I’ve struggled in pastoral settings with precisely how to answer that question “can I trust my Bible?” Beyond translation by cults or phrase-level-disruption, we can find all we need for our lives in Jesus from any Bible we find. I’m very encouraged by this video, and I LOVE the setting around you in the city. Great video, thanks for sharing!!
A good book, especially for discipleship, is Why Trust the Bible by Greg Gilbert. It covers a lot of the basics and answers many of the standard questions.
It isn't surprising we hear the same thing as far as parts of 1 John 5:7,8 missing in the NWT. We can explain that, among other reasons, it's the way nearly all modern bibles translate. Many other differences are also endorsed by newer translations or top scholars as well. Agreed, the differences aren't 'doctrine affecting.' The fact that countless older fragments have so very much more in common than any other ancient writings add great credit in their favor. Thanks again, Mark, for another informative video.
Another wonderful video! Always enjoy hearing your perspective on this topic. In the area of King James Onlyism I find that it’s really only a small chunk of scriptures that are every disputed. That leaves like 99+% of the Bible undisputed. Again, another great video! Thank you for all you do and for being a charitable example. 🙏
This video hits on such an important point: we derive the same doctrines from all of the best English translations, not the least of which is the gospel.
Excellent! While many recognize that English translations differ in their wording, many do not know that within the Greek texts themselves there are differences. Great video Mark! Was worth waiting for!
@@markwardonwords Hopefully more people will read it as a result of your video. It provides exactly what is needed with this issue-a simple yet compelling approach to the reality of textual variants that avoids the quagmire of technical details (often a hindrance to the average layperson) while also providing clear, logical reasons why such should not cause us to doubt the veracity of our Bibles.
Excellent video, great points. I would agree, we should all take comfort in the truth that differences in ancient manuscripts should not scare Christians. You and I have a few disagreements on how important the differences are in the english translations of those manuscripts, but on the trustworthiness of the manuscripts themselves, we are in agreement.
Brilliantly done! You’re a great orator Mark but far better than that your words here are so important to many young Christian people with heavy hearts greatly burdened by doubt due to this issue. I talk to a lot of them online, many enamored by KJVO because they think it’s the only solution to this ‘problem’. I try to send them to your UA-cam page everytime because they’re looking for someone who won’t just bash the KJVO people but they need confidence in the text. Btw also enjoying the sunny but cold weather here in Shoreline today.
Don’t forget that these are Randy Leedy’s words-or 98% of them are! But I’m with you. These words have helped me, too. Thank you for your own kind words!
When we look at the heart of the message rather then the outward appearance of the wording, then we see what God is trying to show us. The same way we should look at one another, not viewing and judging by our deformities, but by our heart and action
I'm reminded that it makes little difference which brand of golf club I use; my ability is in fact the limiting factor. I'm a finance and accounting guy. Which underlying Greek text is also not my biggest obstacle to knowing God's Word as well as I can. Thanks Mark Ward for another excellent lesson.
I do believe God preserved his word for us. I do not believe that Psalm 12:6-7 says this. Even David Sorenson doesn't. Very, very few readers of that Psalm throughout the history of the church have ever found in those verses a promise of perfect divine preservation. More importantly, the Hebrew doesn't allow for the interpretation you're assuming. My conscience is captive to the word of God, my friend, and I cannot in good conscience find more meaning in there than God put there.
@@markwardonwords yes I would Like that please! I have a TON of questions and nobody to ask. Is there an email Or something I can reach you at ? I have ZERO hostility , just want to chat about this subject…. I only want truth, as I believe you do as well brother.
@@1013ministries Friend, the internet suggests you're in the PNW, like me. Glad to help. I don't give out my email address on here, though: could you use the contact form at byfaithweunderstand.com/contact? Send me a message. Then I'll reply with the paper.
Also how many manuscripts have you personally collated? And which ones? It is interesting to hear that "no two manuscripts are exactly like each other"... Are you sure from experience or just from your reading of your favourite textual critics?
I agree with Mark. For me, so far the ones I've compared and read of do all have their differences, even if it's spelling. (Remember, this was well before Noah Webster or other dictionary authors.) We couldn't expect those hand written texts to be "exact." Perhaps the question is better asked; Where are there any two that are exact? One excellent reference source is; "New Testament Text and Translation Commentary" by Philip W. Comfort. The book presents verse by verse textual variants (slight and minuscule as they are), how and why they're different, yet still a clear and accurate translating can be made from them. I use it frequently and I am glad to have it!
Im dealing Bible confusion right now..I am now an ex catholic I have the vatican 1 Doury Rhims Bible, after the Holy Spirit woke me to the indoctrination of catholism I opened up my Bible and noticed allll the Masonic images in it, I tore the pictures out but I still feel their is manipulation in it that may mislead me...
My friend, what you need is not my advice but a good pastor. I encourage you to find one who seems to know and love his Bible-someone who sees himself as a herald of God's truth, whose goal it is to bring you to understand and then obey God's word!
I wouldn't worry about the pictures that might have been in your Bible. The KJV when first published had some pagan images in it as well (most notably a picture of Poseidon on the first page of Matthew's Gospel). If it bothers you enough, you could always go and buy a different copy that never had those pictures in it. But the point is that the text hasn't been tampered with.
On a side note, while the Douay-Rheims Bible is pretty cool, it's a translation from the Latin rather than from the Hebrew and Greek. It's usually better to translate directly from the original languages rather than translate from something that's already a translation, because whoever is translating it might accidentally miss certain nuances from the original and also any mistakes in the translation that's being translated from will also be present in the new translation unless the translator is already aware of the mistakes present. One very notable instance is in Genesis 3:15 - "I will put hostility between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring. He will bruise your head, and you will bruise his heel." The Latin messed up this verse and accidentally misinterpreted Eve as bruising the serpant's head instead of Eve's offspring (apparently the Hebrew here can be misread that way if you aren't paying close enough attention to the grammar). So it says "She will bruise your head" instead of "He will bruise your head." The Douay-Rheims keeps this mistake due to being translated from the Latin, and some Roman Catholics have further misinterpreted the verse, ironically going back to a meaning closer to what the Hebrew said, but still missing the point because they consider "she" to be the correct translation, and they consider the "she" to be Mary (which neither the Hebrew nor the Latin intended). Keep this in mind if you choose to continue using the Douay-Rheims Bible. It's not a bad translation in terms of what it is, but it still merits caution.
I would recommend trying out a more modern translation, whether it's Catholic or not. (I've found that a good number of lay Catholics aren't all that fond of the New American Bible Revised Edition, even though that's the one endorsed by Catholic bishops in the United States.) The RSV, NRSV, and ESV all have both Catholic and Protestant editions available, as does the NLT. So if you're still inclined to accept the Deuterocanonical books as part of the Bible, you have some good options in modern English.
@@markwardonwords Superstition as in they are afraid one error in the text would mean the collapse of their faith and religion, so they cling to an irrational belief in a perfectly preserved text in order to ward off this potential spiritual disaster.
Closely guarded trade secret. ;) For about 20% of my videos I use this. It's what I used for this video. www.amazon.com/dp/B08QN1B92S?tag=3755-20 And this: www.voicedream.com/reader/ For the other 80% I use this: www.amazon.com/dp/B08CDV95C9?tag=3755-20
@@markwardonwords Aha! Thanks so much. I went searching before you replied and found that prompter. But the other 20% (and this video) are you saying that you are reciting a script that you are hearing in your ears? (That sounds difficult!)
@@markwardonwords Curious because my son makes videos and he does a lot of stuff from memory. I think he could use a teleprompter. ua-cam.com/video/rmAgOWsKn50/v-deo.html
I love teleprompters. I feel totally comfortable with them. Yes, repeating what I hear in my ear is harder. I made more mistakes at the beginning. And I still don't always like the pacing created by this method. But it's the only way I can deliver a script efficiently to a camera that's too far away for a teleprompter to work. In the past I tried recording my script and playing my own voice in my ear. That's better, but it takes longer.
I long for the day when Christians will just read the Bible in whichever translation they choose and love God and serve him and stop worrying wheher one uses the ESV, NASB, NKJV, NIV, CSB, KJV, LEB etc. I also think while a blessing, the multiple different English translations of the Bible make the situation a little bit more complicated. That is why I do not believe that we need another English translation of the Bible, but I'm pretty sure that there will be another one sooner or later. I honestly believe that we have the word of God within the translations we now have. There are benefits of having multiple good English translations especially for comparative study, but when does too much becomes too much. When do we stop. I don't even know the number of English Bible translations that we currently have, I know it's a lot, and different people claim there translation of choice is better than ang other one. My advice, look at the translations that are available to you, choose one or even two and read it and obey it. Live for Christ and where possible, help someone else to understand the Scriptures.
My professor said that in 1 John 5:7 that Father, Son, Holy Spirit was inserted but it is not found in the other translation but the question he asked was do we needed to believe in the Trinity?
⏺... and now the Lord *YHWH* , and His *Spirit* , hath sent *Me* . Isai 48^16 ⏺And *I* will pray the *Father* , and He shall give you *another* Comforter , ... Jn 14^16
@@markwardonwords I will add this. I'm seventy years old, and I grew up with the KJV. I love it, and almost all of my scripture memorization is from the KJV, and I still read from it often. But I do have several other English versions and I know that when I'm reading from one of them, I'm still reading the word of God, and that I'm accountable to God as a Christian to be a doer of the word regardless of which version I'm using. That's far more important than whether or not I'm reading from the KJV, the ESV, NASB, or any other version. I got out my old 1984 NIV a few weeks ago and the Spirit spoke to me clearly and powerfully through that Bible. I've been reading from it daily since then, and I can't seem to put it down. God bless you brother Mark.
Bear in mind, Jesus did not leave us a bible but founded an authoritative Church, that decided which books went in the bible. We can take our questions to His Church.
@@aadschram5877 Because he lays out what the Bible does and does not teach about canon. God did not say that the church would be an authority over the Bible.
Textural variants. Randy Leedy - Interesting videos on sentence diagramming. Tons of passages in the Gospels related to “what is written in the law or prophets, and in Luke 24:44 includes the Psalms. We have Act 13:15 “after reading of the law” II Timothy 3:16 - When it speaks of “all scripture” it is talking mainly about the OT because per Bart Ehrman, II Tim was written before a large part of NT was written, or widely circulated. The scriptures Christ was using were correct unless one wants to believe He who was part of the Godhead that inspired the scriptures in the first place would reference scriptures that were not correct. So, the Video… Yes, camera would have been stolen at Pike Place. 1 John 5:7-8 I think is correct based on Michael Maynard’s book, more than happy to let you borrow the book. You might be shocked your understanding is not totally correct. To say “there are plenty of other passages related to the Trinity” well, sure there are, but even there you have softening of those passages also varying among translations. I John 5:7-8 --- supposedly not mention by early Church Fathers (Cyprian, 250 A.D.), therefor not part of the scripture. So, this line of argument related to this verse let’s extrapolate to the Critical Text? If the Critical Text is not part of the text used by the majority (or anywhere for a thousand years) would it not be in question also? We don’t have any “denominational” translations of the Bible. Mr. Ward, you know better than to say that. With modern translation (gender neutral, modification to Genesis, etc.) is secularizing. If you look at the KJV, part of the reason was to get rid of the Calvinist leanings in the Geneva Bible. The ESV did the ESV-CE which is by definition a denomination Bible. The NLT in Luk 1:42 has Mary “above all woman” instead of “among” which in part is why the NLT is accepted by the Catholic Church. And the NLT admits to making modification based on the Catholic Church. If we had the originals, translation decisions would still have to be made. By this point the OT should be perfected in English then. “The greatest problems that God must overcome in order to talk to me are within me not outside of me in the transmission process.” --- Will pass on that one. “Pristine Perfection is a property of the next world not generally of this one” -- Fully agreed, but no one is asking for “perfection” only “correct.” No two manuscripts are the same --- I don’t know enough about the Greek CT, but for the Hebrew that is simply not true. “Any Bible we may use is fully trustworthy” - Okay, which Bible translation is correct (not perfect, but correct) in Exodus 25? Justification by works. Again, the NLT lends to Catholic doctrine far more than the KJV would. BUT this raises a more pressing question, does LOGOS software make decisions on materials and editorial positions it takes in order to protect it’s relationship with the Catholic Church related to sales of Verbum ????
I must say, I am saddened by Mark’s rather derogatory reference of a “cult translation.” I always saw him as more of a “Do unto others as you want them to do unto you” type guy. I’m certain he knows what the true definition of “cult” is.
First, friend, this is Dr. Leedy's wording, not mine. I don't tend to use that word, because it usually just gets used to insult. And I'm not aware that the Jehovah's Witnesses tend to have a charismatic leader in whom massive power is invested; that usually goes along with the word "cult." But I do believe with certainty that Arianism is heresy. Christian faith is irreducibly Trinitarian. I'm courteous to you, because though I don't know you, I like you and I enjoy a little back and forth with a different perspective. I would not make a video on the JWs or on the NWT without doing a LOT more homework; I recognize that I have areas of ignorance about JW beliefs. But at the end of the day, I have done enough homework to believe that the Jehovah's Witnesses preach a false gospel upon which I must proclaim an anathema. Jesus is my Lord, my Savior, and my God. Without the Father sending, the Son going, and the Spirit applying the Son's work, there is no gospel.
@@markwardonwords Thanks Mark, for your (as usual) cordial and courteous reply. My deepest apologies for my forgetting that you were quoting someone else. You did make that clear at the beginning of the video. It's my error. It’s my intent to always be courteous and respectful in a most Christian way as well. I now see you once again as a “Do unto others as you want them to do unto you” type guy. :) Again, I’m sorry. I hope and pray we can sometime video chat, thus I can show you (as I do in real life) that I’m pleasant and certainly among the last to spoil a friendly conversation with anyone and all. We, too, strongly believe in "the Father sending, the Son going, and the Spirit applying the Son's work and especially that there is a gospel. If anything, we believe Jesus is the perfect “Son of God.” Like you, we believe the Bible is inerrant, we don’t believe in any other “inspired” books - it’s the Bible only, and any translation will do. I do hope and pray if you should make a video on JWs or the NWT you might be willing to talk with one that has a favorable outlook of JWs since it (understandably) would be different from one with a negative perspective. At first, I was born and raised, most deeply in a Lutheran Church, Lutheran School and was very much involved in the “Jesus Movement” of the early 1970s and was a passionate defender of Lutheran beliefs, including the trinity. I was 18 when I started investigating JWs and went from there. I do withhold “typing” too much, because kindness, respect and tact are hard to relate via comments such as these. Again, my apologies. I hope there could be an occasion where we could video chat as you have with others. (I might not wish to do a “live” one though.) Thanks again. Thanks!
I would favor the term "heretical translation" instead. And while the word "heresy" carries a negative connotation, it is still technically accurate, especially from a credal perspective. Then again, a traditional Roman Catholic would have room to call the NIV a "heretical translation," too! (Granted, Vatican II Catholics are a little more generous to Protestants.) Even so, the Nicene barrier is a harder one to cross than the Reformation gap, as that one is agreed upon as unacceptable by almost every branch of Christendom. But in regards to the "cult" label, Charles Taze Russell wasn't nearly as "culty" in his behaviors as, say, Joseph Smith. He was essentially like any of the early Adventists, many of whom also adopted heretical views. (See especially Christadelphian founder John Thomas, who gives Russell's famous white beard a run for its money.)
@@MAMoreno I (and JWs in general) see Russell almost on the same level as I saw Martin Luther when I was a Lutheran. Although, when I went to the Lutheran School, we had to memorize sizably portions of Luther's catechism, along with (believe it or not) the Catholics' "Apostles Creed", Nicene Creed, but fortunately not the Athenasian Creed. Much of Russell's non-scriptural, secular thinking and philosophies has been left behind. We don't follow Russell at all really, as Lutherans might follow Luther, or at least claim they do. Same with the Pope, Calvin or the 'early church fathers.' We have even crossed "the Nicene barrier." Just strictly the bible for us.
I disagree with your conclusion about Trinitarianism, but I agree that the Comma Johanneum can be interpreted in more than one way. I don't think that anyone would say that the Spirit, water, and blood of verse 8 are three hypostases of one essence, so the context would possibly suggest the same of the Father, Word, and Spirit. (The verse is far more favorable to orthodoxy outside of the context of 1 John 5.)
Our Lord God (Jesus) is very serious about himself... So one needs to be very careful about what they are trying to teach others, especially if they are children in the word. The KJV bible "is" the" bible of faith , all others are just a bible. I too have been studying this. I have found that many words and/or scriptures dropped (ESV to make the bible easier to read). Much is lost! Remember too, there are 7 books that were dropped from the original canon which reference each other, so then begins the confusion. One only has to pray for the Holy Spirit to gives you understanding when reading the KJV. The scriptures are "alive" and filled with Gods Holy Spirit, truth, wisdom, knowledge, understanding, counseling, fear of God and power.
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 Again... you seeing but don't see, you hear but dull of hearing, and with you heart you lack understanding... the KJV is "the" bible, teaching for the the true gospel, "alive" with the Holy Spirit who helps you to read and understand, what the Lord wants you to know and understand at that time... all others bibles are for a different gospel with no power. The KJV has only had addendums and/or spelling corrections. The KJV is final and/or pronounces judgement, while other bibles ESV, NIV, NASB and/or HCSB leave a gentler, easier to read and/or working toward a salvation. Satan efforts is no different today than it was after Antioch where the true gospel is being corrected by demons, Satan through religious groups to corrupt Jesus truth about himself... which is grace offered through Him crucified on the cross and God validated by raising Him from the dead which validated His truth and teachings. Again know and be very careful what you are trying to teach others, you have an agenda... I am just sure about that.
@@markwardonwords one last thing to consider, Joseph Smith (Mormans) and the Jehovah witnesses also took the KJV and created their own religion rewriting from the KJV bible... talk about corruption!!!!
If you feel that the newer translations delete verses and phrases that should be in the text, then use the NKJV or MEV. If you feel that the Deuterocanonical Books should have been retained by Protestants, then use the editions of the NRSV and the ESV that include the Apocrypha. If you want a Bible that includes both the longer readings of the New Testament and the Deuterocanonical Books, then use the Orthodox Study Bible, which is adapted from the NKJV and adjusted to follow the Septuagint in the Old Testament. And I'm not sure how these translations have toned down the message. Just look at John 3.18 in the four translations I mentioned alongside the KJV: KJV: *He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.* NKJV: *He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.* MEV: *He who believes in Him is not condemned. But he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.* NRSVue: *Those who believe in him are not condemned, but those who do not believe are condemned already because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God.* ESV: *Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.* It seems as though the message is pretty consistent.
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
Nice talk but pathetic try and over simplifying of the issue When the very foundation of the mainline christianity faith is not consistent throughout the manuscripts available i.e. the resurrection of Jesus from the grave And the single clear verse trinity is a “ late addition “ to NT. What do you need more
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.
I remember the day Dr. Leedy shared this with all of us fledgling expositors in Greek class. I'm glad you're sharing it in this format.
Yes, it's just gold!
I’ve struggled in pastoral settings with precisely how to answer that question “can I trust my Bible?” Beyond translation by cults or phrase-level-disruption, we can find all we need for our lives in Jesus from any Bible we find. I’m very encouraged by this video, and I LOVE the setting around you in the city. Great video, thanks for sharing!!
A good book, especially for discipleship, is Why Trust the Bible by Greg Gilbert. It covers a lot of the basics and answers many of the standard questions.
It isn't surprising we hear the same thing as far as parts of 1 John 5:7,8 missing in the NWT. We can explain that, among other reasons, it's the way nearly all modern bibles translate. Many other differences are also endorsed by newer translations or top scholars as well. Agreed, the differences aren't 'doctrine affecting.' The fact that countless older fragments have so very much more in common than any other ancient writings add great credit in their favor. Thanks again, Mark, for another informative video.
Another wonderful video! Always enjoy hearing your perspective on this topic. In the area of King James Onlyism I find that it’s really only a small chunk of scriptures that are every disputed. That leaves like 99+% of the Bible undisputed. Again, another great video! Thank you for all you do and for being a charitable example. 🙏
Agreed. And why are those chunks disputed? Not because of their content but because they are not present in old manuscripts.
This video hits on such an important point: we derive the same doctrines from all of the best English translations, not the least of which is the gospel.
Right!
I thoroughly appreciate your video Mark as always - great job!
My great pleasure! And Dr. Leedy's!
Excellent! While many recognize that English translations differ in their wording, many do not know that within the Greek texts themselves there are differences. Great video Mark! Was worth waiting for!
We don’t need the originals. What we have is more than sufficient to know God. Trust in his sovereign grace 🙏🏼☺️
❤
These are great, great thoughts. I can see why you speak so highly of Dr. Leedy's article. Thanks for sharing!
Glad you enjoyed it! Not enough people speak highly enough of Dr. Leedy's article, so I knew I had to change that situation!
@@markwardonwords Hopefully more people will read it as a result of your video. It provides exactly what is needed with this issue-a simple yet compelling approach to the reality of textual variants that avoids the quagmire of technical details (often a hindrance to the average layperson) while also providing clear, logical reasons why such should not cause us to doubt the veracity of our Bibles.
Excellent video, great points. I would agree, we should all take comfort in the truth that differences in ancient manuscripts should not scare Christians. You and I have a few disagreements on how important the differences are in the english translations of those manuscripts, but on the trustworthiness of the manuscripts themselves, we are in agreement.
Amen! I really appreciate this gracious comment!
Brilliantly done! You’re a great orator Mark but far better than that your words here are so important to many young Christian people with heavy hearts greatly burdened by doubt due to this issue. I talk to a lot of them online, many enamored by KJVO because they think it’s the only solution to this ‘problem’. I try to send them to your UA-cam page everytime because they’re looking for someone who won’t just bash the KJVO people but they need confidence in the text. Btw also enjoying the sunny but cold weather here in Shoreline today.
Don’t forget that these are Randy Leedy’s words-or 98% of them are! But I’m with you. These words have helped me, too. Thank you for your own kind words!
@@markwardonwords I got it and refreshing you were honest to give him the credit
Thanks Mark! This video is very helpful!
Thank Randy Leedy! NTGreekguy.com
Mark, well said. Thank you for sharing your thoughts about Scripture it was very helpful. 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾💕💕💕!
You are so welcome!
3rd point very well said!!
May I ask you, are there on-line videos of your preachings to spanish audience?
Greetings from Spain
No. :( It wasn’t recorded.
Even Bart Ehrman agrees that *NONE* of those differences affect Christian doctrine
I believe I've seen him say this, too.
I pray for his soul! My agnostic daughter hangs on every word that man says, & has come to believe that the Bible is a book full of myths.
When we look at the heart of the message rather then the outward appearance of the wording, then we see what God is trying to show us.
The same way we should look at one another, not viewing and judging by our deformities, but by our heart and action
Thank you, Mark, and bless you.
Interpret the parts in light of the whole. Excellent advice.
Yup! God help us to do that!
Thanks from a sunny South Africa
Glad to have you hear in the rainy PNW!
I do enjoy learning more about this, thank you.
I'm so glad!
Mark, what scares me more than textual differences is you videoing while walking around busy traffic downtown. Thanks again for the great teaching.
Ha! That's a pedestrian area; don't worry!
That is a great argument for confidence in what we have of God’s Word. And it’s helpful to have it so simple I can hang onto it!
Yes! Excellent! I love Dr. Leedy!
I'm reminded that it makes little difference which brand of golf club I use; my ability is in fact the limiting factor. I'm a finance and accounting guy. Which underlying Greek text is also not my biggest obstacle to knowing God's Word as well as I can. Thanks Mark Ward for another excellent lesson.
An EXCELLENT analogy!
Bravo Bravo one more on your side you've done well brother you seem to Becoming an expert on this subject. I like that thank you
Much appreciated!
Brother. Do you believe God preserved his perfect Word for us ? Per psalm 12?
I do believe God preserved his word for us. I do not believe that Psalm 12:6-7 says this. Even David Sorenson doesn't. Very, very few readers of that Psalm throughout the history of the church have ever found in those verses a promise of perfect divine preservation. More importantly, the Hebrew doesn't allow for the interpretation you're assuming. My conscience is captive to the word of God, my friend, and I cannot in good conscience find more meaning in there than God put there.
If you'd like to read my almost complete paper on this topic, I'd be happy to share it with you!
@@markwardonwords yes I would
Like that please! I have a TON of questions and nobody to ask. Is there an email
Or something I can reach you at ? I have ZERO hostility , just want to chat about this subject…. I only want truth, as I believe you do as well brother.
@@1013ministries Friend, the internet suggests you're in the PNW, like me. Glad to help. I don't give out my email address on here, though: could you use the contact form at byfaithweunderstand.com/contact? Send me a message. Then I'll reply with the paper.
@@markwardonwords ok I will reach out. Yes I am in Vancouver, WA. Thanks!!
Appreciate your work as always!
Dr. Leedy’s this time!
Also how many manuscripts have you personally collated? And which ones?
It is interesting to hear that "no two manuscripts are exactly like each other"... Are you sure from experience or just from your reading of your favourite textual critics?
I agree with Mark. For me, so far the ones I've compared and read of do all have their differences, even if it's spelling. (Remember, this was well before Noah Webster or other dictionary authors.) We couldn't expect those hand written texts to be "exact." Perhaps the question is better asked; Where are there any two that are exact?
One excellent reference source is; "New Testament Text and Translation Commentary" by Philip W. Comfort. The book presents verse by verse textual variants (slight and minuscule as they are), how and why they're different, yet still a clear and accurate translating can be made from them. I use it frequently and I am glad to have it!
Im dealing Bible confusion right now..I am now an ex catholic I have the vatican 1 Doury Rhims Bible, after the Holy Spirit woke me to the indoctrination of catholism I opened up my Bible and noticed allll the Masonic images in it, I tore the pictures out but I still feel their is manipulation in it that may mislead me...
I’m quite sure Matthew 4:17 has “do penance” instead of “repent”
My friend, what you need is not my advice but a good pastor. I encourage you to find one who seems to know and love his Bible-someone who sees himself as a herald of God's truth, whose goal it is to bring you to understand and then obey God's word!
I wouldn't worry about the pictures that might have been in your Bible. The KJV when first published had some pagan images in it as well (most notably a picture of Poseidon on the first page of Matthew's Gospel). If it bothers you enough, you could always go and buy a different copy that never had those pictures in it. But the point is that the text hasn't been tampered with.
On a side note, while the Douay-Rheims Bible is pretty cool, it's a translation from the Latin rather than from the Hebrew and Greek. It's usually better to translate directly from the original languages rather than translate from something that's already a translation, because whoever is translating it might accidentally miss certain nuances from the original and also any mistakes in the translation that's being translated from will also be present in the new translation unless the translator is already aware of the mistakes present. One very notable instance is in Genesis 3:15 - "I will put hostility between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring. He will bruise your head, and you will bruise his heel." The Latin messed up this verse and accidentally misinterpreted Eve as bruising the serpant's head instead of Eve's offspring (apparently the Hebrew here can be misread that way if you aren't paying close enough attention to the grammar). So it says "She will bruise your head" instead of "He will bruise your head." The Douay-Rheims keeps this mistake due to being translated from the Latin, and some Roman Catholics have further misinterpreted the verse, ironically going back to a meaning closer to what the Hebrew said, but still missing the point because they consider "she" to be the correct translation, and they consider the "she" to be Mary (which neither the Hebrew nor the Latin intended). Keep this in mind if you choose to continue using the Douay-Rheims Bible. It's not a bad translation in terms of what it is, but it still merits caution.
I would recommend trying out a more modern translation, whether it's Catholic or not. (I've found that a good number of lay Catholics aren't all that fond of the New American Bible Revised Edition, even though that's the one endorsed by Catholic bishops in the United States.) The RSV, NRSV, and ESV all have both Catholic and Protestant editions available, as does the NLT. So if you're still inclined to accept the Deuterocanonical books as part of the Bible, you have some good options in modern English.
Would you say textual absolutists have fallen into superstition regarding the text?
What do you mean by superstition? Spell it out a bit. Maybe you’re on to something.
@@markwardonwords Superstition as in they are afraid one error in the text would mean the collapse of their faith and religion, so they cling to an irrational belief in a perfectly preserved text in order to ward off this potential spiritual disaster.
I believe this is indeed true of some. It’s not irrational. But it doesn’t fit the world God gave us.
I'd say absolutely.
Bruh. Is your script memorized? If not, show us your prompter rig. This is great.
Closely guarded trade secret. ;)
For about 20% of my videos I use this. It's what I used for this video.
www.amazon.com/dp/B08QN1B92S?tag=3755-20
And this:
www.voicedream.com/reader/
For the other 80% I use this:
www.amazon.com/dp/B08CDV95C9?tag=3755-20
@@markwardonwords Aha! Thanks so much. I went searching before you replied and found that prompter. But the other 20% (and this video) are you saying that you are reciting a script that you are hearing in your ears? (That sounds difficult!)
@@markwardonwords Curious because my son makes videos and he does a lot of stuff from memory. I think he could use a teleprompter. ua-cam.com/video/rmAgOWsKn50/v-deo.html
I love teleprompters. I feel totally comfortable with them. Yes, repeating what I hear in my ear is harder. I made more mistakes at the beginning. And I still don't always like the pacing created by this method. But it's the only way I can deliver a script efficiently to a camera that's too far away for a teleprompter to work.
In the past I tried recording my script and playing my own voice in my ear. That's better, but it takes longer.
@@markwardonwords Wow. I’ve been thinking more about this. It sounds impossible. Great work man!
Textual variants is something I've wrestled with myself
Then I pray Dr. Leedy’s insights help you!
I long for the day when Christians will just read the Bible in whichever translation they choose and love God and serve him and stop worrying wheher one uses the ESV, NASB, NKJV, NIV, CSB, KJV, LEB etc. I also think while a blessing, the multiple different English translations of the Bible make the situation a little bit more complicated. That is why I do not believe that we need another English translation of the Bible, but I'm pretty sure that there will be another one sooner or later. I honestly believe that we have the word of God within the translations we now have. There are benefits of having multiple good English translations especially for comparative study, but when does too much becomes too much. When do we stop. I don't even know the number of English Bible translations that we currently have, I know it's a lot, and different people claim there translation of choice is better than ang other one. My advice, look at the translations that are available to you, choose one or even two and read it and obey it. Live for Christ and where possible, help someone else to understand the Scriptures.
Theology & doctrine are very important, my friend.
This is very helpful. Thank you for this!
Glad it was helpful! And so is Dr. Leedy!
Oh wow, do you live in WA state then? I live down in Olympia.
Yup! Love the PNW!
06:20 Soooo good.
Straight from the wisdom of Randy Leedy.
My professor said that in 1 John 5:7 that Father, Son, Holy Spirit was inserted but it is not found in the other translation but the question he asked was do we needed to believe in the Trinity?
⏺... and now the Lord *YHWH* , and His *Spirit* , hath sent *Me* .
Isai 48^16
⏺And *I* will pray the *Father* , and He shall give you *another* Comforter , ...
Jn 14^16
The KJV translators would agree with you brother, according to the Translators to the Reader.
Right!!
@@markwardonwords I will add this. I'm seventy years old, and I grew up with the KJV. I love it, and almost all of my scripture memorization is from the KJV, and I still read from it often. But I do have several other English versions and I know that when I'm reading from one of them, I'm still reading the word of God, and that I'm accountable to God as a Christian to be a doer of the word regardless of which version I'm using. That's far more important than whether or not I'm reading from the KJV, the ESV, NASB, or any other version. I got out my old 1984 NIV a few weeks ago and the Spirit spoke to me clearly and powerfully through that Bible. I've been reading from it daily since then, and I can't seem to put it down. God bless you brother Mark.
Bear in mind, Jesus did not leave us a bible but founded an authoritative Church, that decided which books went in the bible. We can take our questions to His Church.
I must disagree, my friend! See Michael Kruger's book Canon Revisited for my view!
@@markwardonwords Why should I believe Michael Kruger?
@@aadschram5877 Because he lays out what the Bible does and does not teach about canon. God did not say that the church would be an authority over the Bible.
@@markwardonwords not the bible, but the Churh is the pillar and bulwark of truth.
You’ve probably been around this circuit before, as have I. I knew that was your next move. I’ll let you have the last word.
Men do not reject the Bible because it contradicts itself, but because it contradicts them. - E. Paul Hovey
Agreed!
Textural variants.
Randy Leedy - Interesting videos on sentence diagramming.
Tons of passages in the Gospels related to “what is written in the law or prophets, and in Luke 24:44 includes the Psalms. We have Act 13:15 “after reading of the law”
II Timothy 3:16 - When it speaks of “all scripture” it is talking mainly about the OT because per Bart Ehrman, II Tim was written before a large part of NT was written, or widely circulated.
The scriptures Christ was using were correct unless one wants to believe He who was part of the Godhead that inspired the scriptures in the first place would reference scriptures that were not correct.
So, the Video…
Yes, camera would have been stolen at Pike Place.
1 John 5:7-8 I think is correct based on Michael Maynard’s book, more than happy to let you borrow the book. You might be shocked your understanding is not totally correct. To say “there are plenty of other passages related to the Trinity” well, sure there are, but even there you have softening of those passages also varying among translations.
I John 5:7-8 --- supposedly not mention by early Church Fathers (Cyprian, 250 A.D.), therefor not part of the scripture. So, this line of argument related to this verse let’s extrapolate to the Critical Text? If the Critical Text is not part of the text used by the majority (or anywhere for a thousand years) would it not be in question also?
We don’t have any “denominational” translations of the Bible. Mr. Ward, you know better than to say that. With modern translation (gender neutral, modification to Genesis, etc.) is secularizing. If you look at the KJV, part of the reason was to get rid of the Calvinist leanings in the Geneva Bible. The ESV did the ESV-CE which is by definition a denomination Bible. The NLT in Luk 1:42 has Mary “above all woman” instead of “among” which in part is why the NLT is accepted by the Catholic Church. And the NLT admits to making modification based on the Catholic Church.
If we had the originals, translation decisions would still have to be made. By this point the OT should be perfected in English then.
“The greatest problems that God must overcome in order to talk to me are within me not outside of me in the transmission process.” --- Will pass on that one.
“Pristine Perfection is a property of the next world not generally of this one” -- Fully agreed, but no one is asking for “perfection” only “correct.”
No two manuscripts are the same --- I don’t know enough about the Greek CT, but for the Hebrew that is simply not true.
“Any Bible we may use is fully trustworthy” - Okay, which Bible translation is correct (not perfect, but correct) in Exodus 25?
Justification by works. Again, the NLT lends to Catholic doctrine far more than the KJV would. BUT this raises a more pressing question, does LOGOS software make decisions on materials and editorial positions it takes in order to protect it’s relationship with the Catholic Church related to sales of Verbum ????
Yes
I must say, I am saddened by Mark’s rather derogatory reference of a “cult translation.” I always saw him as more of a “Do unto others as you want them to do unto you” type guy. I’m certain he knows what the true definition of “cult” is.
First, friend, this is Dr. Leedy's wording, not mine. I don't tend to use that word, because it usually just gets used to insult. And I'm not aware that the Jehovah's Witnesses tend to have a charismatic leader in whom massive power is invested; that usually goes along with the word "cult." But I do believe with certainty that Arianism is heresy. Christian faith is irreducibly Trinitarian. I'm courteous to you, because though I don't know you, I like you and I enjoy a little back and forth with a different perspective. I would not make a video on the JWs or on the NWT without doing a LOT more homework; I recognize that I have areas of ignorance about JW beliefs. But at the end of the day, I have done enough homework to believe that the Jehovah's Witnesses preach a false gospel upon which I must proclaim an anathema. Jesus is my Lord, my Savior, and my God. Without the Father sending, the Son going, and the Spirit applying the Son's work, there is no gospel.
@@markwardonwords Thanks Mark, for your (as usual) cordial and courteous reply. My deepest apologies for my forgetting that you were quoting someone else. You did make that clear at the beginning of the video. It's my error. It’s my intent to always be courteous and respectful in a most Christian way as well. I now see you once again as a “Do unto others as you want them to do unto you” type guy. :)
Again, I’m sorry. I hope and pray we can sometime video chat, thus I can show you (as I do in real life) that I’m pleasant and certainly among the last to spoil a friendly conversation with anyone and all. We, too, strongly believe in "the Father sending, the Son going, and the Spirit applying the Son's work and especially that there is a gospel. If anything, we believe Jesus is the perfect “Son of God.” Like you, we believe the Bible is inerrant, we don’t believe in any other “inspired” books - it’s the Bible only, and any translation will do. I do hope and pray if you should make a video on JWs or the NWT you might be willing to talk with one that has a favorable outlook of JWs since it (understandably) would be different from one with a negative perspective. At first, I was born and raised, most deeply in a Lutheran Church, Lutheran School and was very much involved in the “Jesus Movement” of the early 1970s and was a passionate defender of Lutheran beliefs, including the trinity. I was 18 when I started investigating JWs and went from there. I do withhold “typing” too much, because kindness, respect and tact are hard to relate via comments such as these. Again, my apologies. I hope there could be an occasion where we could video chat as you have with others. (I might not wish to do a “live” one though.) Thanks again. Thanks!
I would favor the term "heretical translation" instead. And while the word "heresy" carries a negative connotation, it is still technically accurate, especially from a credal perspective.
Then again, a traditional Roman Catholic would have room to call the NIV a "heretical translation," too! (Granted, Vatican II Catholics are a little more generous to Protestants.) Even so, the Nicene barrier is a harder one to cross than the Reformation gap, as that one is agreed upon as unacceptable by almost every branch of Christendom.
But in regards to the "cult" label, Charles Taze Russell wasn't nearly as "culty" in his behaviors as, say, Joseph Smith. He was essentially like any of the early Adventists, many of whom also adopted heretical views. (See especially Christadelphian founder John Thomas, who gives Russell's famous white beard a run for its money.)
@@MAMoreno I (and JWs in general) see Russell almost on the same level as I saw Martin Luther when I was a Lutheran. Although, when I went to the Lutheran School, we had to memorize sizably portions of Luther's catechism, along with (believe it or not) the Catholics' "Apostles Creed", Nicene Creed, but fortunately not the Athenasian Creed. Much of Russell's non-scriptural, secular thinking and philosophies has been left behind. We don't follow Russell at all really, as Lutherans might follow Luther, or at least claim they do. Same with the Pope, Calvin or the 'early church fathers.' We have even crossed "the Nicene barrier." Just strictly the bible for us.
@@markwardonwords Mike Winger has done a series of videos about the Jehovah’s Witnesses & their (cough) bible.
But 1 John 5:7 doesn't even support the false doctrine of the Trinity.
I must agree. It only says, at best, that they are one. In John 17:22 Jesus prayed that we may be one with him "even as we are one."
LOL, I knew a KJVO Oneness Pentecostal who actually used the Comma Johanneum to prove anti-trinitarianism!
I disagree with your conclusion about Trinitarianism, but I agree that the Comma Johanneum can be interpreted in more than one way. I don't think that anyone would say that the Spirit, water, and blood of verse 8 are three hypostases of one essence, so the context would possibly suggest the same of the Father, Word, and Spirit. (The verse is far more favorable to orthodoxy outside of the context of 1 John 5.)
The doctrine of the Trinity is not false.
ua-cam.com/video/9s6EBAknNOM/v-deo.html
Our Lord God (Jesus) is very serious about himself... So one needs to be very careful about what they are trying to teach others, especially if they are children in the word. The KJV bible "is" the" bible of faith , all others are just a bible. I too have been studying this. I have found that many words and/or scriptures dropped (ESV to make the bible easier to read). Much is lost! Remember too, there are 7 books that were dropped from the original canon which reference each other, so then begins the confusion. One only has to pray for the Holy Spirit to gives you understanding when reading the KJV. The scriptures are "alive" and filled with Gods Holy Spirit, truth, wisdom, knowledge, understanding, counseling, fear of God and power.
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 Again... you seeing but don't see, you hear but dull of hearing, and with you heart you lack understanding... the KJV is "the" bible, teaching for the the true gospel, "alive" with the Holy Spirit who helps you to read and understand, what the Lord wants you to know and understand at that time... all others bibles are for a different gospel with no power. The KJV has only had addendums and/or spelling corrections. The KJV is final and/or pronounces judgement, while other bibles ESV, NIV, NASB and/or HCSB leave a gentler, easier to read and/or working toward a salvation. Satan efforts is no different today than it was after Antioch where the true gospel is being corrected by demons, Satan through religious groups to corrupt Jesus truth about himself... which is grace offered through Him crucified on the cross and God validated by raising Him from the dead which validated His truth and teachings. Again know and be very careful what you are trying to teach others, you have an agenda... I am just sure about that.
@@markwardonwords one last thing to consider, Joseph Smith (Mormans) and the Jehovah witnesses also took the KJV and created their own religion rewriting from the KJV bible... talk about corruption!!!!
If you feel that the newer translations delete verses and phrases that should be in the text, then use the NKJV or MEV. If you feel that the Deuterocanonical Books should have been retained by Protestants, then use the editions of the NRSV and the ESV that include the Apocrypha. If you want a Bible that includes both the longer readings of the New Testament and the Deuterocanonical Books, then use the Orthodox Study Bible, which is adapted from the NKJV and adjusted to follow the Septuagint in the Old Testament.
And I'm not sure how these translations have toned down the message. Just look at John 3.18 in the four translations I mentioned alongside the KJV:
KJV: *He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.*
NKJV: *He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.*
MEV: *He who believes in Him is not condemned. But he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.*
NRSVue: *Those who believe in him are not condemned, but those who do not believe are condemned already because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God.*
ESV: *Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.*
It seems as though the message is pretty consistent.
No, believe God not man! KJV bible only
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
Nice talk but pathetic try and over simplifying of the issue
When the very foundation of the mainline christianity faith is not consistent throughout the manuscripts available i.e. the resurrection of Jesus from the grave
And the single clear verse trinity is a “ late addition “ to NT.
What do you need more
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.