV, use the NKJV. Or you could even read them both together!
@ Thanks for the confidence, I’ll start today. Also, I heard you say you use the KJV as your daily devotional, do you generally use the NKJV for church? This whole translation thing is fascinating and troublesome. I’ll keep asking questions and watching your videos.
I honestly don’t think Dr. Dan understands the difference between textual decisions vs translation decision.
I think he does, but the current thought process when it comes to modern version is to lump in text and translation issues together.
😂word meanings change all the time….just ask the atheists…they are confused on their own descriptive word “atheist”.
Ward always says that people don't want to talk about readability. The thing is, I talk about it a lot.
It's very telling that Dwayne, who is a "go to the Greek" guy, is recommending a book about not sticking with exact wording of the Bible.
Dan Haifley has come out and said that the KJB basically is an imperfect translation, etc., so he's outed himself.
Yes, his readability arguments are easily refuted. He really means you can not understand it unless your a scholar like him or know "greek"(Luke 24:45 KJB) Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
Inkhart anyone
Haifley admits that he didn't care about much of the debate and just wanted to catch Ward on one thing. I think that is really bad form from Haifley. He was prepared to throw the debate and all the important points just to get one alleged "4D chess move" victory on a single sound bite! What a shocker. He could have been fighting Ward every inch, but instead, gave him everything. Haifley's reasoning, performance and position are just hopeless. It's beyond disappointing, and what's worse, he is proud of what he did! It's very foolish.
Hi Dwayne. I have my own bible which I would like to discuss with you, It points out why so many people are mis reading verses. It is because of their level of reading is very low. It is based on the KJV. Let me know what you think. I think it will give you a lot of insight that you may not have come across
Our educational system has been dumbed down and keeps getting worse.
Actually Trump endorsed the Bible , he didn’t put it out. Lee Greenwood did is my understanding.
I don’t support Trump and am not about to buy one of his bibles. Enough said
@@ST52655 I won't say I do or don't, but no matter what president put out a Bible I wouldn't get it. God is for every country.
@@ST52655
He is a billionaire , I don’t think he needs your support.
I have read a lot and listened to lost everything that Ruckman wrote and said hat I can find and I really don’t think Ruckman actually fits into what what has become known as “Ruckmanism” sure if you want to take sound bits and phrase out context he can be made to look that way. But the same means I could twist Mark’s words and make him “CT”
Is it reasonable to make a translation based on a TR read like the CT translations while expecting no one to be bothered by that? Does can be equal should be?
What on earth does language style have to do with the base text?
Parody argument: why is no one bothered that the KJV reads like the Douay Rheims which is based onhe Vulgate and not the TR?
@@maxxiong The short answer is that the language matters. Speaking for an English speaking audience, the majority of the people out there English is all they have. If you compare an English translation based on the Textus Receptus and an English translation based on the Critical Texts and examine the end product. It is not only about missing verses but what is there is also important. Remember we are looking at the English end product. There are usually at least three different words in English that you can use to translate something. If you take a NKJV and it reads in places exactly like an ESV or NIV, what would you call that result? 100 percent totally Random? I am not saying it is a conspiracy, I am not saying the NKJV is evil. I am not saying it is actually secretly translated from the Critical Text. Dan Wallace said the translators of the NKJV did not like the Textus Receptus. Did they use renderings that could technically be correct to be passive aggressive? I would like to give them all the benefit of the doubt but why even have people that weren't passionate about the work involved? They sound like mercenaries. This keeps getting swept under the rug.
I will answer your parody argument seriously: The KJV, I believe, has all of the correct readings in whatever source they quote from. I believe it is essentially its own form of the TR - maybe not necessarily the final form but perfect in the sense of complete.
He lost the debate because he too narrowly focused the debate topic. Mark set the topic to set the standard for the debate.