Steven Anderson Was Right, and I Was Wrong
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 гру 2023
- 🎥 The video for which this is a follow-up:
• No, Steven Anderson; t...
🎥 My first "study" video:
• "Study" Doesn't Mean W...
🎥 My second "study" video, the one I think Anderson should watch:
• Answering UA-cam Comm...
🎁 Help me bring the Bible to the plow boy in his own English!
✅ / @markwardonwords
✅ / mlward
✅ buymeacoffee.com/mlward
👏 Many, many thanks to the UA-cam channel members and Patreon supporters who make my work possible!
▶ UA-cam:
Caleb Richardson, PAClassic87 95, James Duly, Deep Dive Discipleship, Todd Bryant, M.A. Moreno, whubertx, Joel Richardson, Thomas Balzamo, Orlando Vergel Jr, ojntk, Eric Couture, Bryon Self, Average Gun Guy, Brad Dixon, Kalah Gonzalez, Derek Ralston, Brent Zenthoefer, Reid Ferguson, Dale Buchanan, James Goering, David Saxon, Travis Manhart, Josiah Dennis, judy couchman, Kimberly Miller, Jonathan Clemens, Tim Gresham, Robert Daniels, Tiny Bibles, ThatLittleBrownDog, Gregory Chase, Robert Gifford, GEN_Lee_Accepted, Lanny Faulkner, Benjamin Randolph
▶ PATREON:
Andy B, Meghan, Deborah Reinhardt, Desert Cross Tortoise Fox, Robert Daniels, Rick Erickson, Lanny M Faulkner, Lucas Key, Dave Thawley, William McAuliff, Razgriz, James Goering, Edward Woods, Thomas Balzamo, Brent M Zenthoefer, Tyler Rolfe, Ruth Lammert, Gregory Nelson Chase, Caleb Farris, Jess English, Aaron Spence, John Day, Brent Karding, Steve McDowell, A.A., James Allman, Steven McDougal, Henry Jordan, Nathan Howard, Rich Weatherly, Joshua Witt, M.L., Luc + Eileen Shannon, Easy_Peasy, Jeremy Steinhart, Steve Groom, Corey Henley, Larry Castle, Luke Burgess, Joel, Joshua Bolch, Tyler Harrison, Angela Ruckman, Nathan N, Bryan Wilson, David Peterson, Eric Mossman, Jeremiah Mays, Caleb Dugan, Donna Ward, James D Leeper, Dennis Kendall, Michelle Lewis, Lewis Kiger, Dustin Burlet, Michael Butera, Miguel Lopez, CRB, Dean C Brown, MICHAEL L DUNAVANT, Jess Mainous, Joshua Barzon, Benjamin Randolph
▶ BUY ME A COFFEE:
Someone (5x), Caleb, Scott, Darlene, Kayla, Sarah, Adam, Cody, Phil, Alan, John, Anirudh, Ben, Papa D, Robert
Bless you for owning this, Mark.
This is how it’s done folks. What a truly great example. Humbleness and Meekness. Thanks for your conduct, character, and content Dr. Ward.
Or...... he's a deceiver! If what he says at the 7:09 mark about "just quarrelling over words ", then what is the point of even having a Bible? If God can't preserve his words, then how would ever truly know what to believe? It ends up being total foolishness and a waste of time. But, God did preserve his word, and he did it purely, 100%. And I trust him for that.
@@JOHNch4.v.v.7to10 The danger that Paul is warning about in 1 Tim 6:4 is one that can occur within the context of discussing Scripture. The “unhealthy craving for controversy” (ESV) can occur in the context of discussing the Holy Scriptures. Dr. Ward is rightly bringing up this verse because he acknowledges it can be a danger in these matters and he wants to be conscientious of that. I appreciate him for responsibly handling Scripture.
@@tinybibles First and foremost, the ESV are not the Holy Scriptures. Here's how 1st Timothy 6:3-5 truly reads:
"If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome WORDS, even the WORDS of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the DOCTRINE which is according to godliness;
He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes OF WORDS, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of THE TRUTH, supposing that gain is godliness: FROM SUCH WITHDRAW THYSELF."
God's pure words have been twisted since the garden of Eden, and it takes the spiritually discerning believer to recognize the voice of the Father and the Son.
Quote: "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:” - Jesus (John 10:27)
@@JOHNch4.v.v.7to10 I'm pretty sure that 1 Timothy 6.3-6 actually reads like this:
*This is what you are to teach and preach. Anyone who teaches otherwise, and does not devote himself to sound precepts-that is, those of our Lord Jesus Christ-and to good religious teaching, is a pompous ignoramus with a morbid enthusiasm for mere speculations and quibbles. They give rise to jealousy, quarrelling, slander, base suspicions, and endless wrangles-all typical of those whose minds are corrupted and who have lost their grip of the truth. They think religion should yield dividends; and of course religion does yield high dividends, but only to those who are content with what they have.* (REB)
It also reads like this:
*This is the sort of thing you should teach, and if anyone tries to teach some doctrinal novelty which is not compatible with sound teaching (which we base on Christ’s own words and which leads to Christ-like living), then he is a conceited idiot! His mind is a morbid jumble of disputation and argument, things which lead to nothing but jealousy, quarrelling, insults and malicious innuendoes-continual wrangling, in fact, among men of warped minds who have lost their real hold on the truth but hope to make some profit out of the Christian religion. There is a real profit, of course, but it comes only to those who live contentedly as God would have them live.* (JBP)
Like this, too:
*This is what you are to teach them to believe and persuade them to do. Anyone who teaches anything different, and does not keep to the sound teaching which is that of our Lord Jesus Christ, the doctrine which is in accordance with true religion, is simply ignorant and must be full of self-conceit - with a craze for questioning everything and arguing about words. All that can come of this is jealousy, contention, abuse and wicked mistrust of one another; and unending disputes by people who are neither rational nor informed and imagine that religion is a way of making a profit. Religion, of course, does bring large profits, but only to those who are content with what they have.* (JB)
And it even kinda reads like this:
*These are the things I want you to teach and preach. If you have leaders there who teach otherwise, who refuse the solid words of our Master Jesus and this godly instruction, tag them for what they are: ignorant windbags who infect the air with germs of envy, controversy, bad-mouthing, suspicious rumors. Eventually there’s an epidemic of backstabbing, and truth is but a distant memory. They think religion is a way to make a fast buck. A devout life does bring wealth, but it’s the rich simplicity of being yourself before God.* (MSG)
If there's anything better than irony, it's honesty and humility, and you've admirably displayed those qualities here.
well said - amen and amen
🤣
Interesting, and thanks for the humility displayed by both men , I hope to see more of this kind of exchange with Stephen Anderson.
Hey Mark thank you for your sincerity and humility. Thank you also for your hard work on these issues. Most of us have picked a side and not really concerned ourselves with reaching out to the other. Good work, sir.
Very humble and admirable. Well done brother.
There's something really off about this video. UA-cam apology videos are supposed to be self-serving, insincere, and defensive. You may have to try again...
Ok, I will!
haha - that is great :-)
Anderson is unsaved, a liar. His 9/11 lies are evil. Anti Jewish, etc. I used to believe him. Some lgbt can be saved. He threatened President Obama lol wth??!!
@@markwardonwords if u follow steven anderson u will go to hel with him. hes a liar. wolf in sheeps clothing.
@@markwardonwordsur still rong! So is steve
You're a good man and honor our King. Walking in a manner worthy of His name can be a hard road at times. But He bids us all to come and die with Him along this pilgrim path. I'm sure this pleases Him immensely. Appreciate you sir!
Mark, despite your critics you have given an appreciation for the KJV. This more than KJV Onlyist have done.
It comes down to pure words vs. corrupt words. It's one thing to not know about the bible issue, but a whole other issue to correct God's word.
That is why we KJV only people get fired up, when people correct God's pure word.
Exactly! @@KJBTRUTH
In the seventeenth century "he be to be" simply meant "if he should be". There's a line in Foxe's book of Martyrs where a woman asks a bishop "If He be to be worshipped in spirit and in truth, why do you worship a piece of bread?"
Stephen was right about the wafer worshippers as well. Superstition is not divinely ordained, you don’t have to eat fish on Friday or pray to a dead saint to help you find your lost car keys.
Thanks for being a good example of what to do when we make a mistake!
Ironically, the more I read this verse the more I like the subjunctive phrasing, "he be to be put to death" which may be the first time I've liked a typo. Lol. 😂
Me too… 👍
It’s not a typo
@@EveretteMoonit’s 66 and 2/3rds percent possible that you’re right
Is there a marked up copy of the draft KJV text as it was edited at the reading out loud stage of editing?
You are a very kind and gracious man, Brother Mark.✝️📖🙏🤍
Thanks for your transparency and integrity!
I appreciate your humility. Thanks for being a great example to everyone!
Thank you for your humility. I really appreciate your channel. Thank you for your work!
Where do you find that Bishop's Bible with the hand writing of the King James translators? Is that online?
Even when Mark Ward gets something wrong, somehow you still end up loving the guy more! Lol
Mark, how can those Bishops Bible pages be viewed?
Watch for the news on Text and Canon.
Brother ward, I've been meaning to ask and am really curious. Where do I go to see that bishops bible that the KJV translators used for notes.
There is another reference to it in a book I was given by Jack Elroy and it was supposed to be MS 98 where John Bois, a KJV translator, made notes in a Bishops Bible. Tried finding it but Google didn't help me.
I'll point you to my good friend Tim Berg's article: textandcanon.org/a-newly-digitized-bible-reveals-the-origins-of-the-king-james-version/
@@markwardonwords nice, I got it. Thank you very much. :)
@@markwardonwords u better not believe in Anderson's OSAS crap!
I'm so glad you were humble in accepting your error on certain things in your previous video. It's always good to listen to other people's views before you come to a full decision on something:
Proverbs 18:13 & 17 - "If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame. The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him."
I hope that God continues to bless your channel, as I do believe that the KJV-Only movement has produced unnecessary division in the body of Christ and I believe your videos are helping people to understand the KJV better, as well as the area of textual criticism and the manuscript history of the New Testament, as well as other translations and how they're not the work of the devil, like plenty of KJV-Only people believe in and I myself used to believe in when I was younger, because I didn't look at the other side of the issue.
Well said.
Mark, the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible edited by David Norton, 2006 edition I have, contains the “and he be to be” phrase. Norton compared the original mss and translators notes as well as standardized spelling. If this was a typo I would’ve expected him to have found it and corrected it. I don’t think it was a typo. I think you were right.
I would agree with you, but there is always the possibility for human error, whether it be on Norton's part, the translators' part, or the original printer's part. (Of course, that's why insisting upon the KJV's absolute perfection is a problematic endeavor in the first place. If even the "autographs" aren't right, let alone the "copies," then where is this King James Version that everyone insists is perfect? As the KJVOs themselves often ask me, "Where's a perfect Bible that I can hold in my hand?")
You're both right! And I did mention Norton, didn't I? I forget now!
@@markwardonwords Yes, you did. 5:35
@@MAMoreno Sometimes they prefer the handwritten revision of the translators, other times they prefer the way it was printed in 1611 and sometimes they prefer what the Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic says.... But one thing I consistent....whichever they choose to go with....always supports whatever the 1769 Blaney KJV says....and just happens to affirm what the KJV only people say. They choose whatever will mean they are still right. It's that simple.
Thank you! It’s not a typo
But this makes the case for the necessity of modern translations even more relevant, and especially going back to the original Hebrew for clarification.
Classy move. Respect.
Love your channel brother. Glad I made it on, one way or another (in the last video) 🤗😆
✔
@@markwardonwordssuck up
You are a good man! Thanks for modeling honesty and humility
Where can I access Steven Anderson's response video. I'm curious to see it - especially since I thought his UA-cam channel was shut down?
His Faithful Word Baptist Church channel is still up.
His new channel gets shut down every week. Get it while it's hot!
Mark, are you fluent in the English of the Authorised Version?
Close, I suppose!
@@markwardonwords Do you understand the word custom or the grammar in the following verse:
I Corinthians 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
Thankyou for your time and attention to this question.
This may be far out there but perhaps this may begin to build a bridge between believers on this issue. Much respect to you Mark.
It happens, brother. It's a mark of great integrity to admit, publicly, when you may have missed the mark. That's not common nowadays
God bless you for your honesty! The Lord is glorified in it, and your witness is bolstered. Be encouraged and glad!
Thank you for your humility. Even in your mistakes, there is much to learn from.
Good response. Love to see your humility and willingness to admit an error.
Despite his... issues, I've found that Steven Anderson is a lot sharper than most people give him credit for.
What verse is it?
Dt 21:22
Step right up folks! As you pass, behold the two exhibits: Anderson and Ward! James 3:13-17. Seems pretty clear to me that we have two great examples of the difference between godly wisdom and worldly wisdom. As so many comments say, thank you Mark for your godly, meek spirit.
The humility of your corrections speaks more to your character than the errors themselves.
I appreciate your correction video.
Well said. I still do not agree with Stephen that it is a typo. I have never thought it was. Perhaps I'll watch his video if I have time. God bless!❤
I greatly appreciate your humility, brother. I still think you're right, but, even if you aren't, I would still be glad to have watched your videos and considered the archaic syntax.
I appreciate that!
After examining the text, I believe it is not a typo but the words in Deuteronomy 21:22 "and he be to be put to death" makes perfect sense. We today would say " and if he is to be put to death" the first word "be" in that statement could be used as a synonym for the word "is". Just like in English today we have the same word but different meanings. Not complicated at all it makes good sense as it is written in the text.
wauw, respect levels went up for you man! subscribed!
I really respect you for this one. Going back to the Hebrew, let me suggest I would have translated this, "and if it should happen a man sins and it is judged to death and he should be killed and hung . . " A helping verb seems to help the English along with the modalistic nature of a law code.
As to your last point, you are dead right. The issue isn't elitism, this is an area you have to do the work, and that is why I don't debate text crit with someone who can't read Koine, they have an obligation to do the work if they want to be considered competent in such a technical field.
Thank you for your humility and transparency.
Mark, I certainly appreciate your making of this video, as it is a model of true Christian charity and humility! It also teaches your viewership a lesson to do our own study and verification of information presented to us, especially on the internet. We all want to give wholesale acceptance of information that is from "our side" or that supports our own thoughts. "Trust but verify" as the slogan goes. Certainly some good lessons learned from this one! Thank you.
Right! The hardest part for me was not being embarrassed in front of Steven Anderson but letting down people who trusted me. =(
@@markwardonwords No, if anything, you gained more of my trust and that of many others, I'm sure! If you stay true to the Lord, to His Word, and to the call of edifying your brothers and sisters with your God-given talents, you'll have great success!
Love your humbleness, and your content is great for my uneducated learning.
Props brother. Appreciate you admitting wrong. No one is above reproof.
Due to your humility in this video you have earned another subscription. It would be nice to see all Christian interactions take this approach.
This speaks to your honorable character.
Much respect! O, that others showed such deference, humility, and restraint! Plow on!
I had to go back and watch the old video. It's rare, and strongly to your credit, to see a video creator publish a retraction. I honestly would have made exactly the same mistake. I probably wouldn't have checked a commentary, since it looks so much like it should be a subjunctive. Their handwriting, though....is beyond me.
Thanks for being so honest
I appreciate your video apologizing and your humbleness to be corrected.
This is why I trust your videos because I know if you got something wrong you will tell me.
We are all human Mark! That is why we switched to Roman Type; updating for intelligibility. Sounds familiar? Even Germany begrudgingly made the change; eventually.
Ha! Right!
I have so much respect for people who admit they were wrong. This is my biggest frustration with people, so I have much respect for you. You have a sub from me
I'm honored. Pray for me!
Amen! Thank you for making this video.
The fact you mentioned your error is a big plus for me. Thanks for the humility. 👍
I saw this video and was like, “wait…THE Steven Anderson? Steven Anderson Steven Anderson? He’s banned, how can it be THAT Steven Anderson Mark is addressing? Ohhhh, Facebook.” Yep, that’s the one you’ve been “dialoguing” with. Great video.
I am proud of you Mark - this is an exceptionally good video demonstrating Christian charity and the fruit of the Spirit
Your point "why would God in His providence allow a printer to mess up what he made perfect" etc is excellent!
The comparison between textual criticism and such is also superb
I hope to see it's appearance (in whatever form you think fit) in the second edition of Authorized
Good job on the ending of the video too - well done!
Bravo!
I missed that, because I know the verse so well in NIV. So I knew it referred to the means of insulting a corpse.
And I knew both Peter and Paul relate being hanged on a tree to being under God's curse, NOT to the cause of death. And both bring out the fact that Jesus bore our curse.
Certain translations substitute "on a cross" to replace "on a tree". This PREVENTS the reader from seeing the connection with, and the fulfillment of, Deuteronomy 21:23.
:--}>
Translations typically stick with "tree" in Galatians 3.13 (with the notable exception of the NIV, which uses "pole" both here and in Deuteronomy 21.22-23). But you're right that 1 Peter 2.24 is often translated without any attempt to echo the Deuteronomy passage, even in otherwise excellent translations. (Modern English Bibles that do use "tree" here include the RSV, NKJV, ESV, NET, CSB, and LSB.)
@@MAMoreno Thanks. I just checked the Greek. The word is more general, "wood", any object made of wood. So I was wrong, but you had already replied when I came to fix it. I seem to remember that there maybe is another word which does mean "tree", specifically.
If he be to be put to death is just if he is to be put to death. But i believe there are some typing errors in kjv. Pastor Jonathan Shelly showed two examples in a short video he uploaded.
Good preacher accepts correction. I salute you.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Where is his response video?
He currently has a channel called "Baptist Jiu-Jitsu Fighting." Will it last? Who knows?
This makes me think of Acts 5:30, which the KJV mistranslates as "whom ye slew *and* hanged on a tree." Wonder if this was an attempt at parallelization with the O.T. concept of hanging for exposure, as Deut 21:22.
A worthy hypothesis.
As a King James only onlyist, I give no weight to how modern versions read. However, I find it ironic that you have totally avoided the fact that every modern version makes the clear distinction that the hanging on the tree is done as a display following death.
I read kjv 1st. Then niv 2nd. Kjv has too much weird wording. No such thing as kjv only ism!
You're an example, Mark!
Also, I just came across a translation variation that I can't figure out. In the KJV, Proverbs 12:26 says,
"The righteous is more excellent than his neighbour: but the way of the wicked seduceth them."
But the NKJV says,
"The righteous should choose his friends carefully, For the way of the wicked leads them astray."
I don't know if you've already covered this before, but I'd love to get your thoughts!
The KJV's original marginal notes offer "abundant" as an alternative to "excellent." (In either case, "excellent" should be understood as "Of great virtue," as in Samuel Johnson's 1755 dictionary). The Coverdale Bible of 1535 instead reads, "The righteous is liberal unto his neighbor," an interpretation supported by the marginal note in the Geneva Bible (which agrees with the KJV's "excellent" in the text). The Revised Version of 1881 says, "The righteous is a guide to his neighbour." So we know that we have a verse that is hard to translate.
The word in question is a Hebrew verb that the KJV tends to translate as "search" or "spy." So that explains the NKJV's interpretation: the righteous person "spies out" a friend to avoid being taken in by a wicked person. But the metaphor might mean that the righteous person "searches out" the good of a friend even at a personal cost (which is how the Vulgate interprets it). It doesn't help that other ancient translations of the verse don't agree with each other, either. It's a very obscure passage.
To illustrate how hard it is to peg down, consider the following line of direct revisions:
RSV (1952): A righteous man turns away from evil
NRSV (1989): The righteous gives good advice to friends
NRSVue (2021): The righteous are released from misfortune
Each of them include the note, "Meaning of Heb uncertain," and the NRSV says that it is following the old Syriac translation. Meanwhile, the ESV goes back to the RV reading mentioned above: "One who is righteous is a guide to his neighbor."
All of this is to say that you picked one of the most obscure lines in the Bible. Thankfully, the second half of the verse is pretty clear.
@@MAMoreno Thank you!! That helps :)
If anyone is having trouble understanding the double version, ie to be to be, think of the second to be as part of a phrase: to be put to death, and then read it as if it has quotes: to be "to be put to death". Thankfully, whatever it is in reality, it doesn't change anything theologically.
Yes, that was my argument! A good way to put it!
@@markwardonwords Thanks. When I was listening to the first video, I would "get it" sometimes when you said it and not others but then I managed to work out what you meant using the above way of thinking about it, possibly from something that you said later in the video.
You are a true example of meekness and humility
Respect++
Is revelation 22:18-19 unforgivable or could one repent of convicted
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." (Revelation 22:18-19)
My friend, no evangelical I know of is doing these things. I have to urge you to read Dirk Jongkind's little book on the history of the text of the New Testament. I suspect you don't quite understand what you're asking, though I mean no offense:
www.amazon.com/dp/1433564092?tag=3755-20
@@markwardonwords no brother I’m asking because I done it in my youth when I was texting someone
@@jordanc1910 I see! I'm so sorry I misunderstood! Yes, you can repent from any sin except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Make it right with that person, if possible, and with God.
@@markwardonwords ok thanks brother
@@markwardonwords it says God will take that persons part out of the book of life I take it He would restore it or withhold the punishment if They repented though that is entirely up to God. His forgiveness is based upon His choice and character alone
Well done
Thank you, brother.
Hey, I just had a look in the toxic gossip train, and Mark was not aboard.
Look again. Search for "racist" in these comments. He hopped right in, and found one of the best seats.
You're forgiven.
Well done. Recognize the error, without trying to erase it.
"I may have enough Senators for impeachment..." 😅 Boy is this going to be clearly marked as being of our day and age...
Mark, have you checked the Douay-Rheims, the Peshitta and the Septuagint? The KJV is not the only Bible that hints at a more complex construction here. I'm 99.9% sure this is not a typo.
I did check the Septuagint and the Vulgate. The LXX doesn't give support to the KJV reading. The Vulgate kind of does. It says, "When a man commits a sin worthy of death, **and is condemned to die** and hanged on the gallows."
You should debate Jay Dyer on Sola Scriptura, and the canon of scripture. If you don't know who that is, just search "Jay Dyer Orthodox."
Absolutely shocking the kinds of vile comments the Anderson fans make about Mark.
Y don’t you cry about it more.
Cry more
KJV doesn't have the word "Sovereign" in the text. ESV inserts the word "sovereign" into Rev 6:10 & Acts4:24. Is there anything in the original language that constitutes the decision to add this word? A mistake or biases. Love your videos.
Yes, there is. The Greek word could be translated "Lord" (or "lord" depending on the context), but it is *not* the standard, common word for "Lord" or "lord." The standard word is kurios. The word the ESV translators translate with "Sovereign lord" is despotes. They're trying to make a distinction. The NET Bible tries to do the same with "Master of All." The ESV translators had a reason for what they did.
rest easy brother in the knowledge that few give a shi, and in 100 years even fewer
No matter what side you're on the fact he instead of defending something that cant be defended, or using deception, he instead apologized and admitted he was wrong and explained why and gave the other side credit which is at least commendable within itself.
Anderson may be a railer and a ranter without balance or self control but he is fiercely intelligent and a good scholar.
He's a smart guy, genuinely smart.
Hi Mark. Let me help you with your second point. You were wrong about Deuteronomy 21:22 suggesting death by hanging, but you're still right that "to be put to death" is there by design and not a typo. The most notable precedent to the KJV rendering is the Vulgate, which says, "et adiudicatus morti adpensus fuerit in patibulo", which is "and having been condemned to death and hanged on the gallows". English translations based on the Vulgate are helpful: "and being condemned to die is hanged on a gibbet:" (Douay-Rheims). "and he is demed to deeth, and is hangid in a iebat" (Wycliffe Bible). The Vulgate tradition interprets the passive causative action of the Hophal verb as requiring an intermediate causative step (i.e. condemnation, deliberation). Deuteronomy 21:22 with the passive causative construction translated most literally would be "and he is caused to be put to death". The KJV rendering is a more elliptical variation of this passive causative construction. The Vulgate is more dynamic by suggesting condemnation as the causative step. So you were wrong, but Steven is more wrong. ;-)
Super helpful. I do believe the Vulgate ought to figure in my deliberations more often. I read Latin like it’s bad transliterated Greek, so I’m slow at it. The niceties escape me. Wish that weren’t so-took Latin in eighth grade.
This is the answer to this whole dilemma. Good stuff.
@@markwardonwords As is shown in the Translators to the Readers, the KJV translators highly respected Jerome and even Catholic scholarship, saying (about making English Bibles), "Nay, if it must be translated into English, Catholics are fittest to do it. They have learning, and they know when a thing is well...." The KJV translators just had beef against the Catholics for keeping the word in Latin. So the KJV translators were not anti-Vulgate. They were just anti-Vulgate-Onlyism. So there is quite a lot of Vulgate influence in the KJV where the translators agreed with the Vulgate readings. They were Anglicans who esteemed Church tradition and Apostolic succession. The Vulgate-influence is down-played by today's KJV supporters, many of whom are IFB and promote the mistaken notion that the TR is the Majority Text (when in fact the TR is a sort of critical text that attempted to combine readings from the West and East wherever there was Patristic support). Given the KJV translators' view of the Vulgate, it remains the key to understanding some of the translation choices in the KJV.
@@masaomorinaga6412 I'm completely with you. Excellent comment.
You should be proud of your humility... no, wait... 🙂
Admittedly, I have not watched the original video, but I can work out fairly well what it must have been about.
Anyway, kudos to you, Mark, for coming clean and admitting your error(s).
Steven Anderson is a very intelligent man. I believe that he is misled and deceived in his conviction of the perfection of the KJV. Very sadly so.
Fully agreed. A gifted guy.
66 and 2/3% probable? I was thinking more like 65.25 % probable.
666
I hate the term but it applies, gaslighting. Anderson is very good at coming at you hard over minutia to make you doubt yourself. His insane fanboys dial up the pressure. You showed sincerity and humility, but it will not be reciprocated. I think misreading the handwriting is somewhat trivial and the thrust of your original argument still stands.
Here is another possible line of inquiry if you want to study this further: Did you know that the Wycliff bible translates it as "is deemed to death"? Anderson invokes the Geneva and Bishop's Bibles but neglects to mention the Wycliff.
Wycliffe Bible Duet. 21:22 "Whanne a man doith a synne which is worthi to be punyschid bi deeth, and he is demed to deeth, and is hangid in a iebat,".
I am not sure what the rational behind this alternate translation is - either a connotation with the Hebrew word, or the translators inferring by the context - but I think the KJV translators were probably using the same reasoning.
Edit: I see that someone earlier in the comments pointed this out with a pretty thorough explanation.
@@josemoody1743 The point is it shows "to be" was intentional, not accidental, whatever the reasoning behind it.
It takes a lot to admit your mistakes.
I'm concerned to have learnt about a serious problem with the KJV and NKJV. I have inherited my grandmother's 1984 NKJV, published by Thomas Nelson.
At the end of his revelation, John calls on God to act against anyone who changes that book. This is where the problem lies. Thanks to scholars sharing their work, I have learned that Erasmus changed tree of life, to book of life in Revelation 22:19. Evidently by doing so he both added and took away, not only from the book but from the very words of the curse. And by doing so he put himself under that curse, unless God would have accepted his pleas for forgiveness. Thomas Nelson by perpetuating this offence has also put itself under the curse, and so my Bible is in the shadow of John's curse.
This is not good.
NKJV Revelation 22: 18 For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life [NU, M tree], from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Here's a note from the NET translation about the "Book of Life" rendering in the KJV and NKJV:
"The Textus Receptus, on which the KJV rests, reads “the book” of life (ἀπὸ βίβλου, apo biblou) instead of “the tree” of life. When the Dutch humanist Desiderius Erasmus translated the NT he had access to no Greek manuscript for the last six verses of Revelation. So he translated the Latin Vulgate back into Greek at this point. As a result he created seventeen textual variants which were not in any Greek manuscript. The most notorious of these is this reading. It is thus decidedly inauthentic, while “the tree” of life, found in the best and virtually all Greek manuscripts, is clearly authentic. The confusion was most likely due to an intra-Latin switch: The form of the word for “tree” in Latin in this passage is ligno; the word for “book” is libro. The two-letter difference accounts for an accidental alteration in some Latin manuscripts; that “book of life” as well as “tree of life” is a common expression in the Apocalypse probably accounts for why this was not noticed by Erasmus or the KJV translators."
I sincerely admire your willingness to admit your error but I wonder how many times Mr Anderson and other KJV onlyist apologize for their mistakes like you did in this video.All the more this plowboy would look forward to more informative and edifying videos.
I also preach here in Bremen (Germany) against homosexuality, among other things, and have therefore been spat on many times and my signs have been destroyed or stolen by Antifa and gays. But I have also had countless, loving and sensitive conversations with lesbians and gays at CSD events, where I was able to tell them about the love of God in Christ and make it clear to them that the Lord Jesus has come not for the healthy, but for the sick because I want to win them for the Lord. With these hate preachers, everyone notices that they have no interest in winning people to the Lord, but that they are self-righteous and complacent and feel happy in the role of "martyrs". May the Lord have mercy on them by humiliating and chastising them (Rev.3:19)!
I pray now for your success in bringing the gospel to needy people, and in standing strong on God’s word!
If I understand correctly Anderson's position, he believes that what the Authorized Version of 1611 that the translators immediately produced is perfect and inerrant word of God, but that right away upon its publications by a printer (who is not one of the translators) errors were introduced to the text. And now that those perfect words are contained not in one single edition that has remained continually in print from 1611 until today, but among all the various editions of the KJV, all of which have some errors and typos in them, and it is only by their comparison we can get to what the translators originally put out, which "edition zero" is now lost us.
How is that functionally different than believing that what God immediately breathed out through the prophets and the apostles in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek is perfect and inerrant, but that right away upon first hand-copy (by a person other than the prophets and the apostles) errors were introduced to the text; and now those perfect words are contained not in one single manuscript (or line of manuscripts) that has remained continually in transmission from the 1st century until today, but among all the various manuscripts of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Scriptures, all of which have some errors and typos in them, and it is only by their comparison we can get to what the prophets and the apostles originally put out, which "breathed-out-by-God originals" are now lost to us?
Hi Mark, I found the first video to be insightful and this one too. Don’t let Anderson get to you. If this helps, Genesis 6:5 contains an obvious error in the KJV. In fact different editions of the KJV show something interesting.
KJV, “And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”
KJV Cambridge, “And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually”
NKJV, “Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”
Non-Cambridge KJV won’t let you know that the DIVINE Name is used in the verse. But the Cambridge edition admits it but sticks with GOD in all caps which is a middle ground. And the NKJV corrects this! The KJV has God there due to being influenced by the Latin Vulgate.
Yeah, that's an interesting reading in the KJV. The Coverdale and Matthew Bibles got it right, but it was switched from "Lord" to "God" in the Great Bible (which was indeed influenced by the Vulgate in a number of places), and it remained that way in both the Bishops' Bible and KJV. The Geneva Bible caught it and corrected it, though, which is why it's surprising that it slipped by the other committees. It was *not* capitalized in the 1611 edition, but it is capitalized in the old and new Cambridge Paragraph Bibles in addition to their standard text, as you noted. (That's one reason why I consider Cambridge KJVs to be the best. The so-called Oxford text feels less reliable.)
I've found several books from 1400 - 1600 that have the phrase "be to be" including 1563 Foxes Book of Martyrs which says "If He be to be worshipped......."
Since the 1611 printed edition had MANY printer errors in it, and for 158 years after, they were still fixing printer errors....why not accept what the translators own revision note says?
@@hayfieldhermit9657
What revision note?
@@ChurchPhone1611 I assume @hayfieldhermit9657 meant the "revision note" on the page of the Bishops' Bible. Of course, there's no way to confirm whether they changed their minds by the time they finished revising the verse.
@@ChurchPhone1611 What MAMoreno said.
@@MAMoreno You know what's incredible....after spending years in a KJV only church, surrounded by KJV only people....I never knew about the Bishops Bible with the revisions hand written on the pages, and I never knew the translators put over 8k notes in the 1611 edition, and I didn't know it originally contained the Apocrypha, and I didn't know the revisions of the KJV included actual word changes where mistakes were made presumably by printers.... I knew nothing of all that. I learned all that from people who were not KJV only. And that has enabled me to learn more about what the KJV translators thought about many things.
I watched the first video and this one. Kudos to you for putting out the second video. I still believe you are correct about the KJV reading. As a KJV guy, I appreciate your information about this verse. I am also a PBI (Ruckman) graduate from 1984 -- and I would like say that Dr Ruckman did not endorse Anderson, particularly due to his teachings about the modern day state of Israel. Anderson is not the "heir" of Ruckman -- I don't know anyone in the Ruckman brand of KJV-ism that would claim him. (I consider him a nut and a newshound. If you search for Anderson and his encounter with the border patrol and associated videos, you will see what I am talking about, and I believe you will agree.)
Pastor Steven Anderson is the best pastor there is right now! God bless him and his whole family ministry and church!
The man calls for people to kill themselves. Killing yourself is sin in Gods eyes. So he promotes and encourages sin. If he is the best, I would hate to see the worst.
at least you don't raise racist kids
My heart really goes out to the children of shock jock preachers. I pray that their online and pulpit personas don't reflect the way they are with their children at home. I pray they're able to see Christ through any hypocrisy they experience. Not that I myself have proven to be as gentle and patient with my children as my own online persona might suggest. This is a continual grief to me, and something I pray about regularly.
Just wondering what this really is all about. The reason I say that is in Psalm 12:6-7 we are told that every word of God is pure (also in Proverbs 30:5), and in Psalm 119:89 were told that God's word is settled in heaven. Then Jesus says in Matthew 24:35 that his words would never pass away. Then in Psalm 138:2 we see that God magnifies his word even above his own name! So what I find disingenuous is that at the 7:09 minute mark this gentle states that they are only quarrelling about words, as though the words are 2ndary at best. And he states this right after he says that there are uncertainties concerning the scriptures . Interesting, since God doesn't look at any of this that way. Something fishy going on here. Like, maybe planting doubt in the believers mind that maybe God just can't keep all of his promises!
None of the verses you mention say anything about a 17th century Anglican translation of the Bible. In fact, most of them aren't even about the Bible at all...
@@MAMoreno ...oh, thanks, oh wise one that no one knows. That surely settles it for me then, since you pointed it out!! How did I miss that after all of these years? What a Revelation! Thank you, thank you, thank you!!
@@JOHNch4.v.v.7to10 Let's run it down then...
Psalm 12.6 refers to the words of verse 5. And it serves as the key for most of these other verses: they refer to prophecies and promises, not to an established canon of inspired books. Psalm 119 is the one possible exception, as it often uses "word" as a synonym for "law" and could be alluding to the Torah.
In other words, you're taking verses that are about God's truthfulness to covenant promises as expressed in the Scriptures (cf. Rom. 3.4) and trying to make them about the Scriptures themselves as a collection of texts. In doing so, you're detracting from the actual assurances of Scripture and replacing them with the assurance of accurate scribes throughout the ages.
Going back to Psalm 12, it contains one of the most horribly misrepresented verses in this whole discussion. Verse 7 gives us the wonderful promise that the oppressed people of God will be preserved against those who oppose them. But the KJVO movement has repeatedly replaced the protection of God's chosen people with the protection of God's chosen Bible. At that point, you might as well interpret the resurrection of the saints as the resurrection of popularity for the KJV. You've distorted the believer's hope in God.
@@MAMoreno Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools...
(1) Jesus said: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but MY WORDS shall not pass away." (PRESERVATION);
(2) Therefore shall ye lay up these my WORDS in your heart and in your soul, and bind THEM for a sign upon your hand, that they may be as frontlets between your eyes.
And ye shall teach them your children, speaking of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
And thou shalt write THEM upon the door posts of thine house, and upon thy gates:
That your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children, in the land which the LORD sware unto your fathers to give them, as the days of heaven upon the earth. (Preservation & memorization... verbatim.);
(3) Observe and hear all these WORDS which I command thee, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee for ever, when thou doest that which is good and right in the sight of the LORD thy God.;
(4) I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified THY WORD above all thy name.;
(5). FOR EVER, O LORD, THY WORD is settled in heaven.;
(6). Every WORD of God is PURE: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. (THE GOSPEL!)
Add thou not unto HIS WORDS, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar... The WORDS of the LORD are PURE WORDS: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep THEM, O LORD, thou shalt preserve THEM from this generation for ever.; (CONSISTENCY)
(7) “Thus saith the LORD; Stand in the court of the LORD'S house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD'S house, all THE WORDS that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a WORD:”;
(8) Thus saith the LORD, "Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches:
But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight", saith the LORD.;
(9) Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by THE WORD OF God, which liveth and abideth FOR EVER.
24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
But THE WORD OF THE Lord endureth for ever. And this is THE WORD which by the gospel is preached unto you.;
(10) For we are NOT as many, which corrupt THE WORD OF God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
I pray that you repent from your foolishness.
The God of the Holy Scriptures has preserved his word for us. One true God who keeps his promises. Your god is obviously too weak to do so.
@@JOHNch4.v.v.7to10 You destroyed the context of these verses just to make a list of passages that sound like they're talking about the Bible. Big lists of isolated proof texts prove nothing other than the presence of a bad hermeneutic.
And when it's just a wall of decontextualized statements like this, it becomes tedious for anyone responding to you to point out how many of these cases are clearly talking about something other than a canon of Holy Scriptures. Typically, they're talking about the trustworthiness of a particular prophecy or the salvific power of the gospel message when proclaimed aloud.
(The verses from Deuteronomy are an obvious exception, as they refer to specific written texts, but they also don't help your case: they offer a purely natural means for preservation, namely the passing of teachings from one generation to the next. No one who advocates for a particular set of manuscript readings claims that the community of faith has not sincerely tried to preserve these texts over the centuries through memorization and copying. The only question to address is who did it best and how well they managed to do it.)
Excellent! To be quite honest I'm getting tired of this 'argument'.....any translation can be used to lead someone to a saving knowledge of Christ. What I've seen from the KJVO crowd is a lot of arrogance, and haughtiness. For someone to say you've got to use a KJV or a person isn't really saved, or for someone to say that God only inspired the KJV and nothing else is nothing but pride (yes about 40 years ago a preacher told me that God only inspired one translation).
I'm tired of it, too. I don't know when I'll get an honorable discharge from this work. I've tried to move on to other things, but I keep getting drawn by the need so many people have.
@@markwardonwords You were very gracious in your comments even admitting an error.........
This is why we don't ever listen to men. Matthew I6:I6,I7 Flesh and blood can NOT manifest the Truth of God's mysteries.
Only read and allow Father God to lead, guide and teach you. True knowledge, wisdom and understanding.
Christ taught be anxious for nothing. So why do anything with haste?
Dr. Mark Ward quotes his friend, Josiah Dennis: “I do believe in God’s providential preservation of His Word (a view that allows for typos and textual variants), but to say that God chose to preserve it only in the KJV (or any family of manuscripts, etc.) is to be more confident than Scripture itself is on this subject. Scripture declares its being God-breathed in the originals, but there is no verse anywhere that declares that God has preserved His Word for English-speaking people only in the KJV. Let our confidence always be in what Scripture itself declares.”
Dr. Ward agrees with his friend: “That’s it, Josiah. I said something like this in a throwaway digression in the first video. But it deserves more attention, and Josiah has given it that attention. I’ll leave it at that.”
May I suggest that Scripture does not proclaim Scripture as “being God-breathed in the originals.” Scripture does state it is God-breathed (i.e., inspired), but it does not limit inspiration to the originals. If we profess strict adherence to Scripture, we must not say more or less than it says. The “inspired only in the original autographs” concept is based on reasoning and inference and is accepted as orthodoxy, but it is not explicitly stated or even inferred in Scripture. It is purely human ratiocination. In fact, there are solid scriptural grounds for inference in II Timothy 3:15-16 that present-day Scripture is inspired. The question is whether the “holy Scriptures” (v. 15) that Timothy knew are the same as “all Scripture” (v. 16). If so, we can reasonably infer that Timothy had the inspired Scriptures, although not the originals. (Yes, I know the argument that we are dealing with two different Greek words in vv. 15-16, and one refers to the text and the other to the manuscripts. However, the context and flow of thought invalidate this argument.)
Mr. Dennis confidently declares, “. . . [T]here is no verse anywhere that declares that God has preserved His Word for English-speaking people . . . .” He is arguing from the silence of Scripture. Whatever the Scripture says is true, but it does not speak exhaustively. We can compare this to an invented Amishism that nowhere does the Bible say believers should ride in cars or fly in airplanes. We agree that “our confidence always be in what Scripture itself declares,” but we cannot argue from what it does not declare.
This whole debate is skewed and misplaced because it neglects the role of faith. By faith, we accept Scripture’s testimony to its own inspiration (God-breathed). Although it flies in the face of secular human logic regarding cyclic reasoning and self-authentication, we believe it. By faith, we accept that we have the complete canon of Scripture, although there is no Scriptural list. By faith, we believe God has preserved His Word despite an untold number of variants and competing translations. If God can inspire His Word through men of different eras, places, backgrounds, degrees of learning, and vocabularies, it is reasonable to believe He can preserve His Word through all the variants and scholarly confusion. Likewise, it is reasonable to accept by faith the KJV as the inspired, preserved Word of God.
I still think it's right the way it is. Then again I'm kjvo