I was KJV only for over 10 years. The first time I heard the gospel was through a KJV only ministry. The church I served in through my 20s and 30s is KJV only. (I had a vanity license plate that indicated that I was KJV only.). I slowly saw the errors in KJV through the interaction between KJV onlyists and men like Dr James White. I left KJV onlyism few years ago. While I love the KJV (it’s still my favorite translation) I have grown a lot through some of the modern translations like the ESV, NASB, and NKJV.
God did good for you through those dear brothers. But they were wrong about something very important to them. I’m glad the Lord rescue you from that doctrinal trap.
I went to college with Seth, I remember him being a great guy, very sincere and I’m glad to see that hasn’t changed. As often happens, in the busyness of life, I haven’t spoke to him since Bible college. So sad to hear what he’s been through but grateful to God for his gracious spirit. There’s a lot of practical and pastoral wisdom in this video. Thanks for more helpful content Mark.
I also went to college with Seth. I think we served together in the inner-city “bus” ministry for a while. He is a great guy-but had a lot more hair back then. 😁
He is correct. Most of the time it is not a logical disagreement. It is an emotional one. I grew up on the NKJV. I remember reading the ESV for the first time at 26 years old. I felt a weird churning in my gut and a feeling of, "This does not sound right." And, even though I did keep reading the ESV, it took me spending time in that translation before it "sounded" like God's word. Then I switched to the NAS95 and the same process began all over. I have now been reading the NAS95 for 6 years. I love that translation... And the ESV... And the NKJV.
Great interview! We've decided not to tackle this issue yet in our little church. It's helpful to hear the perspective of someone who tried and didn't quite get it through. Praise the Lord that he's still serving as a pastor somewhere.
Right. And just because someone fails doesn't mean he did it wrong. I feel for the pastors who believe they need more time. There are so many variables.
His point on deep personal connections is SO KEY. I know a lot of Christians who are still in KJVOnlyism because they had a KJVO pastor who walked with them through deep waters.
And praise God that he did! I am certain that many KJV-Only pastors have done long-term faithful work for their people. I never want to take away from that.
If one church member is bringing a lawsuit against another church member, then they are definitely disobeying the word of God according to 1st Cor. 6:1-8.
An IFB pastor, Jonathan Burris, who prefers the KJV, but is no longer KJVO, was recently fired from his pastorate because he produced two videos on You Tube in which he said the NIV’s rendering of two verses was correct. What a travesty!
I know this video is 2 years old, so I hope this dear brother and his wife are doing well these days. It hurt just listening to him. It is truly a work of God that he didn't end up angry and bitter and even turning away from God entirely.
Yes, it is extremely hard, especially when most people you love and trust are still KJVO. I am still not completely at peace about it, but I did recently join a church that is not KJVO. Pressing forward in faith that over time the Lord will make things clear.
It makes me feel icky to even think about that. I hate the liberalizing impulse. I never want someone to violate his conscience. But sometimes consciences need to be reeducated, mine included. Always reforming according to the Word!
I have spent a lot of time learning about Romans 14. RC Sproul did a sermon on the tyranny of the weak brother. Unfortunately, our KJVO brethren are acting as weak brothers, forcing their Bible version view on all Christians (at least the ones that come to Christ in their churches.) What Bible version you want to use falls clearly under Christian liberty, use whatever faithful translation you want. But forcing one translation on all Christians is tyranny. The end goal really is to drop the word "only" from KJV Only and replace it with "preferred". Of course they are free to go further than that as well. Mell, I wish you well on your journey. I have spent the past 6 months solid on this issue and am fully convinced that the KJV is not the only God honoring Bible translation. If you would like to talk more about the things that made me leave KJVO then let me know, I would be happy to talk about it with you. EDIT: The book Authorized the use and misuse of the King James Bible did help!
@@williamragle1608 thank you, yes I would be interested in the main points that helped you leave. For myself, it has been seeing the lack of the fruit of the Spirit of many of KJV onlyist along with bad arguments.
Having left the KJVO movement after decades of near total immersion, I understand the issue all too well. As parents and leaders, we must understand the consequences of taking extreme and adamant positions. We will answer to God for taking part in ideas that create damage and division in the body of Christ. Believers should not be pressured into doing everything exactly one way only. I trust that if the roles were reversed, there would be resentment over the loss of liberty. Enjoy your Memorial day weekend!
What an amazing interview. Thank you, Pastor Seth for your words of wisdom and for sharing your experience. Keep living for the LORD, brother and keep preaching the Word!
My testimony is very similar to this brothers. I grew up in a KJV only church and my dad is an evangelist in mostly KJV only churches. After deciding to start reading my KJV more, my eyes were opened to the truth of my spiritual condition and I was born again. Fast forward a year or two after that, I decided to read my KJV all the way through and I asked the Lord for his truth (not man’s opinion) and it has changed my life and over time changed my view on KJV onlyism. I love the KJV and through the reading of it, I realized a lot of misconceptions with what I grew up believing, especially about separation from our brothers/sisters who did not read the same translation, but were truly filled with the Spirit and had the fruits to make it evident and now I’m so thankful to have fellowship with them.
i just so love this conversation....the grace of God was so evident in this interview.....i do not know who this pastor was....but he has a wonderful grace about him....may the good LORD bless him and meet him at the very point of his need...Pastor Mark thank you for the work you do....and may this work reap a bountiful harvest.....to the glory of God.....Soli Deo gloria
There are passages in which the KJV is the better translation, and passages in which other versions have the better translation. Figuring out which version is best in the passage you’re in now is work, but it’s fun.
I know this is off-topic from the subject of this particular video, but I would absolutely love to see a “Why the NLT is the best Bible translation (for certain people).” As someone who uses it the majority of the time for my quiet time and studying, and especially seeing how it is becoming more and more popular based off the 2022 sales in America (2nd behind the NIV), I really would value hearing more of your thoughts on this translation!
I too love (specifically) the NLT STUDY Bible - it is the only contemporary translation that I am aware of that has a built-in concordance and 'word study' system as well as the Greek and Hebrew words (in transliteration) built right into the margins so that one can get their contextual significance - it truly does put the cookies on the shelf! :-)
24:00..addressing the anger, feelings towards the former people. I appreciate this reply. By God's grace, it can move from anger, to clearer perspective of the "why"..to actual pity (in a good way) for those who remain in the "blindness" that feeds some of these teachings. Tough stuff. Thanks for the interview...haven't listened through the whole thing yet.
Thank you for your comments and insights. Growing up, the congregations where I worshiped all pretty much used only the KJV. That said, doing so was not taught. Matter of fact, I believe Mark Ward was the first person to make me aware of the issue. These days I read from a cross section covering literal through dynamic bible translations and I appreciate the benefits I derive for doing so.
What a great interview. I so appreciate the graciousness of this brother. I can definitely relate. We went through several miscarriages right at the same time that much church difficulty was taking place when I pastored several churches. Though I went to Pensacola Theological Seminary and got a great education there, I was never convinced of their TR-only/KJV-only position. I decided that, at least in my geographical area, that being the pastor of an independent Baptist church wasn't ever going to be a part of my future, so I moved on. I just didn't want to deal with the stress. Pastoring is hard enough, and adding KJV-onlyism on top of it just wasn't a battle I wanted to fight, especially due to the difficulty and pain that pastoral ministry can cause even without this issue.
@@markwardonwords they certainly did when I attended there. Apart from that one issue, it was very good, and I know, for I have a second master’s from a different institution and am able to somewhat accurately compare.
Sometimes people change congregations without notifying church leadership. That's another reason why they might not have been attending for 6 months. So it's not always going to be centered on problems with a Christian's walk.
Having church membership that is self-terminating after a certain period of non-faithful attendance is a good idea in any/every church, and also eliminates the need of church discipline should such a person put themselves in a situation where that is necessary. It should be at the pastors discretion also if there if there is a valid reason, poor health etc.
Steadfast is the way to go. I don't object to others varying on other versions. That is their decision. However, Psalm 12 tells us that the true word of God is as Silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified 7 times, and that we are to keep it that way forever. Just saying. I don't fiddle with perfection looking at other translations.
I am unclear on what the situation was in 1610. If we didn't have the KJV ... then what? And then what was the situation between 1611 and the birth of the KJV-Only doctrine?
In 1610 and for years after there were other well-used English translations such as the Great Bible (1539 authorized by King Henry), the Bishops Bible (1568 authorized by the Church of England, like the KJV) and the Geneva Bible (1599, the Bible of the Protestants and Pilgrims). From my observation, militant KJV Onlyism arose as a reaction to the growing popularity of the NIV (NT 1973, OT 1978) and the NASB (1977) beginning in the 1970s.
Thank you Mark. I do thoroughly enjoy learning and listening from you. In truth though, you credit me with too much honor. You're not a slouch scholar yourself my friend :-)
I think as a baptist that the worse thing that has happened is that when fundamentalists left the Southern Baptist denomination over music and translation, their voices are missed in the denomination and if anyone would be willing to look at the Byzantine text and permit the Holy Spirit to enrich and to enjoy the NKJV. ( big wish) But that possibility is becoming less and less as these churches do die out , due to their age and culture.
The rift among Southern Baptists centered on the issue of inerrancy, or the literal, historical infallibility of the Bible. This brought about the conservative resurgence that impacted the Seminaries foremost. If the resurgence had not occurred, it is fair to say that the SBC would be just another mainline denomination today because the conservatives would have abandoned it. The SBC today is eclectic on both music and translation. True fundamentalism is not a term associated with Southern Baptists.
So many faithful evangelicals are moving away from institutional churches... At what point are the pastors going to do the same? It just gets too hurtful to pastor churches that are that toxic.
@@markwardonwords Oh I got that, but this is more of a sociological question. In the long term, will people be willing to serve as pastors when the cards keep getting stacked against them?
@@joest.eggbenedictus1896 You are definitely on to something . . . one of my friends is a pastor to pastor - he runs Refresh Ministries in Northern Alberta Canada - the burnout rate for pastors is huge and building a resilient ministry is a critical component in many M-Div programs - even so, there are numerous challenges One of the best organizations that I know of that facilitates and promotes true longevity in ministry (from my context and perspective) is Village Missions -
My pastor, a BJU graduate, uses the KJV but is not KJVonly. I prefer the NASB because it is easier to understand. In a day when there is so much Biblical illiteracy, if a person who had never read the Bible and walked into a KJVOnly service would the language be as foreign to him as a Roman Catholic listening to a Latin service in the 1950's? I don't think that is too much of an exaggeration.
I have to be super careful about this, because I am watched like a hawk. I do NOT think the distance between contemporary English and Elizabethan English is as great as that between contemporary English and medieval liturgical Latin. But the distance between the two Englishes is still too great to justify using the KJV in a church as your main pulpit Bible. Not that I demand immediate change, and NOT that I think you should leave your church or raise a stink. But I do think you should ask nicely, if you haven't already, for change. I myself attended a church that used the KJV, beginning in 2015. But I knew change was coming; we made a change in 2017. It caused not a blip on anyone's radar as far as I could tell.
You prefer the NASB, which copyright? the 1977, 1995, or 2020?? Problem you got is telling people you like the NASB, then you wake up and the 2020 version is pretty bad.
@@casey1167 I prefer the 1977 but use the 1995. I was not aware there was a 2020. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the NT NASB was published in 1971. Dr Stewart Custer if the BJU Bible faculty endorsed it in 71 (I think I remember correctly).
Here comes the rub, by stating your prefer the NASB you are supporting the NASB that is current. Do you support the 23,495 changes to verses between 1995 and 2020? the 66,777 words added to replace 56,642 words removed? I am sorry, you can't make that many changes and not change meanings. What I have seen happen with Bible version is the first copyright is not that bad, and gets support from people like Dr. Custer, but no one notices all the changes made after... even the NIV... only 60% of the verses are the same as they were in 1984. Though I would not have huge issues with the 1977 NASB, I do with the 2020.
I very much disagree that non-attendance for six months brings into question an individual's spirituality and whether or not that individual is a Christian.
Ah, the good Doctor James White. Dearly love the brother! I've seen him on several occasions. I generally use the ESV and NASB 95 to preach from. I also use the HCSB, NET and NLT for studying. Multiple translations give a greater perspective of the passage that I am studying. I also use my Logos Portfolio library for my exegetical study. For whatever reason I have never been a big fan of the NIV.
I was KJVO for 20 years going all the way from hardcore Ruckmanism and Hyles to the more kinder-gentler, soft-peddaled "Paul Chappell" version. Paul Chappell thought I was a rabble rouser with my extremist "Ruckmanite" position and I guess I thought he was a little more "liberal" than I was but I digress. There are some really good, respectable folk who have either gone through or had connections with WCBC but I think most have gone on to pursue additional education. Everything I have had to unlearn and then re-learn has given me at least the equivalent of an MDiv!🤣 I abandoned KJVO not because of intellectual or academic persuasion but because it was the only way I could separate myself from all the wing-nuts and get myself in a healthy Church. I still prefer my KJV and use it as my primary version for study, teaching, and preaching. I also have an ESV Study Bible among others. I agree with this pastor regarding those on the more extreme side. If they so much as even get a whiff of your straying from their "groupthink," they will likely give you the "Left Foot of Disfellowship" and perhaps you should be legitimately concerned for your own safety and that of your family! With that said, I would say if at all possible, you should stick around and just continue to use your KJV. I think that just switching versions misses the point. Use the KJV and be faithful to the text (not just what the KJVO crowd "thinks" it says). There is such a dearth of sound, expository teaching and preaching in the "Independent Fundamental Baptist" world that you would be of great benefit to them and the matter may just take care of itself! As I said, I use the KJV almost exclusively and could probably still "talk the talk" if need be. I hardly ever cite other versions and never actually "correct" the King James text. Things would likely get a little dicey if I were to go expositorily through Ephesians. My Calvinistic bias would likely come through and the jig would be up!🤣
There is a lot of wisdom here; surely this is God's call for some men: stay where you are, preach from the KJV, and give them exposition. Here's why I hope most men won't go this route: children and the lost. I think kids and bus kids are often missing truth they could otherwise receive. But this is a judgment call, and a matter for prayer. Thank you for this comment!
@@markwardonwords this is another matter altogether! LOL I spent quite a few years as a bus captain and a children's church "preecher" so I can fully appreciate this! The really tragic thing is they usually throw the bus kids to the first and second year Bible College students who barely know anything so they practice their "preeching" on them! Is there anyone other than IFB-KJVO who is out running buses these days?
@@alexshadowfax1119 "Bus Kids" are those who ride a bus to church through the church's "bus ministry." They are usually under-privileged, in single-parent homes, and likely living in trailer parks or lower rent apartment complexes in the seedier side of town. If you do it right, it can be very rewarding but it will also stress you out and you may also find yourself in a difficult situation if you do not exercise the utmost caution! Brother Mark, that truly is a blessing that your church runs buses and that you are trying to do everything the right way!
Mark, any opinions or comments on the LSB? I have been reading it often here lately and really enjoy it, and appreciate that it will be unchanged for years to come.
I just noticed that not just fundamentalists are rejecting evangelical translations. Looks like some evangelicals have rejected the use of evangelical niv 2011 for being too liberal. this might explain why ESV shot up to number 2 ranking, altho niv is still number 1.
Calling out to Ps Seth, truly this issue should be splitting churches. Unfortunately and sadly KJV onlyism split up the denomination I was in, in Singapore.
Great pick, Mark. Pastor Seth seems very wise and collected. I’m sorry for what he went through, but it is apparent to me God is using it for the advance of the Gospel.
An interesting video. Thank you for sharing your experiences. The KJV onlyism is a serious issue. I'm trying to figure out how to be prepared to share my opinion about bible translations.
Rev. Ian Paisley once said that the minister's task is to feed the sheep, not to entertain the goats. Why would any minister who loved his congregation try to deprive the people of their beloved Bible? The congregants in this Church obviously had enough sense to resist the blandishments of modernism.
I don't think this pastor or any is telling people not ever to read the KJV. But those who work to replace the KJV as their pulpit Bible should be motivated precisely by a desire to feed the sheep. The KJV is no longer fully intelligible. The sheep think they're eating grass, but-due to no fault in the sheep or in the KJV, but solely due to language change-they are getting some weeds thrown in and are eating some grass they can't digest.
I have a question to ask you. If I’m someone who likes to use multiple translations and likes the Kjv as one of them is that okay? Love your videos by the way.
I'm going to say what I've heard Mark say before that he hasn't an issue with the KJV itself and it's been a gracious tone he's had towards the KJV.. He is not against the KJV and niether am I. However read it for what it is, not because it's the most 'accurate' as it's not.
My issue is if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. If they like using the KJV at their church why try to move them to a different translation? Readability? That can be taught. Don’t understand some words or phrases? That can be taught. If you raise kids on KJV they will learn to read KJV so where is the issue? I take issue with pushing new translations on people who don’t want them… it feels icky.
Can readability be taught? I was raised on the KJV; I thought I understood it just fine. I would have resolutely resisted any claim that I was misunderstanding it. But I was-at many minor and a few more significant points. And it wasn't because I was a dummy; it wasn't because the KJV translators did their work poorly. It's because English has changed in sometimes subtle ways in 400 years. If you want to discover KJV words you didn't know you didn't know, check out this playlist: ua-cam.com/play/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc.html
I do appreciate you conversation. When you discussed about cleansing the roles do you really want to tie being a christian and church membership together.
No, I don't. Only Christ has the true membership list for his kingdom. But I do believe that Matt 16 and the keys refer, as Mark Dever explains in various places, to the local church's responsibility to make the best judgment it can on who's in and who's out. A church, by admitting a member, is saying that in its limited judgment, this individual is a true Christian. A church, by excommunicating someone, is saying that in its limited judgment, this individual is not a true Christian, or that their profession is decidedly unclear-because of open sin.
@Richard Knapp often it is the members who confuse church membership with the Lambs book of Life. So if anyone talks of removing someone’s name from the role- no matter the reason, it is treated as if you are taking away their place in heaven.
One thing I would strongly disagree with about purging the rolls. Not the fact of doing it but judging someone who has not been there for three to six months being somehow spiritually derelict or not saved. Case in point...me. First, did not attend church for a ten year period. It was not spiritual but mental and emotional. in 2004, was wounded twicein combat in Iraq. Believe both produced such PTSD symptoms that when in a crowd, I was tryjing to figure out when the next mortar would be droppedmon us or where would someone plant an IED. I would look fopr an exit or plan a path of escape as well as where could I hidce protected which is not easy to do in combat. There were other symptoms not speaking about here. Still read and studied the bible...buying a lot thropugh Logos by the way. listened to preachuing from John MacArthur, Paul Washer, and a couple IFB pastors I still enjoy. James White my Sunday School teacher though he did not realize it. Someone might say I am the exception or my experiences does not make a trend but best seen as ancedotal but not evidence (Law of large numbers). That all might be true. How do you know if someone just decided to go to a different church? Now, everyone is not me. Any church I left besides just movoing to a different area, I always would have a hart to hart with the pastor and let them know why I was leaving. I have more to write but am getting sleepy. Last but not least, when I say I disagree...I leave it right there without trying to judge or seeing a disagreement as a caracter flaw. Like Lester Roloff said, when you start slinging mud, you start losing ground.
Every KJV bible should be produced with the preface to the reader whereby the KJV translators declared that the eight previous English translations' are honourable translations' and even the meanest translation containeth the word of God yea is the word of God.
I am a deacon in a PCA church where our pastor uses the ESV as the Bible during worship. But during small groups it is obvious the members use different translations. Not a problem when readings are from other than the ESV. it is wonderful for each Bible is inerrant and infallable.
Anyone who is so foolish and ignorant so as to think that the KJV actually corrects the original is beyond hope. I would never attend such a church let alone join. The Great Bible 1539 Only! 😅
Mark I find your voice very soothing and relaxing , modern versions make Jesus a sinner , as he said anyone who is angry with his brother. Then further on in scripture he looks around in anger at the pharisees. The king James says , anyone who is angry with his brother " without a cause ".
I’d encourage you to check out my Textual Confidence Collective videos here on my channel. There are good reasons why evangelical scholars have made these decisions.
The issue here is that it's far more likely that someone would add "without a cause" than it is that someone would cut it out. However, if you are convinced that the KJV contains the correct reading of Matthew 5.22, then you can still use the NKJV and MEV. NKJV: But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. MEV: But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment.
For me, after pastoring a KJVO by conviction, then coming out of if after 10 years...I know this makes me weak,but considering all the divisiveness around the issue, I cant even read the KJ now. I can't. It is, unfortunately, symbolic of something bad, and ignorance on my part. Willful ignorance.
I get it. There was a little of that in me at some point, but my study in the KJV over the past decade, almost, has reinvigorated my love for it and appreciation for it. I don't associate it with IFB KJV-Onlyism. They are leeching off its authority; but it retains its aura for me.
Trying to convince fundamentalists to use the translations of evangelicals could be interpreted as converting fundamentalists into evangelicals, so it can become as difficult as trying to convert orthodox or catholics into evangelicals.
@@markwardonwords Among Catholics, we have plenty of battles among ourselves but bible translations usually isn't one of them. We don't have debates on this issue and so I was not aware it was even issue among some churches. I find that following debates like this only makes me read and study the bible more, so at least some good definitely comes from it. I like the KJV for the poetry, but it doesn't do the job when it comes to the need for a clear translation. Hearing the bible read in Latin is also a wonderful thing to behold, but it is hardly a usable translation for an English speaker hence we use a modern bible with modern language.
@@rrsafety I believe perhaps maybe the Catholic Church *should* be having this "battle" at one level or another, considering their current officially endorsed translation for use in the US contains explicitly anti-catholic doctrine and authorship theories in its mandatory notes
@@justinj_00I’m not sure what an “anti-Catholic authorship theory” would be since the Catholic Church doesn’t have a doctrine on biblical authorship. I’m going to take a guess and say you’re referring to the Jerome commentary and that you got this argument from James White.
So I get this KJVO talk, but isn't there a worse situation upon us now? I mean masses of church people flocking to the NLT, the Message, the Passion Translation. - None of those being what we traditionally considered a "translation," because they are paraphrases. People are reading essentially commentaries. Don't you see this?
@@markwardonwords Thank you Mark for your channel. However, why are you disagreeing with me? Let me remind you of your videos: (1) The Passion Translation Is NOT the Best Bible Translation (2) Does The Message Count as a Bible? (3) Does the NRSVue Compromise on Homosexuality? Did you do all that work just cause, even though NO one is actually buying them? Maybe you're in a "bubble" of conservatives and don't see these so-called Bibles sold by the millions. Everywhere I go I see the NLT, and even if people don't have The Message, they know what it is. Some of us seen this coming, which is why I work on Bible translation. Thank you Mark for your work! Please don't be upset at me.
Not upset! I just don’t actually see people with TPT or The Message. And yes, I live in conservative environs. I do see people with the NLT, but I’m one of them. ;) I just don’t use it exclusively.
how does a person get "taught" to be a KJV ONLY person?.. right there..... I believe this is totally inaccurate and unfair to the KJV discussion... I do Not believe this is a teaching or following.. it is a God working on a person's heart revealing things to one person or another.. and as of Now.. God has moved me to support the KJV OVER the NASB NKJV RSV ESV ASV NLT CEB LSB NET NRSV..NIV.. and many others..
I was definitely taught KJV-Onlyism by my pastor. My parents and I were not KJV-Only. We accepted the teaching we were given; or at least I did as a teenager. He was a trustworthy source, and we trusted him.
@@markwardonwords I can see where you are coming from.... when I first got saved my Pastor ...the one who led me to the Lord.. would switch back and forth from the NKJV to the KJV... I never knew week to week which bible translation he was going to read from...I respected him... He was my mentor in the faith... I finally settled on the KJV.... then I ran into a pastor from a sister church who had at one time used the KJV.. but now he was using a NKJV...AND I was using the KJV... and so I asked him.. "why the switch?... he told me..."I got tired of coming across phrases such as TO WIT...and not knowing what that meant..".. so after thinking about it for a while I switched to the NKJV..... ..so I totally understand how a church or pastor can influence one's translation decision.. . then around 2004... I sat through a course that showed me some things regarding the NKJV.. and some of what was said really sank in... after that point I began using the KJV as my main bible.. and determined to deeply study any passages that seemed a little" off".. to get a better understanding of why they were stated as such... this has helped me to better appreciate the KJV... but.. I agree it is Not perfect..
Your criticism must be equally leveled against the KJV translators. If believing that *a translation* of the perfect, inspired text is, nonetheless, not perfect, then the KJV translators were causing doubt. Here's what IU mean… I am a firm biblical inerrantist. Therefore I stand with Scripture and the King James translators against your view of the perfection of the King James. Let me quote from the KJV preface: “[There is] no cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current [that is, circulated], notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For [we ask:] whatever was perfect under the sun, where Apostles or apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?” Summarized (and shortened) in contemporary English: “There is no reason why the word of God stops being the word of God when it’s translated, simply because some imperfections and blemishes occur in that translation. Was there ever anything perfect in this world aside from those things that were done by apostles?” The KJV translators go on to argue that we still call a man handsome even if he has some warts on his hand. They say that we judge things-and ought to judge things-by their predominant character, not their exceptions. This means that other translations can be good besides the KJV, and it means that the KJV translators did not regard their work as perfect. Now, this is talking about *translations,* not originals. The original Hebrew and Greek were perfect, inspired by God. But translations require human judgment-as the KJV translators knew all too well. The KJV translators were not KJV-Only. They believed their work was good, but they admitted that there were some Hebrew words they weren’t sure of the meaning of. When you call the KJV perfect, you stand against Scripture and the KJV translators.
I once attended a church which was very close to a King James only type of church. You would probably consider me a heretic because of my personal beliefs, however I do believe the Bible was God breathed / inspired in the original "autograph" and I did study theology in college. I used to want to be a full-time pastor but after hearing more of these type of stories, I'm actually glad I never went down that road. I appreciate this pastor's honesty and story.
@@markwardonwordsI don't believe I would object. Not sure why it would take two or three generations unless it took that long to learn English. I'm a little stumped as to how the question relates to my concern. Should a new pastor come into an established Baptist church and move it away from the name Baptist to a non-denominational church? Should a new pastor come into an established Reformed local church and move it away from Calvinism? Doing my best to explain myself and understand your question. I may be missing something.
@@BrentRiggsPoland You are making an analogy between changing from the KJV and changing from *Bible doctrines.* I'm saying that that analogy doesn't work, that you can change Bible translations without changing Bible doctrine. The relevant Bible doctrine is not, "Thou shalt use the KJV," or even, "Thou shalt use the same translation thou hast always used." It's, "Edification requires intelligibility." It's the need to use vernacular translation, a topic my friend Aaron Shryock discusses with me here: ua-cam.com/video/bwLhYWjbN-Y/v-deo.html. It's okay for a Polish immigrant church to switch translations after the people stop speaking Polish *because the principle is vernacular translation.* And when the language spoken by the people moves out of phase from the translation they're using, the principle must be honored. There is, obviously, a greater distance between any Polish Bible and the CSB (say) than there is between the KJV and the CSB. But there is a sufficient distance-this is all I've been trying to say-that the principle requires a change away from the KJV in institutional settings.
I haven't been in church since 2015. According to this pastor that means I am not a christian! lol. lol. that is funny. made my day. P.S. I am still a Bible believing christian. I never left the faith.
What is a pastor. Is it a one person at the top ruling everyone which you don't find in scripture. They are overseers in amongst the flock to teach believers the doctrines of the good news of the gospel. Their identity in Christ, sanctification, justification, etc, and to warn them about false teaching from wolves is sheep's clothing like you see what elders where appointed for which you see in the acts of the apostles and through the epistles which you don't see in a gathering of believers in institutionals gatherings in buildings ' called ' church. pastors preach the gospel on Sundays to believers instead of teaching the flock like you see Paul etc doing in the epistles. What you see as a pastor in institutional gatherings to day is not what you see in God's word are what a gathering looks like. Everyone of the priesthood partaking. Ist Corinthians 14:26. Ephesians 4 11-12. Note verse 12. I'm not coming from a Pentecostal view but the clear teaching of scripture. 🙏
The 616 in my user name comes from Daniel Wallace explaining 616 is found instead of 666 in the 2 most important manuscripts of Revelation in Textual Criticism. Most are not aware of 616 being in those mss.
I still do Not understand the wrongness of being a KJV ONLY believer.... I have yet to see a valid argument that would lead me away from believing that is the best translation.. why?.. because people like David Jeremiah?.. David who?.. David Jeremiah may mean something to some who idolize him or his preachings. ..I have never listened to him....I do not even own his study bible... why?... because from what I saw it was only available in the NKJV..... I do Not think any preacher preaching that we know of today...could persuade ME as to what translation to read from.. Is this Not a God moving on a person's heart thing?.. that pastor you are interviewing needs to Not base anything at all on what in his opinion prominent preachers are doing...
Can you read Hebrew or Greek, brother? How can you judge the quality of any Bible translation in any language if you cannot read those languages? Or perhaps you can?
@@markwardonwords I understand exactly what you are saying about being able to read and understand Greek and Hebrew... I agree that being able to ..... would be a valuable asset in understanding God's word.. but there are also factors such as knowing the situation ,.. or as some would state .....the "occasion" of the writing....... and knowing the mindset of the times as well as knowing the language.. I do not dispute what you are saying...... but I believe in the Holy Spirit.. enabling one to understand what the intended meaning of the passage we are trying to understand is... as I have been reading through the book of Proverbs... EVERY month for the past 2 years... and the Holy Spirit.. is constantly showing me new things.. and understandings.. that I had Not seen before.. many commentaries I have... breakdown the Hebrew of Proverbs... especially the I.C.C...and honestly I find myself even questioning what THEY have determined about the passage. AND they ARE scholars...at least that is what their credentials state.....they paraphrase the scripture they are explaining.. BTW... did you know that a lot of commentaries... choose to paraphrase the scripture they are explaining?.. how can anyone follow even a Greek or Hebrew scholar.. that chooses to use their knowledge to explore a passage they PARAPHRASE?.. this frustrates me to no end..
@@jeffcarlson3269 How do you know they "PARAPHRASE"? Don't you also know that the KJV contains paraphrase as a natural result of translation across languages?
@@Roescoe the I.C.C. for one...that is short for the International Critical Commentary which was published in the later part of the 19th century thru the middle of the 20th century.. by Scribner Press. .used various scholars... to comment on the books of the bible... but in the preface page..ix....it comes flat out and states..in the preface of Romans Volume I published 1975 C.E.B. Cranfield commentator "Commentator's translations are commonly intended to bring out clearly and forcefully as possible the commentators own conclusions concerning his author's meaning... when this is so, the translation, though it may be placed before the exegetical notes on each section, is REALLY ASUMMING UP OF THE CONCLUSIONS REACHED IN THOSE NOTES... MY translation is designed rather to help the reader at the earliest stage of his exegetical work.....I have tried to represent the bible text nearly as possible in the English from which the Greek was interpreted" in other words.. not only did this commentator comment.. but he re-translated the text as they saw it should read as they were exegeting it... this is why when I was using the I.C.C. commentary to study by.. NONE of the verses matched any known translation... because... the commentator was retranslating the verse themselves...
What is ironic isvthat the major cults like JW are kjvo and find itceasier to support their heresirs eith that version and health and wealth prosoerity hereticscm all seem to be kjvo not thst kjv us bad but seems to ve much easier to read into it due to the archaic languaging
I have some friends (known them long enough that they feel like family) that used to attend a church with a KJV-Only pastor. My friends stopped attending that church a few years back because they had multiple issues with him, not just regarding his KJV-Onlyism, but several other things as well.
@@curtthegamer934 All the churches I've seen of late almost seem allergic to the KJV. They might quote from five different translations but the KJV won't be among them. That's why it's weird to me to hear all this about churches that are KJVO, because my experience in the evangelical world is that the KJV as been all but forgotten.
@@sorenpx Yeah, it's far from that around where I live. While I don't know many KJV-Onlyists in my area, almost every Christian I know has a KJV in their house whether they use it or not, and about half the people in my current church use the KJV as their main translation. Though my pastor mainly uses the NKJV and ESV for preaching, his memory of verses comes from the KJV, and most of the Bibles in the pews are paperback KJVs from Dollar Tree.
@@curtthegamer934 I honestly would like to see more KJV usage. I grew up mostly using the NIV, then moved to the NASB, and now use the KJV as my primary translation (though I still use several other translations as comparison Bibles). I don't feel that we need to move away from the KJV, but rather we need to put more work into learning how to read it. That's what I've been doing and I feel it's been a fruitful journey.
my church is KJV only. I am the new member that does not believe that's enough. My pastor says KJV is the only inspired version by God and the other versions are man made. Also a sister told me that God himself answered her the question to use the KJV and nothing more. I still want to read the book from a pastor that talks about the dilution of the persona of Christ in other versions like the NIV and NSAB but I sometimes get scared that I might bring the wrong Bible version to my congregatiom since I have several different I have bought over the years and the only I have ever trashed has been the Passion Translation 🤐
Yeah, don't bring anything but a KJV to church. And don't talk about this with other people in the church, I'd say. But ask the pastor nicely if there's a translation into contemporary English that he'd recommend, one that comes from the right Hebrew and Greek texts. And quietly, at home, make sure to read your modern translations. We must obey God rather than men, even in those moments when we must respect people God has placed in some kind of authority over us.
31:30 Who's for this and who's against it? AKA, Who's fer it, and who's agin it ? But seriously, much respect for ALL churches that believe in an inerrant Bible, regardless of what they settle on for the Sunday morning sermon.
Shame on anyone who automatically believes a believer in Christ Jesus is probably not saved because he doesn't attend the church for 6 months. Sound doctrinal congregations are not a dime a dozen in a community. Many living in the country usually travel 2-4 times further to church and if there are none close by they may have to travel 50-70 miles one way to find a sound doctrinal congregation. Most congregations that are southern Baptist are now run by Calvinistic (false doctrines) preachers or KJV only ones. Most are also congregations that have their Sunday school classes using only booklets, most often only high spotting passages of text with little or no conversation like questions or comments. Many in a class speak under their breath to those around them at times because they have been chided or worse at some point so that they are embarrassed or even afraid to ask questions or make a comment. I've observed these happenings on occasion when visiting a new class myself. Some will just quit coming because of their treatment. The average congregation doesn't even look within their own congregation for overseers which is quite necessary for following the criteria for appointing overseers/elders per 1 Timothy 3. Most congregations of the southern Baptist teach the ABC's salvation which doesn't agree with Paul at Ephesians 1:13, or Peter at Acts 10 where one hearing the Gospel and believing in Jesus one is forgiven of sins and regenerated (receives the Holy Spirit). Or other passages where salvation is by faith. The average congregation also places the Body of Christ under law in various ways as well. There is no altar to go before, we as believers are to present our requests to God by prayer and supplication. However, the average congregations has an altar, but the body of Christ is not directed to have an altar, we go directly before God's throne with our prayers. We are to share with those in need, not tithe, according to the new testament Epistles specifically addressing the Body of Christ under grace not law. I hope this helps some brothers and sisters struggling to find a doctrinally sound congregation to gather with. One is not unsaved because they are not attending a church. Sound Churches are difficult to find today, so much false doctrine has been allowed in and most congregations are not seemingly concerned about removing those false teachers, let alone even dare to speak up against them. We at least have to be able to say amen to most of what is taught and a sound Gospel and how one is saved is absolutely critical, or a congregation could be full of unsaved people mixed with saved ones and with a lack of sound teaching most would never know who is saved, etc.
I agree, I was slightly put off by that comment regarding attendance, while my family and I would love to find a good church to attend we've been unsuccessful and yet we have grown in Christ immensely studying the word together, listening to sermons online and praying together as a family. To be called not a Christian while doing all these things just because we are not attending a church currently seems like an extreme statement in my opinion.
I'm just spitballing here, but it seems to me that if you are arguing KJV only that you're being intellectually lazy. With all of the available resource materials such as books and translation software, let alone the excellent scholarship available to us, we should all be learning from the original languages. Why settle for any translation? Any translation should only be a starting point, not an ending point.
Not only intellectually lazy but anti-intellectual… being in this movement for 10 years, I can testify that they call seminaries “cemeteries”. “Going deep” in the Scriptures essentially meant you took some dispensational typology to the extreme and then everybody is amazed at your brilliance. But actually become educated on the scriptures and you are enemy number 1.
Because not all of us have the time, means or ability to learn two (or 3, if you include Aramaic) completely new languages, especially when you consider that there are several wonderful translations in our own language that we can use. Please do try to not be condescending to those of us that don’t know Hebrew and Greek. Not to mention, it takes years to learn the basics of even one language, let alone two- plus learning all the nuances of the language, and mastering it enough to read and study the original forms. It’s not as simple as “just learn the originals”.
@@k80.01 no judgement but study to show thyself approved. I don't have all the time in the world either but yet I do the best that I can that's all it should be expected
@@classicchristianliterature I have currently been dealing with the anti-intellectual movement. I'm smart but I'm not an intellectual. It's amazing how people don't trust experts. Using our discernment we should be able to tell who's trying to make a buck and who's trying to clear up issues.
I have done this many, many times. It is part of the solution-a step toward it. But uses of Scripture in a church go far beyond preaching. There's private reading, for example: in a KJV-Only context, the very people who most need to read God's Word in their own English are the ones whose consciences are most bound to the KJV.
@@WgB5 Yes and no. I’ve spoken to dozens of such men and heard/read from far more. I’m not opposed to this idea. I did just invite such a person for a related interview.
For all those who get caught up in this claim of KJV only you are not in a cult. You just do not have the knowledge needed to know what is presented against the KJV is not accurate. Mark Ward is about changing words that are not easily understood today, and if that were the only problem then I agree, but the question is what should be translated into English. So, the evidence that certain passage should be translated into English for those who look at it is clear. This is what scholars do they look at the evidence and listen to reason about the various pieces of evidence and make those decisions. Most of us do not have the education to do what scholars do, and so do not use your lack as a reason to despair of this issue. I say use the KJV and be thankful that you live in a nation were you get to choose from the NASB, BSB, ESV, NRSV, KJV, and even the Geneva Bible. The reason I say be thankful because in North Korea it is illegal to even own a Bible much less to preach the gospel, and it is only because you live here in the USA that this discussion or debate is even possible. So, again I say be thankful that we live in a nation were this KJV only-ism as Mark Ward and others call it happens, because we could be leaving in a nation were simply being a Christian can lead to persecution.
At the 17 minutes mark the dude stated he didn't want the New World Translation, but the NIV, ESV, NASV, are in bed with the NWT. I thought this video was great; in that, a man failed to establish himself as the final authority for a church.
If I remember history correctly, the split came from those who opposed the KJV which had been the standard for almost 300 years. That crowd, which you represent were the first ones to insist that people should give up the KJV and follow them! So, who is doing the splitting? And what has this apostasy produced? Laodicea! God forbid that we would think that the Philadelphian church age had anything to do with an absolute authority! This is the blind leading the blind!
The standard is not, "Use this translation forever." The standard is, "Use a translation into the vernacular language, so the plow boy can know God's Word better than a bishop." The KJV no longer meets that standard. It isn't incredibly far off, but it's far enough off that it's time for a revision.
@@markwardonwords Ok, so there's where the problem is Mark. When you tell me that the ESV or any other modern translation just update the language of the KJV, but then it has missing verses and missing words, your premise is not only exposed as false and misleading, but you lose all credibility, because obviously you're not unaware of these differences. This means that your real reasons are not to update the language, so poor uneducated Americans can read the hard to understand language of the KJV in a modern language.
@@PerSon-b8eMy 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.
What's wrong with KJV only? We didn't have 500+ versions of the Bible in the past. I do not understand the problem. I also read the Geneva Bible 😁 What I find much worse is that they removed the Apocrypha.
@@Samy-sx6kn And who determines that? This is very interesting: If Sirach was Good enough for Jesus, why isn't it good enough for his followers? ua-cam.com/video/7yRMBQMs6fs/v-deo.html The Great Protestant Coverup Part 1 ua-cam.com/video/eEneyCy4QMY/v-deo.html
KJV-Onlyism is wrong on many levels. Most fundamentally: it divides Christ's body by creating a doctrine (that only the KJV is trustworthy) that the Bible does not teach.
@@markwardonwords I also have a Geneva bible and even an old Douay-Rheims 1899. All three still use the word Lucifer. In many bibles that has been replaced by morning star, and I don't understand that.
@@markwardonwords Most of modern translationers including you, keep trying to crush the KJV, I'm not KJV-only, but I respect it as the grandfather of all the others; Please do a video about the KJVER, Peace
I love the KJB. I am reading through it yet again this year. Not trying to crush it. I oppose KJV-Onlyism. And I really do need to do a video on the KJVER!
oddly years ago when I was a NKJV user.. periodically... I would hear of families leaving this church or that church for the church Not being a KJV only church. .and wonder what is up with that... Now I look at families.. who Don't leave a church for Not being a KJV only church and wonder what is up with that... I commend the families.. who leave churches for Not preaching out of the KJV...perhaps more pastors need to get on board with the KJV.. and NOT follow in the footsteps.. of James White.. who I have read and watched.. and get sick over..HIS biases
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
Amen!! Glad to hear a false teacher fail to lead his flock astray!!! You need to stop defiling your Bibles! When you lead people away from scripture you are the divisive ones!!! How stupid that you think dominating a church and taking away the word is not divisive! I pray that the Lord will chastise you and humble your rebellious hearts
The Bible teaches that edification requires intelligibility. And it does not teach that one and only one translation can be called “the word.” KJV-Onlyism is a divisive new teaching that has developed and grown mostly within my lifetime.
@@markwardonwords Why do you resort to such a bigoted display? "KJV-Onlyism " here come from a fleshly perspective resorting to a railing accusation. What does the apostle Paul Preach? 1 Corinthians 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat." The nasb calls them verbally abusive. but that is an adjective and not a noun as it would be if consistent even with their style of translating. As a noun you rail accusations and call people "KJV only". Now you say this is a teaching within your lifetime? What about these confessional statements? .The Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland formally states regarding the Westminister Confession - "The Authorised Version has had explicit and implicit Church sanction over many hundreds of years in various countries. It was the version used to support the documents of the Westminster Assembly both in their wording and in their proof texts, and so Presbyterian Churches claiming to hold to these standards ought to acknowledge the Authorised Version appropriately." "We the church of Jesus Christ being regularly baptised upon the profession of our faith in Christ are convinced the concessive of associate churches. WE BELIEVE THAT THE SCRIPTURES OF THE OLD AND THE NEW TESTAMENTS AS TRANSLATED BY THE AUTHORITY OF KING JAMES TO BE THE WORDS OF GOD AND IS THE ONLY TRUE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE." The Association of Baptists 25th meeting 1830 WOW!!! Sir you have really aged well!!! "The Bible teaches that edification requires intelligibility." creating 200 contradicting translations of the same language is not intelligibility!!! Especially when your contradicting Bibles are translating from contradicting collations!! "a divisive new teaching" new translations are new and therefore the weight of being divisive is upon them. When you tell me that Jesus did not forgive the woman caught in Adultery. When you claim we are not saved but are being saved so that you can say it is our work of repentance to get saved instead of Christ imputed righteousness. When You claim that jesus did not say "Forgive them father for they know not what they do. When you claim that Mark never detailed the reurrection thus leading to the implication that the Gospel of Salvation does not need the resurrection. When you claim that we pray the Lord's prayer wrongly for including "For thine is the Kingdom and the power and the glory forever Amen" When you deny that Jesus was hung upon "Mt. Calvary" When you deny that the trinity is taught in 1st John 5. When you deny in timothy that God was revealed in human flesh. When you deny that jehovah is the name of God and then deny that Lucifer is the name of God so that you could call Jesus the "daystar". when you consistently use New Translation which "Forget" to translate baptism as Immersion. When you deny that Jesus is the "only begotten" but say he is unique like he just won a talent show. When you spend all your time criticizing the King James but ignoring the heresy of the Queen James it is obvious that as you wake up and say "god save the queen" it is obvious that your existence is based upon stirring controversy.
@@matthewsingleton8802 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
@@LLPOF Sorry . . . that is a typo . . . I meant I am NOT familiar with how the ministry has evolved since then - my apologies for that oversight and resulting confusion
You both are over reacting n over analyzing a nebulous term called KJV only. The KJV is s beautiful translation and so are others such as NKJV and NASB. Just let it go . you are both straining at a gnat
I was KJV only for over 10 years. The first time I heard the gospel was through a KJV only ministry. The church I served in through my 20s and 30s is KJV only. (I had a vanity license plate that indicated that I was KJV only.). I slowly saw the errors in KJV through the interaction between KJV onlyists and men like Dr James White. I left KJV onlyism few years ago. While I love the KJV (it’s still my favorite translation) I have grown a lot through some of the modern translations like the ESV, NASB, and NKJV.
God did good for you through those dear brothers. But they were wrong about something very important to them. I’m glad the Lord rescue you from that doctrinal trap.
I went to college with Seth, I remember him being a great guy, very sincere and I’m glad to see that hasn’t changed. As often happens, in the busyness of life, I haven’t spoke to him since Bible college. So sad to hear what he’s been through but grateful to God for his gracious spirit.
There’s a lot of practical and pastoral wisdom in this video. Thanks for more helpful content Mark.
I'm so grateful you found it helpful!
I also went to college with Seth. I think we served together in the inner-city “bus” ministry for a while. He is a great guy-but had a lot more hair back then. 😁
He is correct. Most of the time it is not a logical disagreement. It is an emotional one. I grew up on the NKJV. I remember reading the ESV for the first time at 26 years old. I felt a weird churning in my gut and a feeling of, "This does not sound right." And, even though I did keep reading the ESV, it took me spending time in that translation before it "sounded" like God's word. Then I switched to the NAS95 and the same process began all over. I have now been reading the NAS95 for 6 years. I love that translation... And the ESV... And the NKJV.
Great interview! We've decided not to tackle this issue yet in our little church. It's helpful to hear the perspective of someone who tried and didn't quite get it through. Praise the Lord that he's still serving as a pastor somewhere.
Right. And just because someone fails doesn't mean he did it wrong. I feel for the pastors who believe they need more time. There are so many variables.
His point on deep personal connections is SO KEY. I know a lot of Christians who are still in KJVOnlyism because they had a KJVO pastor who walked with them through deep waters.
And praise God that he did! I am certain that many KJV-Only pastors have done long-term faithful work for their people. I never want to take away from that.
If one church member is bringing a lawsuit against another church member, then they are definitely disobeying the word of God according to 1st Cor. 6:1-8.
Right! It's explicitly anti-biblical!
An IFB pastor, Jonathan Burris, who prefers the KJV, but is no longer KJVO, was recently fired from his pastorate because he produced two videos on You Tube in which he said the NIV’s rendering of two verses was correct. What a travesty!
Agreed! I know Jonathan-he edits my videos as a volunteer!
I know this video is 2 years old, so I hope this dear brother and his wife are doing well these days. It hurt just listening to him. It is truly a work of God that he didn't end up angry and bitter and even turning away from God entirely.
I hope we can all appreciate how hard it is for someone to come out of what they believe to be a major doctrine of the faith.
Yes, it is extremely hard, especially when most people you love and trust are still KJVO. I am still not completely at peace about it, but I did recently join a church that is not KJVO. Pressing forward in faith that over time the Lord will make things clear.
It makes me feel icky to even think about that. I hate the liberalizing impulse. I never want someone to violate his conscience. But sometimes consciences need to be reeducated, mine included. Always reforming according to the Word!
I have spent a lot of time learning about Romans 14. RC Sproul did a sermon on the tyranny of the weak brother. Unfortunately, our KJVO brethren are acting as weak brothers, forcing their Bible version view on all Christians (at least the ones that come to Christ in their churches.) What Bible version you want to use falls clearly under Christian liberty, use whatever faithful translation you want. But forcing one translation on all Christians is tyranny. The end goal really is to drop the word "only" from KJV Only and replace it with "preferred". Of course they are free to go further than that as well.
Mell, I wish you well on your journey. I have spent the past 6 months solid on this issue and am fully convinced that the KJV is not the only God honoring Bible translation. If you would like to talk more about the things that made me leave KJVO then let me know, I would be happy to talk about it with you. EDIT: The book Authorized the use and misuse of the King James Bible did help!
@@williamragle1608 thank you, yes I would be interested in the main points that helped you leave. For myself, it has been seeing the lack of the fruit of the Spirit of many of KJV onlyist along with bad arguments.
Having left the KJVO movement after decades of near total immersion, I understand the issue all too well. As parents and leaders, we must understand the consequences of taking extreme and adamant positions. We will answer to God for taking part in ideas that create damage and division in the body of Christ. Believers should not be pressured into doing everything exactly one way only. I trust that if the roles were reversed, there would be resentment over the loss of liberty. Enjoy your Memorial day weekend!
What an amazing interview. Thank you, Pastor Seth for your words of wisdom and for sharing your experience. Keep living for the LORD, brother and keep preaching the Word!
Glad you enjoyed it, Corey! Thank you yet again for your encouragement!
This got real. God bless both of you for this discussion and for Seth being so open
Right. I appreciated that from him, too!
My testimony is very similar to this brothers. I grew up in a KJV only church and my dad is an evangelist in mostly KJV only churches. After deciding to start reading my KJV more, my eyes were opened to the truth of my spiritual condition and I was born again. Fast forward a year or two after that, I decided to read my KJV all the way through and I asked the Lord for his truth (not man’s opinion) and it has changed my life and over time changed my view on KJV onlyism. I love the KJV and through the reading of it, I realized a lot of misconceptions with what I grew up believing, especially about separation from our brothers/sisters who did not read the same translation, but were truly filled with the Spirit and had the fruits to make it evident and now I’m so thankful to have fellowship with them.
i just so love this conversation....the grace of God was so evident in this interview.....i do not know who this pastor was....but he has a wonderful grace about him....may the good LORD bless him and meet him at the very point of his need...Pastor Mark thank you for the work you do....and may this work reap a bountiful harvest.....to the glory of God.....Soli Deo gloria
Praise God-thank you for the kind word!
I love the KJV! But I’m open to other translations as well. I just prefer KJV.
I love it, too! And I don't mind at all when people prefer it. The problem is when they build their preference into a doctrine. =(
Me too
There are passages in which the KJV is the better translation, and passages in which other versions have the better translation. Figuring out which version is best in the passage you’re in now is work, but it’s fun.
I know this is off-topic from the subject of this particular video, but I would absolutely love to see a “Why the NLT is the best Bible translation (for certain people).” As someone who uses it the majority of the time for my quiet time and studying, and especially seeing how it is becoming more and more popular based off the 2022 sales in America (2nd behind the NIV), I really would value hearing more of your thoughts on this translation!
I'm planning that video. I've already started!
@@markwardonwords That’s awesome to hear. I am blessed by your work, and your genuine motives and heart is so evident. Thank you, Mark!
I too love (specifically) the NLT STUDY Bible - it is the only contemporary translation that I am aware of that has a built-in concordance and 'word study' system as well as the Greek and Hebrew words (in transliteration) built right into the margins so that one can get their contextual significance - it truly does put the cookies on the shelf! :-)
I use the NLT often to give people the most simple and direct scriptures. I like that one too, it's just right to the point.
24:00..addressing the anger, feelings towards the former people. I appreciate this reply. By God's grace, it can move from anger, to clearer perspective of the "why"..to actual pity (in a good way) for those who remain in the "blindness" that feeds some of these teachings. Tough stuff. Thanks for the interview...haven't listened through the whole thing yet.
✔ I feel for you! You have suffered in ways I haven't. But we have been forgiven a 10,000-talent debt! We have every reason to show mercy.
Thank you for your comments and insights. Growing up, the congregations where I worshiped all pretty much used only the KJV. That said, doing so was not taught. Matter of fact, I believe Mark Ward was the first person to make me aware of the issue. These days I read from a cross section covering literal through dynamic bible translations and I appreciate the benefits I derive for doing so.
What a great interview. I so appreciate the graciousness of this brother. I can definitely relate. We went through several miscarriages right at the same time that much church difficulty was taking place when I pastored several churches. Though I went to Pensacola Theological Seminary and got a great education there, I was never convinced of their TR-only/KJV-only position. I decided that, at least in my geographical area, that being the pastor of an independent Baptist church wasn't ever going to be a part of my future, so I moved on. I just didn't want to deal with the stress. Pastoring is hard enough, and adding KJV-onlyism on top of it just wasn't a battle I wanted to fight, especially due to the difficulty and pain that pastoral ministry can cause even without this issue.
I get the impression that PTS gave/gives a good education minus this issue! I have a really good friend whom I highly respect who went there.
@@markwardonwords they certainly did when I attended there. Apart from that one issue, it was very good, and I know, for I have a second master’s from a different institution and am able to somewhat accurately compare.
Sometimes people change congregations without notifying church leadership. That's another reason why they might not have been attending for 6 months. So it's not always going to be centered on problems with a Christian's walk.
✔
Gotta give him credit for trying as well as having the grace to accept the results. Hope you have him back on, he seems very genuine.
Agreed!
Having church membership that is self-terminating after a certain period of non-faithful attendance is a good idea in any/every church, and also eliminates the need of church discipline should such a person put themselves in a situation where that is necessary. It should be at the pastors discretion also if there if there is a valid reason, poor health etc.
My home Church has it written in it's charter that it will only preach from the KJV.
Steadfast is the way to go. I don't object to others varying on other versions. That is their decision. However, Psalm 12 tells us that the true word of God is as Silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified 7 times, and that we are to keep it that way forever. Just saying. I don't fiddle with perfection looking at other translations.
@@sv62848 I use multiple translations.
@sv62848 Psalm 12:6-7 is clearly referring to the Urdu translation, not the KJV. The Urdu Bible has had precisely seven revisions.
@@sv62848
I use multiple translations. 🕊️
I am unclear on what the situation was in 1610. If we didn't have the KJV ... then what? And then what was the situation between 1611 and the birth of the KJV-Only doctrine?
The KJV only movement is relatively new. I believe it started around the 1940’s. Mark has a video that explains the history of the movement.
In 1610 and for years after there were other well-used English translations such as the Great Bible (1539 authorized by King Henry), the Bishops Bible (1568 authorized by the Church of England, like the KJV) and the Geneva Bible (1599, the Bible of the Protestants and Pilgrims). From my observation, militant KJV Onlyism arose as a reaction to the growing popularity of the NIV (NT 1973, OT 1978) and the NASB (1977) beginning in the 1970s.
Praise God! Thank you for this channel Mark!
Thanks for listening!
Thank you for the interview Mark - I 'caught' your shepherd's heart and pastoral sensitivity
Glad you enjoyed it, Dustin! I'm so honored that a biblical scholar such as yourself would watch my humble channel!
Thank you Mark. I do thoroughly enjoy learning and listening from you. In truth though, you credit me with too much honor. You're not a slouch scholar yourself my friend :-)
I think as a baptist that the worse thing that has happened is that when fundamentalists left the Southern Baptist denomination over music and translation, their voices are missed in the denomination and if anyone would be willing to look at the Byzantine text and permit the Holy Spirit to enrich and to enjoy the NKJV. ( big wish) But that possibility is becoming less and less as these churches do die out , due to their age and culture.
And I don't want them to die. They have a ton of good in them. I want them to reform according to the Word.
The rift among Southern Baptists centered on the issue of inerrancy, or the literal, historical infallibility of the Bible. This brought about the conservative resurgence that impacted the Seminaries foremost. If the resurgence had not occurred, it is fair to say that the SBC would be just another mainline denomination today because the conservatives would have abandoned it. The SBC today is eclectic on both music and translation. True fundamentalism is not a term associated with Southern Baptists.
So many faithful evangelicals are moving away from institutional churches... At what point are the pastors going to do the same? It just gets too hurtful to pastor churches that are that toxic.
That's not the way Seth talked, my friend! He still loves those people.
@@markwardonwords Oh I got that, but this is more of a sociological question. In the long term, will people be willing to serve as pastors when the cards keep getting stacked against them?
@@joest.eggbenedictus1896 You are definitely on to something . . . one of my friends is a pastor to pastor - he runs Refresh Ministries in Northern Alberta Canada - the burnout rate for pastors is huge and building a resilient ministry is a critical component in many M-Div programs - even so, there are numerous challenges
One of the best organizations that I know of that facilitates and promotes true longevity in ministry (from my context and perspective) is Village Missions -
My pastor, a BJU graduate, uses the KJV but is not KJVonly. I prefer the NASB because it is easier to understand. In a day when there is so much Biblical illiteracy, if a person who had never read the Bible and walked into a KJVOnly service would the language be as foreign to him as a Roman Catholic listening to a Latin service in the 1950's? I don't think that is too much of an exaggeration.
I have to be super careful about this, because I am watched like a hawk. I do NOT think the distance between contemporary English and Elizabethan English is as great as that between contemporary English and medieval liturgical Latin. But the distance between the two Englishes is still too great to justify using the KJV in a church as your main pulpit Bible. Not that I demand immediate change, and NOT that I think you should leave your church or raise a stink. But I do think you should ask nicely, if you haven't already, for change. I myself attended a church that used the KJV, beginning in 2015. But I knew change was coming; we made a change in 2017. It caused not a blip on anyone's radar as far as I could tell.
You prefer the NASB, which copyright? the 1977, 1995, or 2020?? Problem you got is telling people you like the NASB, then you wake up and the 2020 version is pretty bad.
@@casey1167 I prefer the 1977 but use the 1995. I was not aware there was a 2020. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the NT NASB was published in 1971. Dr Stewart Custer if the BJU Bible faculty endorsed it in 71 (I think I remember correctly).
Here comes the rub, by stating your prefer the NASB you are supporting the NASB that is current. Do you support the 23,495 changes to verses between 1995 and 2020? the 66,777 words added to replace 56,642 words removed? I am sorry, you can't make that many changes and not change meanings.
What I have seen happen with Bible version is the first copyright is not that bad, and gets support from people like Dr. Custer, but no one notices all the changes made after... even the NIV... only 60% of the verses are the same as they were in 1984.
Though I would not have huge issues with the 1977 NASB, I do with the 2020.
@@casey1167 Respectfully what are you suggesting? What alternative do you recommend?
I very much disagree that non-attendance for six months brings into question an individual's spirituality and whether or not that individual is a Christian.
Ah, the good Doctor James White. Dearly love the brother! I've seen him on several occasions. I generally use the ESV and NASB 95 to preach from. I also use the HCSB, NET and NLT for studying. Multiple translations give a greater perspective of the passage that I am studying. I also use my Logos Portfolio library for my exegetical study. For whatever reason I have never been a big fan of the NIV.
All good tools! I used to dislike the NIV, but I've come to appreciate it greatly. But to each his own!
I was KJVO for 20 years going all the way from hardcore Ruckmanism and Hyles to the more kinder-gentler, soft-peddaled "Paul Chappell" version. Paul Chappell thought I was a rabble rouser with my extremist "Ruckmanite" position and I guess I thought he was a little more "liberal" than I was but I digress. There are some really good, respectable folk who have either gone through or had connections with WCBC but I think most have gone on to pursue additional education. Everything I have had to unlearn and then re-learn has given me at least the equivalent of an MDiv!🤣
I abandoned KJVO not because of intellectual or academic persuasion but because it was the only way I could separate myself from all the wing-nuts and get myself in a healthy Church. I still prefer my KJV and use it as my primary version for study, teaching, and preaching. I also have an ESV Study Bible among others.
I agree with this pastor regarding those on the more extreme side. If they so much as even get a whiff of your straying from their "groupthink," they will likely give you the "Left Foot of Disfellowship" and perhaps you should be legitimately concerned for your own safety and that of your family!
With that said, I would say if at all possible, you should stick around and just continue to use your KJV. I think that just switching versions misses the point. Use the KJV and be faithful to the text (not just what the KJVO crowd "thinks" it says). There is such a dearth of sound, expository teaching and preaching in the "Independent Fundamental Baptist" world that you would be of great benefit to them and the matter may just take care of itself! As I said, I use the KJV almost exclusively and could probably still "talk the talk" if need be. I hardly ever cite other versions and never actually "correct" the King James text. Things would likely get a little dicey if I were to go expositorily through Ephesians. My Calvinistic bias would likely come through and the jig would be up!🤣
There is a lot of wisdom here; surely this is God's call for some men: stay where you are, preach from the KJV, and give them exposition.
Here's why I hope most men won't go this route: children and the lost. I think kids and bus kids are often missing truth they could otherwise receive.
But this is a judgment call, and a matter for prayer. Thank you for this comment!
@@markwardonwords this is another matter altogether! LOL
I spent quite a few years as a bus captain and a children's church "preecher" so I can fully appreciate this! The really tragic thing is they usually throw the bus kids to the first and second year Bible College students who barely know anything so they practice their "preeching" on them!
Is there anyone other than IFB-KJVO who is out running buses these days?
@@raysauter4420 My "home" church in SC still does it, I think. Or we did for many years. I was the head of the ministry.
@@raysauter4420 I'm curious what are "bus kids? I've never heard that term before in regards to church? Thank you.
@@alexshadowfax1119 "Bus Kids" are those who ride a bus to church through the church's "bus ministry." They are usually under-privileged, in single-parent homes, and likely living in trailer parks or lower rent apartment complexes in the seedier side of town. If you do it right, it can be very rewarding but it will also stress you out and you may also find yourself in a difficult situation if you do not exercise the utmost caution!
Brother Mark, that truly is a blessing that your church runs buses and that you are trying to do everything the right way!
Mark, any opinions or comments on the LSB? I have been reading it often here lately and really enjoy it, and appreciate that it will be unchanged for years to come.
Everybody's begging me! I may soon yield!
LSB = NASB 1995 “plus”.
Both are great IMO
The LSB is an awesome bible. I love reading mine!
I just noticed that not just fundamentalists are rejecting evangelical translations. Looks like some evangelicals have rejected the use of evangelical niv 2011 for being too liberal. this might explain why ESV shot up to number 2 ranking, altho niv is still number 1.
Calling out to Ps Seth, truly this issue should be splitting churches. Unfortunately and sadly KJV onlyism split up the denomination I was in, in Singapore.
So sad!
Excellent interview, Mark.
Thank you for the kind word! And thanks for watching!
Great pick, Mark. Pastor Seth seems very wise and collected. I’m sorry for what he went through, but it is apparent to me God is using it for the advance of the Gospel.
Agreed! Thanks for the comment, Josh!
Very good video!
An interesting video. Thank you for sharing your experiences. The KJV onlyism is a serious issue. I'm trying to figure out how to be prepared to share my opinion about bible translations.
Humbly, clearly, and patiently. 2 Tim 2:24-26.
@@markwardonwords Good advice! Thank you
The false teaching of KJV onlyism is truly a stronghold that Satan has ensnared so many with.
I agree. I was one.
Rev. Ian Paisley once said that the minister's task is to feed the sheep, not to entertain the goats.
Why would any minister who loved his congregation try to deprive the people of their beloved Bible?
The congregants in this Church obviously had enough sense to resist the blandishments of modernism.
I don't think this pastor or any is telling people not ever to read the KJV. But those who work to replace the KJV as their pulpit Bible should be motivated precisely by a desire to feed the sheep. The KJV is no longer fully intelligible. The sheep think they're eating grass, but-due to no fault in the sheep or in the KJV, but solely due to language change-they are getting some weeds thrown in and are eating some grass they can't digest.
I have a question to ask you. If I’m someone who likes to use multiple translations and likes the Kjv as one of them is that okay? Love your videos by the way.
I sure hope that's okay, because you just described me!
I'm going to say what I've heard Mark say before that he hasn't an issue with the KJV itself and it's been a gracious tone he's had towards the KJV..
He is not against the KJV and niether am I.
However read it for what it is, not because it's the most 'accurate' as it's not.
It’s like this in Barbados. If you don’t use the KJV there then you don’t have the word of god they say.
My issue is if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. If they like using the KJV at their church why try to move them to a different translation? Readability? That can be taught. Don’t understand some words or phrases? That can be taught. If you raise kids on KJV they will learn to read KJV so where is the issue? I take issue with pushing new translations on people who don’t want them… it feels icky.
Can readability be taught? I was raised on the KJV; I thought I understood it just fine. I would have resolutely resisted any claim that I was misunderstanding it.
But I was-at many minor and a few more significant points. And it wasn't because I was a dummy; it wasn't because the KJV translators did their work poorly. It's because English has changed in sometimes subtle ways in 400 years. If you want to discover KJV words you didn't know you didn't know, check out this playlist:
ua-cam.com/play/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc.html
I do appreciate you conversation. When you discussed about cleansing the roles do you really want to tie being a christian and church membership together.
No, I don't. Only Christ has the true membership list for his kingdom. But I do believe that Matt 16 and the keys refer, as Mark Dever explains in various places, to the local church's responsibility to make the best judgment it can on who's in and who's out. A church, by admitting a member, is saying that in its limited judgment, this individual is a true Christian. A church, by excommunicating someone, is saying that in its limited judgment, this individual is not a true Christian, or that their profession is decidedly unclear-because of open sin.
@Richard Knapp often it is the members who confuse church membership with the Lambs book of Life. So if anyone talks of removing someone’s name from the role- no matter the reason, it is treated as if you are taking away their place in heaven.
One thing I would strongly disagree with about purging the rolls. Not the fact of doing it but judging someone who has not been there for three to six months being somehow spiritually derelict or not saved. Case in point...me.
First, did not attend church for a ten year period. It was not spiritual but mental and emotional. in 2004, was wounded twicein combat in Iraq. Believe both produced such PTSD symptoms that when in a crowd, I was tryjing to figure out when the next mortar would be droppedmon us or where would someone plant an IED. I would look fopr an exit or plan a path of escape as well as where could I hidce protected which is not easy to do in combat. There were other symptoms not speaking about here.
Still read and studied the bible...buying a lot thropugh Logos by the way.
listened to preachuing from John MacArthur, Paul Washer, and a couple IFB pastors I still enjoy. James White my Sunday School teacher though he did not realize it.
Someone might say I am the exception or my experiences does not make a trend but best seen as ancedotal but not evidence (Law of large numbers). That all might be true. How do you know if someone just decided to go to a different church? Now, everyone is not me. Any church I left besides just movoing to a different area, I always would have a hart to hart with the pastor and let them know why I was leaving. I have more to write but am getting sleepy.
Last but not least, when I say I disagree...I leave it right there without trying to judge or seeing a disagreement as a caracter flaw. Like Lester Roloff said, when you start slinging mud, you start losing ground.
Thanx, Gentlemen 🌹🌹🌹🌹
Our pleasure!
Every KJV bible should be produced with the preface to the reader whereby the KJV translators declared that the eight previous English translations' are honourable translations' and even the meanest translation containeth the word of God yea is the word of God.
It's unlikely that I'll ever be a publisher, but if I ever become one, I will likely include that preface.
AMEN! I love the preface!
My KJV from Church Bible Publishers has it.
I have had the need to buy that book 3 times. Twice it was burned by KJV only friend's. They felt the need to save me from its heresies...
Not very good friends to destroy someone elses property.
I am a deacon in a PCA church where our pastor uses the ESV as the Bible during worship. But during small groups it is obvious the members use different translations. Not a problem when readings are from other than the ESV. it is wonderful for each Bible is inerrant and infallable.
Anyone who is so foolish and ignorant so as to think that the KJV actually corrects the original is beyond hope. I would never attend such a church let alone join. The Great Bible 1539 Only! 😅
Mark I find your voice very soothing and relaxing , modern versions make Jesus a sinner , as he said anyone who is angry with his brother. Then further on in scripture he looks around in anger at the pharisees. The king James says , anyone who is angry with his brother " without a cause ".
I’d encourage you to check out my Textual Confidence Collective videos here on my channel. There are good reasons why evangelical scholars have made these decisions.
The issue here is that it's far more likely that someone would add "without a cause" than it is that someone would cut it out. However, if you are convinced that the KJV contains the correct reading of Matthew 5.22, then you can still use the NKJV and MEV.
NKJV: But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment.
MEV: But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment.
For me, after pastoring a KJVO by conviction, then coming out of if after 10 years...I know this makes me weak,but considering all the divisiveness around the issue, I cant even read the KJ now. I can't. It is, unfortunately, symbolic of something bad, and ignorance on my part. Willful ignorance.
I get it. There was a little of that in me at some point, but my study in the KJV over the past decade, almost, has reinvigorated my love for it and appreciation for it. I don't associate it with IFB KJV-Onlyism. They are leeching off its authority; but it retains its aura for me.
Trying to convince fundamentalists to use the translations of evangelicals could be interpreted as converting fundamentalists into evangelicals, so it can become as difficult as trying to convert orthodox or catholics into evangelicals.
Times may have changed a bit since you were in a fundamentalist church!
As a Catholic, I find these discussions of great interest.
Really? Might I ask why? I’m curious!
I too am curious. . .care to elaborate?
@@markwardonwords Among Catholics, we have plenty of battles among ourselves but bible translations usually isn't one of them. We don't have debates on this issue and so I was not aware it was even issue among some churches. I find that following debates like this only makes me read and study the bible more, so at least some good definitely comes from it. I like the KJV for the poetry, but it doesn't do the job when it comes to the need for a clear translation. Hearing the bible read in Latin is also a wonderful thing to behold, but it is hardly a usable translation for an English speaker hence we use a modern bible with modern language.
@@rrsafety I believe perhaps maybe the Catholic Church *should* be having this "battle" at one level or another, considering their current officially endorsed translation for use in the US contains explicitly anti-catholic doctrine and authorship theories in its mandatory notes
@@justinj_00I’m not sure what an “anti-Catholic authorship theory” would be since the Catholic Church doesn’t have a doctrine on biblical authorship. I’m going to take a guess and say you’re referring to the Jerome commentary and that you got this argument from James White.
Great video….I like the IncrediNASB version. 😆
YES!!! ABLE TO LEAVE TALL ESV STUDY BIBLES IN A SINGLE BOUND!!!!
So I get this KJVO talk, but isn't there a worse situation upon us now? I mean masses of church people flocking to the NLT, the Message, the Passion Translation. - None of those being what we traditionally considered a "translation," because they are paraphrases. People are reading essentially commentaries.
Don't you see this?
I do not see masses, no.
@@markwardonwords Thank you Mark for your channel. However, why are you disagreeing with me?
Let me remind you of your videos: (1) The Passion Translation Is NOT the Best Bible Translation (2) Does The Message Count as a Bible? (3) Does the NRSVue Compromise on Homosexuality?
Did you do all that work just cause, even though NO one is actually buying them? Maybe you're in a "bubble" of conservatives and don't see these so-called Bibles sold by the millions. Everywhere I go I see the NLT, and even if people don't have The Message, they know what it is.
Some of us seen this coming, which is why I work on Bible translation. Thank you Mark for your work! Please don't be upset at me.
Not upset! I just don’t actually see people with TPT or The Message. And yes, I live in conservative environs. I do see people with the NLT, but I’m one of them. ;) I just don’t use it exclusively.
how does a person get "taught" to be a KJV ONLY person?.. right there..... I believe this is totally inaccurate and unfair to the KJV discussion... I do Not believe this is a teaching or following.. it is a God working on a person's heart revealing things to one person or another..
and as of Now.. God has moved me to support the KJV OVER the NASB NKJV RSV ESV ASV NLT CEB LSB NET NRSV..NIV.. and many others..
I was definitely taught KJV-Onlyism by my pastor. My parents and I were not KJV-Only. We accepted the teaching we were given; or at least I did as a teenager. He was a trustworthy source, and we trusted him.
@@markwardonwords I can see where you are coming from.... when I first got saved my Pastor ...the one who led me to the Lord.. would switch back and forth from the NKJV to the KJV... I never knew week to week which bible translation he was going to read from...I respected him... He was my mentor in the faith... I finally settled on the KJV.... then I ran into a pastor from a sister church who had at one time used the KJV.. but now he was using a NKJV...AND I was using the KJV... and so I asked him.. "why the switch?... he told me..."I got tired of coming across phrases such as TO WIT...and not knowing what that meant..".. so after thinking about it for a while I switched to the NKJV.....
..so I totally understand how a church or pastor can influence one's translation decision..
. then around 2004... I sat through a course that showed me some things regarding the NKJV.. and some of what was said really sank in...
after that point I began using the KJV as my main bible.. and determined to deeply study any passages that seemed a little" off".. to get a better understanding of why they were stated as such... this has helped me to better appreciate the KJV... but.. I agree it is Not perfect..
Imagine the emotional toll of trying to cause doubt in a church that believed they had God's Word. It's hard to kick against the pricks.
Your criticism must be equally leveled against the KJV translators. If believing that *a translation* of the perfect, inspired text is, nonetheless, not perfect, then the KJV translators were causing doubt. Here's what IU mean…
I am a firm biblical inerrantist. Therefore I stand with Scripture and the King James translators against your view of the perfection of the King James. Let me quote from the KJV preface:
“[There is] no cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current [that is, circulated], notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For [we ask:] whatever was perfect under the sun, where Apostles or apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?”
Summarized (and shortened) in contemporary English:
“There is no reason why the word of God stops being the word of God when it’s translated, simply because some imperfections and blemishes occur in that translation. Was there ever anything perfect in this world aside from those things that were done by apostles?”
The KJV translators go on to argue that we still call a man handsome even if he has some warts on his hand. They say that we judge things-and ought to judge things-by their predominant character, not their exceptions. This means that other translations can be good besides the KJV, and it means that the KJV translators did not regard their work as perfect.
Now, this is talking about *translations,* not originals. The original Hebrew and Greek were perfect, inspired by God. But translations require human judgment-as the KJV translators knew all too well.
The KJV translators were not KJV-Only. They believed their work was good, but they admitted that there were some Hebrew words they weren’t sure of the meaning of. When you call the KJV perfect, you stand against Scripture and the KJV translators.
I once attended a church which was very close to a King James only type of church. You would probably consider me a heretic because of my personal beliefs, however I do believe the Bible was God breathed / inspired in the original "autograph" and I did study theology in college. I used to want to be a full-time pastor but after hearing more of these type of stories, I'm actually glad I never went down that road. I appreciate this pastor's honesty and story.
Wouldn't it have been better to start your own church based on your position instead of splitting a church established with the preaching of the KJV?
Would you object to a church of Polish immigrants to the US changing to an English Bible after two or three generations?
@@markwardonwordsI don't believe I would object. Not sure why it would take two or three generations unless it took that long to learn English. I'm a little stumped as to how the question relates to my concern. Should a new pastor come into an established Baptist church and move it away from the name Baptist to a non-denominational church? Should a new pastor come into an established Reformed local church and move it away from Calvinism? Doing my best to explain myself and understand your question. I may be missing something.
@@BrentRiggsPoland You are making an analogy between changing from the KJV and changing from *Bible doctrines.* I'm saying that that analogy doesn't work, that you can change Bible translations without changing Bible doctrine. The relevant Bible doctrine is not, "Thou shalt use the KJV," or even, "Thou shalt use the same translation thou hast always used." It's, "Edification requires intelligibility." It's the need to use vernacular translation, a topic my friend Aaron Shryock discusses with me here: ua-cam.com/video/bwLhYWjbN-Y/v-deo.html.
It's okay for a Polish immigrant church to switch translations after the people stop speaking Polish *because the principle is vernacular translation.* And when the language spoken by the people moves out of phase from the translation they're using, the principle must be honored. There is, obviously, a greater distance between any Polish Bible and the CSB (say) than there is between the KJV and the CSB. But there is a sufficient distance-this is all I've been trying to say-that the principle requires a change away from the KJV in institutional settings.
I haven't been in church since 2015. According to this pastor that means I am not a christian! lol. lol. that is funny. made my day. P.S. I am still a Bible believing christian. I never left the faith.
I can't understand KJV but an easier translation I understood. Alas I know now my bible... Even reading from the tniv
Right!!
What is a pastor. Is it a one person at the top ruling everyone which you don't find in scripture. They are overseers in amongst the flock to teach believers the doctrines of the good news of the gospel. Their identity in Christ, sanctification, justification, etc, and to warn them about false teaching from wolves is sheep's clothing like you see what elders where appointed for which you see in the acts of the apostles and through the epistles which you don't see in a gathering of believers in institutionals gatherings in buildings ' called ' church. pastors preach the gospel on Sundays to believers instead of teaching the flock like you see Paul etc doing in the epistles. What you see as a pastor in institutional gatherings to day is not what you see in God's word are what a gathering looks like. Everyone of the priesthood partaking. Ist Corinthians 14:26. Ephesians 4 11-12. Note verse 12. I'm not coming from a Pentecostal view but the clear teaching of scripture. 🙏
The 616 in my user name comes from Daniel Wallace explaining 616 is found instead of 666 in the 2 most important manuscripts of Revelation in Textual Criticism. Most are not aware of 616 being in those mss.
I still do Not understand the wrongness of being a KJV ONLY believer....
I have yet to see a valid argument that would lead me away from believing that is the best translation..
why?.. because people like David Jeremiah?.. David who?.. David Jeremiah may mean something to some who idolize him or his preachings. ..I have never listened to him....I do not even own his study bible... why?... because from what I saw it was only available in the NKJV..... I do Not think any preacher preaching that we know of today...could persuade ME as to what translation to read from..
Is this Not a God moving on a person's heart thing?.. that pastor you are interviewing needs to Not base anything at all on what in his opinion prominent preachers are doing...
Can you read Hebrew or Greek, brother? How can you judge the quality of any Bible translation in any language if you cannot read those languages? Or perhaps you can?
@@markwardonwords I understand exactly what you are saying about being able to read and understand Greek and Hebrew... I agree that being able to ..... would be a valuable asset in understanding God's word.. but there are also factors such as knowing the situation ,.. or as some would state .....the "occasion" of the writing....... and knowing the mindset of the times as well as knowing the language..
I do not dispute what you are saying...... but I believe in the Holy Spirit.. enabling one to understand what the intended meaning of the passage we are trying to understand is... as I have been reading through the book of Proverbs... EVERY month for the past 2 years... and the Holy Spirit.. is constantly showing me new things.. and understandings.. that I had Not seen before.. many commentaries I have... breakdown the Hebrew of Proverbs... especially the I.C.C...and honestly I find myself even questioning what THEY have determined about the passage. AND they ARE scholars...at least that is what their credentials state.....they paraphrase the scripture they are explaining..
BTW... did you know that a lot of commentaries... choose to paraphrase the scripture they are explaining?..
how can anyone follow even a Greek or Hebrew scholar.. that chooses to use their knowledge to explore a passage they PARAPHRASE?..
this frustrates me to no end..
@@jeffcarlson3269 How do you know they "PARAPHRASE"? Don't you also know that the KJV contains paraphrase as a natural result of translation across languages?
@@Roescoe
the I.C.C. for one...that is short for the International Critical Commentary which was published in the later part of the 19th century thru the middle of the 20th century.. by Scribner Press. .used various scholars... to comment on the books of the bible... but in the preface page..ix....it comes flat out and states..in the preface of Romans Volume I published 1975 C.E.B. Cranfield commentator
"Commentator's translations are commonly intended to bring out clearly and forcefully as possible the commentators own conclusions concerning his author's meaning...
when this is so, the translation, though it may be placed before the exegetical notes on each section, is REALLY ASUMMING UP OF THE CONCLUSIONS REACHED IN THOSE NOTES...
MY translation is designed rather to help the reader at the earliest stage of his exegetical work.....I have tried to represent the bible text nearly as possible in the English from which the Greek was interpreted"
in other words.. not only did this commentator comment.. but he re-translated the text as they saw it should read as they were exegeting it...
this is why when I was using the I.C.C. commentary to study by.. NONE of the verses matched any known translation... because... the commentator was retranslating the verse themselves...
@ 2:49 ~ I have an issue with this blanket notion of rebel rousers.
What is ironic isvthat the major cults like JW are kjvo and find itceasier to support their heresirs eith that version and health and wealth prosoerity hereticscm all seem to be kjvo not thst kjv us bad but seems to ve much easier to read into it due to the archaic languaging
The Jehovah’s Witnesses have their own translation. It’s called The New World Translation and it’s truly a cult “Bible” tailored to fit their beliefs.
@carolbarlow8896 yes as no reputable Greek scholar would affirm that version as being anything but junk
Hi there I'm not king James only but I find it the only version that manuscripts agree with each other .
Have you looked at the manuscripts? I’m not taunting; I’m asking!
Erasmus wrote that the 6 or 7 manuscripts available to him when he compiled the TR had many variants between them.
I wouldn't even know where to find a KJVO church if I wanted to.
I run into them all the time-online. And a few in person in my area.
I have some friends (known them long enough that they feel like family) that used to attend a church with a KJV-Only pastor. My friends stopped attending that church a few years back because they had multiple issues with him, not just regarding his KJV-Onlyism, but several other things as well.
@@curtthegamer934 All the churches I've seen of late almost seem allergic to the KJV. They might quote from five different translations but the KJV won't be among them. That's why it's weird to me to hear all this about churches that are KJVO, because my experience in the evangelical world is that the KJV as been all but forgotten.
@@sorenpx Yeah, it's far from that around where I live. While I don't know many KJV-Onlyists in my area, almost every Christian I know has a KJV in their house whether they use it or not, and about half the people in my current church use the KJV as their main translation. Though my pastor mainly uses the NKJV and ESV for preaching, his memory of verses comes from the KJV, and most of the Bibles in the pews are paperback KJVs from Dollar Tree.
@@curtthegamer934 I honestly would like to see more KJV usage. I grew up mostly using the NIV, then moved to the NASB, and now use the KJV as my primary translation (though I still use several other translations as comparison Bibles). I don't feel that we need to move away from the KJV, but rather we need to put more work into learning how to read it. That's what I've been doing and I feel it's been a fruitful journey.
my church is KJV only. I am the new member that does not believe that's enough. My pastor says KJV is the only inspired version by God and the other versions are man made. Also a sister told me that God himself answered her the question to use the KJV and nothing more. I still want to read the book from a pastor that talks about the dilution of the persona of Christ in other versions like the NIV and NSAB but I sometimes get scared that I might bring the wrong Bible version to my congregatiom since I have several different I have bought over the years and the only I have ever trashed has been the Passion Translation 🤐
Yeah, don't bring anything but a KJV to church. And don't talk about this with other people in the church, I'd say. But ask the pastor nicely if there's a translation into contemporary English that he'd recommend, one that comes from the right Hebrew and Greek texts. And quietly, at home, make sure to read your modern translations. We must obey God rather than men, even in those moments when we must respect people God has placed in some kind of authority over us.
31:30 Who's for this and who's against it? AKA, Who's fer it, and who's agin it ?
But seriously, much respect for ALL churches that believe in an inerrant Bible, regardless of what they settle on for the Sunday morning sermon.
Shame on anyone who automatically believes a believer in Christ Jesus is probably not saved because he doesn't attend the church for 6 months.
Sound doctrinal congregations are not a dime a dozen in a community. Many living in the country usually travel 2-4 times further to church and if there are none close by they may have to travel 50-70 miles one way to find a sound doctrinal congregation.
Most congregations that are southern Baptist are now run by Calvinistic (false doctrines) preachers or KJV only ones. Most are also congregations that have their Sunday school classes using only booklets, most often only high spotting passages of text with little or no conversation like questions or comments. Many in a class speak under their breath to those around them at times because they have been chided or worse at some point so that they are embarrassed or even afraid to ask questions or make a comment. I've observed these happenings on occasion when visiting a new class myself. Some will just quit coming because of their treatment.
The average congregation doesn't even look within their own congregation for overseers which is quite necessary for following the criteria for appointing overseers/elders per 1 Timothy 3.
Most congregations of the southern Baptist teach the ABC's salvation which doesn't agree with Paul at Ephesians 1:13, or Peter at Acts 10 where one hearing the Gospel and believing in Jesus one is forgiven of sins and regenerated (receives the Holy Spirit). Or other passages where salvation is by faith.
The average congregation also places the Body of Christ under law in various ways as well.
There is no altar to go before, we as believers are to present our requests to God by prayer and supplication. However, the average congregations has an altar, but the body of Christ is not directed to have an altar, we go directly before God's throne with our prayers.
We are to share with those in need, not tithe, according to the new testament Epistles specifically addressing the Body of Christ under grace not law.
I hope this helps some brothers and sisters struggling to find a doctrinally sound congregation to gather with. One is not unsaved because they are not attending a church. Sound Churches are difficult to find today, so much false doctrine has been allowed in and most congregations are not seemingly concerned about removing those false teachers, let alone even dare to speak up against them.
We at least have to be able to say amen to most of what is taught and a sound Gospel and how one is saved is absolutely critical, or a congregation could be full of unsaved people mixed with saved ones and with a lack of sound teaching most would never know who is saved, etc.
I agree, I was slightly put off by that comment regarding attendance, while my family and I would love to find a good church to attend we've been unsuccessful and yet we have grown in Christ immensely studying the word together, listening to sermons online and praying together as a family. To be called not a Christian while doing all these things just because we are not attending a church currently seems like an extreme statement in my opinion.
I'm just spitballing here, but it seems to me that if you are arguing KJV only that you're being intellectually lazy. With all of the available resource materials such as books and translation software, let alone the excellent scholarship available to us, we should all be learning from the original languages. Why settle for any translation? Any translation should only be a starting point, not an ending point.
Not only intellectually lazy but anti-intellectual… being in this movement for 10 years, I can testify that they call seminaries “cemeteries”.
“Going deep” in the Scriptures essentially meant you took some dispensational typology to the extreme and then everybody is amazed at your brilliance. But actually become educated on the scriptures and you are enemy number 1.
Because not all of us have the time, means or ability to learn two (or 3, if you include Aramaic) completely new languages, especially when you consider that there are several wonderful translations in our own language that we can use. Please do try to not be condescending to those of us that don’t know Hebrew and Greek. Not to mention, it takes years to learn the basics of even one language, let alone two- plus learning all the nuances of the language, and mastering it enough to read and study the original forms. It’s not as simple as “just learn the originals”.
@@k80.01 I’m not against the lay pastor not knowing original languages. What I am against is them “poo-pooping” anyone who desires to do so.
@@k80.01 no judgement but study to show thyself approved. I don't have all the time in the world either but yet I do the best that I can that's all it should be expected
@@classicchristianliterature I have currently been dealing with the anti-intellectual movement. I'm smart but I'm not an intellectual. It's amazing how people don't trust experts. Using our discernment we should be able to tell who's trying to make a buck and who's trying to clear up issues.
They all are different which one is correct? First thing Satan did was to attack the word of God and that's what these different versions do.
King James only are a solid bunch. James 1:8 kjv. Why would you want to wish to change that? scripture is scripture. Ah... liberalism.
I don't get it. Why couldn't you teach from KJV pulpit while modifying the meanings according to your views. I see preachers do this all the time.
I have done this many, many times. It is part of the solution-a step toward it. But uses of Scripture in a church go far beyond preaching. There's private reading, for example: in a KJV-Only context, the very people who most need to read God's Word in their own English are the ones whose consciences are most bound to the KJV.
@@markwardonwords Have you done interviews with preachers who moved from CT bibles to TR bibles? It would make an interesting comparison.
@@WgB5 Yes and no. I’ve spoken to dozens of such men and heard/read from far more. I’m not opposed to this idea. I did just invite such a person for a related interview.
You don't consider me a christian because I don't attend church yet you believe in the Trinity. A 3 headed god. Not fair.
For all those who get caught up in this claim of KJV only you are not in a cult. You just do not have the knowledge needed to know what is presented against the KJV is not accurate. Mark Ward is about changing words that are not easily understood today, and if that were the only problem then I agree, but the question is what should be translated into English. So, the evidence that certain passage should be translated into English for those who look at it is clear. This is what scholars do they look at the evidence and listen to reason about the various pieces of evidence and make those decisions. Most of us do not have the education to do what scholars do, and so do not use your lack as a reason to despair of this issue. I say use the KJV and be thankful that you live in a nation were you get to choose from the NASB, BSB, ESV, NRSV, KJV, and even the Geneva Bible. The reason I say be thankful because in North Korea it is illegal to even own a Bible much less to preach the gospel, and it is only because you live here in the USA that this discussion or debate is even possible. So, again I say be thankful that we live in a nation were this KJV only-ism as Mark Ward and others call it happens, because we could be leaving in a nation were simply being a Christian can lead to persecution.
I agree! I'm grateful to have the freedom to read the Bible, in whatever English translation! And I agree that mainstream KJV-Onlyism is not a cult.
At the 17 minutes mark the dude stated he didn't want the New World Translation, but the NIV, ESV, NASV, are in bed with the NWT. I thought this video was great; in that, a man failed to establish himself as the final authority for a church.
If I remember history correctly, the split came from those who opposed the KJV which had been the standard for almost 300 years. That crowd, which you represent were the first ones to insist that people should give up the KJV and follow them! So, who is doing the splitting? And what has this apostasy produced? Laodicea! God forbid that we would think that the Philadelphian church age had anything to do with an absolute authority! This is the blind leading the blind!
The standard is not, "Use this translation forever." The standard is, "Use a translation into the vernacular language, so the plow boy can know God's Word better than a bishop." The KJV no longer meets that standard. It isn't incredibly far off, but it's far enough off that it's time for a revision.
@@markwardonwords Well, if that is the reason, then can you please tell me which version in English accomplishes this mission?
@@PerSon-b8eThere are many. I tend to default to the ESV.
@@markwardonwords Ok, so there's where the problem is Mark. When you tell me that the ESV or any other modern translation just update the language of the KJV, but then it has missing verses and missing words, your premise is not only exposed as false and misleading, but you lose all credibility, because obviously you're not unaware of these differences. This means that your real reasons are not to update the language, so poor uneducated Americans can read the hard to understand language of the KJV in a modern language.
@@PerSon-b8eMy 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.
What's wrong with KJV only? We didn't have 500+ versions of the Bible in the past. I do not understand the problem. I also read the Geneva Bible 😁 What I find much worse is that they removed the Apocrypha.
Apokrypha is not god’s word
@@Samy-sx6kn And who determines that?
This is very interesting:
If Sirach was Good enough for Jesus, why isn't it good enough for his followers?
ua-cam.com/video/7yRMBQMs6fs/v-deo.html
The Great Protestant Coverup Part 1
ua-cam.com/video/eEneyCy4QMY/v-deo.html
KJV-Onlyism is wrong on many levels. Most fundamentally: it divides Christ's body by creating a doctrine (that only the KJV is trustworthy) that the Bible does not teach.
@@markwardonwords
I also have a Geneva bible and even an old Douay-Rheims 1899. All three still use the word Lucifer. In many bibles that has been replaced by morning star, and I don't understand that.
@Eelco B
Lucifer isn’t Satan’s name
The opposite of KJV only- ism is Alexandrian only-ism, they're both bad
I don't know anyone who insists on the exclusive use of a critical-text Bible.
@@markwardonwords Most of modern translationers including you, keep trying to crush the KJV, I'm not KJV-only, but I respect it as the grandfather of all the others; Please do a video about the KJVER, Peace
I love the KJB. I am reading through it yet again this year. Not trying to crush it. I oppose KJV-Onlyism. And I really do need to do a video on the KJVER!
oddly years ago when I was a NKJV user.. periodically... I would hear of families leaving this church or that church for the church Not being a KJV only church. .and wonder what is up with that...
Now I look at families.. who Don't leave a church for Not being a KJV only church and wonder what is up with that...
I commend the families.. who leave churches for Not preaching out of the KJV...perhaps more pastors need to get on board with the KJV.. and NOT follow in the footsteps.. of James White.. who I have read and watched.. and get sick over..HIS biases
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
Amen!! Glad to hear a false teacher fail to lead his flock astray!!! You need to stop defiling your Bibles! When you lead people away from scripture you are the divisive ones!!!
How stupid that you think dominating a church and taking away the word is not divisive! I pray that the Lord will chastise you and humble your rebellious hearts
The Bible teaches that edification requires intelligibility. And it does not teach that one and only one translation can be called “the word.” KJV-Onlyism is a divisive new teaching that has developed and grown mostly within my lifetime.
@@markwardonwords Why do you resort to such a bigoted display?
"KJV-Onlyism "
here come from a fleshly perspective resorting to a railing accusation.
What does the apostle Paul Preach?
1 Corinthians 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat."
The nasb calls them verbally abusive. but that is an adjective and not a noun as it would be if consistent even with their style of translating.
As a noun you rail accusations and call people "KJV only".
Now you say this is a teaching within your lifetime? What about these confessional statements?
.The Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland formally states regarding the Westminister Confession - "The Authorised Version has had explicit and implicit Church sanction over many hundreds of years in various countries. It was the version used to support the documents of the Westminster Assembly both in their wording and in their proof texts, and so Presbyterian Churches claiming to hold to these standards ought to acknowledge the Authorised Version appropriately."
"We the church of Jesus Christ being regularly baptised upon the profession of our faith in Christ are convinced the concessive of associate churches. WE BELIEVE THAT THE SCRIPTURES OF THE OLD AND THE NEW TESTAMENTS AS TRANSLATED BY THE AUTHORITY OF KING JAMES TO BE THE WORDS OF GOD AND IS THE ONLY TRUE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE."
The Association of Baptists 25th meeting 1830
WOW!!! Sir you have really aged well!!!
"The Bible teaches that edification requires intelligibility."
creating 200 contradicting translations of the same language is not intelligibility!!!
Especially when your contradicting Bibles are translating from contradicting collations!!
"a divisive new teaching"
new translations are new and therefore the weight of being divisive is upon them.
When you tell me that Jesus did not forgive the woman caught in Adultery. When you claim we are not saved but are being saved so that you can say it is our work of repentance to get saved instead of Christ imputed righteousness.
When You claim that jesus did not say "Forgive them father for they know not what they do.
When you claim that Mark never detailed the reurrection thus leading to the implication that the Gospel of Salvation does not need the resurrection.
When you claim that we pray the Lord's prayer wrongly for including "For thine is the Kingdom and the power and the glory forever Amen"
When you deny that Jesus was hung upon "Mt. Calvary"
When you deny that the trinity is taught in 1st John 5.
When you deny in timothy that God was revealed in human flesh. When you deny that jehovah is the name of God and then deny that Lucifer is the name of God so that you could call Jesus the "daystar". when you consistently use New Translation which "Forget" to translate baptism as Immersion.
When you deny that Jesus is the "only begotten" but say he is unique like he just won a talent show.
When you spend all your time criticizing the King James but ignoring the heresy of the Queen James it is obvious that as you wake up and say "god save the queen" it is obvious that your existence is based upon stirring controversy.
@@matthewsingleton8802 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
Amen!!! Well needed rebuke in today's luke warm church. God is not mocked. People coming against his words will be judged by them.
The cult members on full display..
😅😅😅
😅😅😅😅
The James White book he mentions is a truely great book. It's so sad to see what White has become.
I too appreciated White's King James book - in truth, however, I am familiar with how his ministry has evolved since then
@@dustinburlet7249 When you say "I am familiar", what exactly do you mean? Do you agree with me?
@@LLPOF Sorry . . . that is a typo . . . I meant I am NOT familiar with how the ministry has evolved since then - my apologies for that oversight and resulting confusion
@@dustinburlet7249 np. Just making sure. :-)
James Whites book is full of lies.
You both are over reacting n over analyzing a nebulous term called KJV only. The KJV is s beautiful translation and so are others such as NKJV and NASB.
Just let it go . you are both straining at a gnat
You guys just think too much. I wouldn't waste my time talking with you.
I’m sure the feeling is mutual.