Meet the Textual Confidence Collective | TCC 1/7
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 лип 2022
- In this inaugural episode of the Textual Confidence Collective (TCC) Podcast you meet us-Mark, Peter, Tim, and Elijah-as we share the personal journeys by which God led us to Textual Confidence. Map out the road to come with us and learn five truths we want you to take away from the coming episodes. Discover why we care, and why you should too.
🎁 Help me end Bible translation tribalism, one plow boy at a time:
✅ / mlward
✅ buymeacoffee.com/mlward
📖 Check out my book, Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible:
amzn.to/2r27Boz
🎥 Watch my Fifty False Friends in the KJV series:
• 50 False Friends in th...
👏 Many, many thanks to the Patreon supporters who make my work possible!
Name, James Duly, Robert Gifford, Lanny M Faulkner, Lucas Key, Dave Thawley, William McAuliff, Razgriz, James Goering, Eric Couture, Martyn Chamberlin, Edward Woods, Thomas Balzamo, Brent M Zenthoefer, Tyler Rolfe, Ruth Lammert, Gregory Nelson Chase, Ron Arduser, Caleb Farris, Dale Buchanan, Jess English, Aaron Spence, Orlando Vergel Jr., John Day, Joshua Bennett, K.Q.E.D., Brent Karding, Kofi Adu-Boahen, Steve McDowell, Kimberly Miller, A.A., James Allman, Steven McDougal, Henry Jordan, Nathan Howard, Rich Weatherly, Joshua Witt, Wade Huber, M.L., Brittany Fisher, Tim Gresham, Lucas Shannon, Easy_Peasy , Caleb Richardson, Jeremy Steinhart, Steve Groom, jac, Todd Bryant, Corey Henley, Jason Sykes, Larry Castle, Luke Burgess, Joel, Joshua Bolch, Kevin Moses, Tyler Harrison, Bryon Self, Angela Ruckman, Nathan N, Gen_Lee_Accepted , Bryan Wilson, David Peterson, Eric Mossman, Jeremiah Mays, Caleb Dugan, Donna Ward, DavidJamie Saxon, Omar Schrock, Philip Morgan, Brad Dixon, James D Leeper, M.A., Nate Patterson, Dennis Kendall, Michelle Lewis, Lewis Kiger, Dustin Burlet, Michael Butera, Reid Ferguson, Josiah R. Dennis, Miguel Lopez, CRB, D.R., Dean C Brown, Kalah Gonzalez, MICHAEL L DUNAVANT, Jonathon Clemens, Travis Manhart, Jess Mainous, Brownfell, Leah Uerkwitz, Joshua Barzon, Benjamin Randolph, Andrew Engelhart, Mark Sarhan, Rachel Schoenberger
I love the concept of this collective. Very insightful listening to each of your stories. I know Mark's story the best having listened to his YT channel now for a couple years. I was pleasantly surprised to find brother Montoro on here. I know of his family's ministry in NY (my hometown of Queens). What a blessing to hear him so graciously and charitably distinguish his views from his upbringing. I'll continue to watch and listen as the videos come out. Thank you men for making this possible!
Coming from a KJV background growing up, it was quite an eye opening experience when I discovered I could use another translation. Enjoyed the conversation.
Excellent! Thanks for watching!
“I would have the weakest woman read the Gospels and the Epistles of St. Paul. I would have those words translated into all languages, so that not only Scots and Irishman, but Turks and Saracens might read them. I long for the plowboy to sing them to himself as he follows the plow, the weaver to hum them to the tune of his shuttle, the traveler to beguile with them the dullness of his journey.” ~ Desiderius Erasmus (Preface to his "Novum Testamentum Omne" (1516)
I'm looking forward to more from the TCC. It's awesome that you've got an array of men from different backgrounds on here. The varying perspectives are valuable, I think.
More to come!
Appreciate it, Mark! Looking forward to the rest of the series!
Thanks for watching!
I really enjoyed the video. I am excited to watch the rest! Very thoughtful and charitable!
Many thanks! Come back next week!
Fantastic first episode on all counts. Thanks to each of you most heartily.
Our pleasure!
Looking forward to the full series: Great work. Thanx, Mark. Thanx, Gentlemen. 🌹🌹🌹🌹
More to come!
Great conversation Mark. I look forward to the series
Me too!
Thank you for this series. I am a textual critic, but I need balance. My close friend is a textual absolutist ,which makes discussions difficult. I hope he will agree to watch these with me and pray that the Holy Spirit guides us. Bless you.
Do you mean you are a proponent of textual confidence, John?
@@markwardonwords textual critic probably = critical text believer.
@Mark Ward Thank you for asking. I have a view of the text that does not seem to fit your models. UA-cam chat is not the place to discuss it, but... As you will highlight, I believe the text was corrupted by men, in some cases deliberately. Now (in the latter days?) I believe God is purifying the text through the great work of Daniel Wallace, his team and many others. However, I am saddened by the insecurity, so many of us display about the text of scripture. I used to be KJV only and know that insecurity, my attitude was “to hell with the heretics,” I have repented of my quest for textural accuracy (probably an impossibility). I have also repented of my insecurity and petty fears that we need to defend the text; we just need to be honest.
God uses our free will, scripture was inspired, but errors were introduced by men and a corrupt 4th-century church that choose temporal power instead of following Jesus. One example I use a lot is “women saved by childbirth” it seriously contradicts Paul's teaching and I believe that God is using modern technology to break through the noise of contemporary life and clarify the instructions of scripture through textural discoveries.
One question, you call scripture “The Word of God,” I thought Jesus was the “Logos,” Word of God?
Thank you so much for this series, I will be watching eagerly, but I hope you make space for the idea that is God working on purification of the text for a modern generation that does not make time for reading scripture and needs a clearer warning to wake up and choose which master to serve. In that, I have textual confidence.
I am looking forward to these discussions. I went to Bible College with two of these men and to see God working in their lives the way He is-it’s exciting. They certainly love God’s Word and the Gospel.
They do, as I know quite well!
I love this. Looking forward to the others. This gave me a new perspective on Matthew 12:31-32.
“Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”
(Matthew 12:31-32 ESV)
Yes-this insight was new to me, also. I've thought about it many times since. I know that KJV-Onlyists typically know not what they do. I won't say that they are blaspheming the Holy Spirit and committing an unpardonable sin. But I like the way Tim put it: it is a concern to Jesus that people not look at the work of the Spirit and say, "That's bad!"
I’ve had this on my watch list but I’ve been putting it off for a long time. Finally I’m getting into this collection of videos and the first one gives me confidence that the rest of them will be full of the meaningful content I’m looking for.
Thanks guys for the putting forth the time and effort to produce this work. I know there’s a lot of time, money and effort that goes unthanked and unnoticed but I’m just a random guy from Florida who is benefiting from this content. Thank you and God bless. I hope in the future we can dialogue on this topic.
I am extremely excited to see this particular group of men addressing these very important topics. My family of five are members of a reformed Baptist church in Texas where the scriptures are faithfully preached and the three elders god has blessed us with are among the most faithful men I know .
I can tell you from experience that the ecclesiastical text movement is gaining a foothold . Although not an essential of the faith it is in my view a false doctrine imposed on history and the text . Please keep this content going, I am learning how to be more accurate and loving in my conversation with those whom I disagree.
Would like to have more content on the exact reasons why a CT guy might not favor the majority text / Byzantine priority in future ?
Once again I thank you for the truth shared with humility and wisdom.
Pray for us!
I really appreciate hearing your stories. Mine is probably most similar to Peter's. I'm excited for the rest of this series!
My heart goes out to you. I went to sleep praying for Peter and his family.
@@markwardonwords I have been blessed far beyond what I deserve. Praise God for people like you four who believe we serve a God of truth and willing to seek out and stand for truth.
🥳🥳🥳🥳 we serve such a beautiful and loving God through Jesus Christ.. how merciful to meet this guy. Praying for his growth!
Peter's story from 26:00-34:05 was the highlight of this hour for me.
I just got to preach at his church; it was a special time!
Just listened and learned a lot. This was both informative and encouraging. I have a bunch of translations and love reading the Bible…
Excellent! Thanks for the note.
I liked this first episode. Although I was generally aware, I had not realized how much so many have had to go through within and exiting the KJV- only world. I appreciate your hearts and your approach. Blessings to you all. Scott
The KJV is the single most important symbol of what distinguishes that group of Christians from others. To reject KJV-Onlyism is, for so many, to reject all the people you love.
Great podcast!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Love this discussion!!!!!!!!!!!! Praise the Lord and thank you guys for doing this!!!!! Love and hugs from North Carolina!!!:):)
So glad it could be a benefit to you.
@@markwardonwords My family and I were with SBC-affiliated churches for 11 yrs. My hubby felt we should move away from the SBC, but little did we know we were going "too far-right" when we joined an indep. bapt. church. We knew nothing about the "IFB" churches and found out 2 1/2 yrs after joining that we didnt join just a simple-independent baptist church....but it is IFB. A lot of how those churches are run is awesome, but they have a few things wrong and it's damaging to the soul, wwell it can be. Why is is so hard to find exactly what it says in the name...a biblical independent baptist church that doesnt preach extra-biblical stuff?? Uggghhhh! LOL:) My daughter and I were doubting our salvation for about 2 yrs bc of the preaching we were under. other stuff, too, that we are recovering from. It's been tough!!! Thanks for all your content!!! Such a blessing!
@@mandygainey312 I feel for you! My wife was negatively impacted by that kind of preaching in high school: she, too, doubted her salvation for years. I had a much more positive experience, and maybe I'm a bit more theologically ready to accept that every church I join will contain sinners, including in the leadership. That's not to dismiss your concerns, not at all. It's to validate both those concerns *and* the positives that you saw. That's discernment: seeing the good and the evil, as Jesus did when he spoke to the seven churches in Rev 2-3.
Peter: I love your expression* for “the ploughboys.”
*paralleling Tyndale
Thank you, Gentlemen 🌹🌹🌹🌹
Our pleasure!
Thank you!
You're welcome!
Thanks for the discussion gentlemen. I KNOW better but will readily admit that KJVO appeals to my flesh. Coming out of KJVO it’s one of those “thorns in my flesh” that I have to bear. KJVO does appeal to the flesh…after all, Having the perceived high ground is supremely satisfying to the flesh.
So, for me, just a regular joe, i have my Greek NT but can’t read it…. I have to rely on good, faithful, English translations. One scripture that comes to my mind often when I feel my flesh riding up is the following verse.
Romans 12:1-2
“I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. 2. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.”
Keep up the good work gentlemen.
I absolutely love and appreciate this video and I'm really looking forward to the remaining videos in this series. I too grew with the KJV only, except here, it was due to it being the only translation that could be bought until the NIV was introduced and the Gideons started to hand out pocket New Testament NKJV Bibles in the mid 1990's. We didn't have and still don't have a notion of KJV Onlyism here in Jamaica, it is just a matter of availability, this is the only translation, then and the NIV now, that you can buy in Bible bookstores, anything else you would have to read from a mobile device or buy online (before 2006 you would have great difficulty buying online). I started with the KJV and much like the bus boy in your story, Mark, I couldn't understand it, I then got a Gideons New Testament NKJV and read that before I got a full NKJV also from the Gideons and used that translation up to 2021 when I started using the ESV and I am happy I found this translation. Since the wider availability of Internet access, I've been exposed to more translations. Of the one I'm now exposed to, I like the NASB 1995 as well (I haven't read the 2020 updated edition), but I am unacquainted with many of the other translations that now exists. It makes very little sense if we read the Bible and are not able to understand what we read. I settled on a particular translation and use mobile app editions of other translations for comparisons, my only worry now is particular printed editions, they are either too expensive or very difficult for me to get here in Jamaica. Keep up the good work.
The question of KJV-Only arises just when multiple versions are competing with the KJV. When the KJV is the only available Bible, it is generally accepted as the Word of God among believers. Thus, the notion of KJV-Only would be limited.
@@rolpittman While here the KJV is king as it's what most people think of when they think about the Bible for many years because that's all they knew. The NIV is now widely used by a lot of people. What I've found out though is that since the onset better quality and more widely available Internet access in my country, most people of my generation and younger actually read the ESV, CEV, NIV or one of those easier to read translations because they tend to read the Bible on their mobile phones. My church doesn't have set translation, I don't know of any church in Jamaica that does, but the vast majority of people use the NKJV, only 3 persons use the KJV and I use the ESV translation even though it cannot be bought directly here, it must be gotten online which can prove to be extremely expensive and difficult.
I give Dr Mark an enthusiastic nod for this series.
To Timothy Berg, the end of your journey to a Christ/Gospel-message-centered faith sums up “what’s on my tabernacle?” (Psst the Cross!)
Never thought too much about KJV-onlyism until a friend and his wife went to a KJV-only church and since then have been learning everything I can about it. This channel has been very helpful.
I love the idea of “confidence” over “absolutism”. Being reasonable is an essential part of godliness in my opinion.
And being reasonable, in this case, just means paying attention to God’s revelation in history as well as in Scripture-honoring both while, of course, seeing the former through the lenses of the latter.
My experience is similar to Mark's. Including the going to Bob Jones part. When I got there in the early 2000s there was this "new" translation that some of the kids were reading (the NASB) and the comment I kept hearing from them was it was more literal then the KJV. It didn't bother me but I didn't give it much thought. Then about 10 years I was walking into a Christian bookstore and noticed dozens of translations. There was a NASB, an NIV, a KJV (those I was already aware of) but there was also an ESV, a HCSB, a NLT, a NET, an NRSV, and a dozen others. I thought to myself "where did all of these come from?"
The point the brother makes when he speaks of how weak our faith is if we think "one error in the KJV leads to a dismantled faith" is true. I posted something once about the KJV on Facebook and a guy commented that if the KJVO position is not correct we are all on our way to Hell. He did not explain what he meant even after people asked him to. Thankful that our faith is actually stronger on the other side of the KJVO position, not weaker.
I feel their pain; I use a similar argument for inerrancy. But KJV-Onlyism has to go beyond the Bible (and the KJV translators!) to make that argument apply *to a translation.*
To even question the KJV can cause epistemological uncertainty in those whose confidence and hope is ultimately in Sola King James Version. It’s is similar to those whose confidence is in the Roman Catholic Magisterium, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society or any ultimate authority other than Jesus Christ.
I realize now that I will need to rethink my NASB onlyism seeing that sometime in the distant future it to will need to be set to a more modern English for that plowboy . I’m just saying
When I was somewhat forced to teach a Sunday school class when my pastor needed to leave early his wife quickly placed my NASB aside and insisted that I now teach in KJV and said that I would need to just rely on the Holy Spirit . So I said that I could not in good concise blame this on the Holy Spirit . Our family did not stay long in that fellowship for this and other reasons .
Would like to know If Mark Ward has an opinion on the language of our shared confession the 1689 , in ch 1 :8 and if he thinks it to should have an up to date English equivalent? Could he play a part in the production of it perhaps?
For those not familiar with the terminology, "TR" = textus receptus (the manuscript tradition the King James Version translates).
Right!
I've listened to the podcast and now watching here again. In South Africa we have an older translation in Afrikaans (1933/53), and it is odd that absolutist advocates sort of equate it to the KJV, especially since it sometimes makes translation choices which is more in line with modern scholarship from the 1930s. But even that translation's readability is passing, with people today not really understanding its words.
Very interesting. Yes, I've noticed the same phenomenon in other languages. Got any specific examples of either translational or textual differences-or both? Was that translation based on a critical text Greek New Testament, do you know?
@@markwardonwords It is an interesting history. In 1916 a decision was made for an Afrikaans translation. Up until this time people used the older Dutch State Bible of 1637. The committee was tasked to produce a translation that corresponded with the Dutch one, supplementing it with the Hebrew and Greek of the day. Since they were pressured to use the old Dutch, it restricted how much scholarship could be applied. But here and there it did.
I can think of two examples of hand. Isa.14:12 it doesn’t translate the name Lucifer, but ‘morning star’. In 2 Pet.1:1 it reads like the NIV “righteousness of our God and Saviour, Jesus Christ”, as opposed to the KJV’s “righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ”.
As one would expect, a trial translation of the Psalms and Gospels failed in 1922. They tried again in 1929. Finally the whole Bible was then published in 1933.
Since then several Afrikaans translations have been published. Most recently the 2020 Direct Translation. Absolutists however reject these translations, favouring the older one. It remains a challenge.
@@gabrieloberholzer1982 so interesting!
Can someone point to who Bergin is? Thanks :)
Dean Burgon. Look online for The Revision Revised.
Just out of curiosity, when Peter Montoro (sp?) was talking about challenging church history, was he referring to JM Carrols book, "The Trail of Blood?" I ask because I grew up with this false history, and found it incredulous even as a child, though I was persuaded to believe it. Some of its claims are quite fantastic, and definitely are a stretch! No one who knows what true Montanism was would ever wish to trace Baptists back to it!
Is there yet another retelling of church history out there that I need to be wary of?
I think we're talking in general about the tendency out there to find some version of apostolic succession to validate current practices/traditions.
My impression is textual criticism has less problems and there is plenty of evidence to support textual criticism and the critical text. My impression is there are more problems in translation which involves interpretation, and after you finish your translation, the bible can still be interpreted in many ways which is why there are so many protestant sects since there is no pope. For example, John 1 v5, the archaic english word comprehended has many possible definitions so it requires interpretation just to pick the right english definition. Even just trying to update the archaic kjv words will generate many interpretation controversies. The greek word also has several definitions and it requires interpretation to pick the right greek definition. Some say comprehended is understood, some say comprehended is overcome, some say comprehended means both understood and overcome.
My guess is Peter Montoro and Elijah Hixson are arminian baptists, Mark Ward is calvinist baptist, Timothy Berg is pentecostal calvinist baptist (all 4 are evangelicals). Having the same critical text still has different interpetations since both catholics and protestants (liberals and evangelicals) translate from the same critical text. Orthodox church prefers the traditional texts: uses septuagint for OT and byzantine texts for NT. Catholic church embraced the critical text evidence used by expert consensus in the mid 1960s vatican II reforms (they also started to accept the tons of evidence supporting the science consensus for theory of evolution, and other science theories, no more battles with science consensus, pope said religions and science were separate spheres).
I don't think all your guesses are correct! =)
@@markwardonwords I did more searches on the internet and I might have fixed the earlier errors. I have seen the doctrinal statement of the baptist church of Peter Montoro. Elijah Hixson baptist church seems to be with the tennessee baptist convention (seems part of SBC). My guess is arminian baptists also believe in once saved always saved which I heard plenty of when I was a kid. I have seen the doctrinal statement of the pentecostal calvinist baptist church of Timothy Berg (I would guess that mom does not approve, so maybe just avoid religion talk during thanksgiving).
It does seem like the main way to get rid of KJVO is to send your kids to non KJVO schools.
Two of us didn’t go to non-KJVO schools!
@@markwardonwords It does seem like the books of Dean Burgon are the gateway to Non KJVO. Maybe we will see more videos from KJVO attack Dean Burgon.
James White has lots of videos where he explains textual criticism to non experts and it does sound very convincing to people who are open to accepting evidence. How copying errors happen, how older texts or older translations can fix obvious copying errors, how the critical text obviously looks much better after you fix the copying errors, etc. Believers of perfect texts and perfect translations have to reject a lot of evidence used by expert consensus to be able to continue with highly desired beliefs. The evidence supporting textual criticism done by expert consensus convinces most believers and most atheists.
Peter's comments on fragile faith ring so true. I have seen this. This series is great -- I'm listening for the second time -- but for someone a bit less nerdy, what are some good, short, accessible resources to help recovering textual absolutists have confidence in the text? So far l have found this, from Mark Ward: ua-cam.com/video/iqUZhjozBhs/v-deo.html . Does anyone have any further suggestions?
The topic is necessarily complex. I'm not sure where else to point you! I am working on another video, though, that tries to introduce NT textual criticism as simply as possible.
I don't see how this perspective is compatible with privileging the critical text over the received.
I might have recently solved the riddle of what to call 1 calvinist Jeff (best friend of calvinist Mutt) who is a reformation era traditional texts only believer and does not like to be called king james only, even though it seems like greater confidence is given to the TRs and latin vulgate behind the kjv translation (rather than other reformation era english translations like geneva bible), but he does acknowledge the other reformation era TRs used to translate into non english languages (like the TBS doctrinal statement, which is open to new english translations from the TRs and new non english translations from the TRs), so can maybe avoid calling the guy kjv only as requested (since theoretically, a new english translation from the TRs can replace the kjv). It is just a tradition influenced belief similar to the old catholic church love for the latin vulgate and the current orthodox church love for the byzantine texts. Reformation era traditional texts only believers just cannot let go of the traditions from the reformation era such as the reformation era texts bec these are quite prestigious since they were used by the much loved Martin Luther the heretic who started the protestant reformation, and similar reformation era texts and the latin vulgate were behind the much loved kjv. If english users who are reformation era texts only believers but automatically reject modern translations of the TR such as ylt, lsv, nkjv, mev (probably bec they believe only kjv translators are able to make right translation choices) can probably continue to call them kjvo. If english users who are reformation era texts only believers but do not bother to voice support for new english translations of the TR, can probably continue to call them kjvo. In practice, some english users who are reformation era texts only believers are just kjvo in disguise and are trapped in self delusion, particularly those who give greater authority to the TRs and the latin vulgate behind the much loved kjv translation. If in practice, just using scrivener TR, can just call it Scrivener TR only belief. If take into account all of the reformation era traditions (TRs, non english translations, english translations), can maybe call it Reformation Era Traditions Only beliefs. The expert consensus is for the critical text, so all of these non critical text beliefs can also be called Non Critical Texts Only beliefs.
What is the source of textual confidence? Is the source of confidence in scholarship or God's preservation? Is it conceivable the best scholarship can produce a faithful translation that is the Word of God without God's help?
My guess is the evidence for the critical text consensus is good since it is able to convince experts whether believers or atheists like Bart.
I believe that scholarship and preservation are not mutually exclusive. I trust God to use scholars (“teachers,” Paul calls them in Ephesians 4) to accomplish the tasks of preservation and translation. I expect evangelicals to beg for and receive God’s help in all good Bible translation in any language.
The source of my confidence is God himself. Preservation of the text is one of many works that God does for our good and his own glory. Scholarship is one means by which God works.
I heard they are now using artificial intelligence to help do the critical text, so it seems like even robots can do textual criticism.
Lots of people knew Latin? No....That's why Tyndale wanted a translation in English
I can’t remember what our exact quote was. Can you remind us?
Bart E. is asked by an interviewer in the appendix of his 1st paperback edition of "Misquoting Jesus" what we would have if we found the original autographs and he said what we have now. As Daniel Wallace has said in public lectures on textual criticism of the Greek New Testament manuscripts, Bart claims total corruption of the manuscript tradition when speaking to a non scholarly or audience of non scholars and actual facts about the manuscript tradition when speaking to an audience of scholars. Daniel even brought up the fact of the interview in the 1st paperback edition in a debate with Bart. Bart was visibly upset with him but didn't, didn't dare, attempt to claim Daniel was wrong. Daniel has a copy of that paperback edition and had it with him if memory serves. Daniel brings this fact up often because Bart lies about God's breathed words for money and to deceive believers and the unsaved into thinking there is no God, etc., including that Jesus Christ never died for our sins.
The same critical text consensus can probably cause about 20% of people to become atheists and this can probably be easily explained by differences in the many desires found in people. Worldwide, the non religious is around 20% of the population. The copying errors unearthed in textual criticism is a problem of errors which is a version of the problem of evil, and the problem of evil is what made Bart an atheist. Since there are about 100 fake gospels which all seem to be pious fictions, there is enough circumstantial evidence to indicate the 4 canonical gospels are also pious fictions. Not much details about the life and sayings of jesus in the earliest letters of apostle Paul, in spite of apostle Paul meeting lots of jewish christians and even meeting jewish christians called brothers of Jesus.
It takes time for a preacher to explain archaic words in the kjv. If a preacher is willing to use evangelical TR translations like nkjv or mev, can save a lot of time during preaching. If a preacher is willing to accept the expert consensus about the critical text, will be able to use much better modern translations. A preacher can save some time by using thought for thought translations like nlt, gnt, voice, bec no longer need to explain hebrew idioms and greek idioms.
When I was younger, I have heard claims that the masoretic text was copied very very carefully so it had no errors, even though copying errors in the masoretic text have been known since as early as the 1800s. This same masoretic text with copying errors was used for the kjv in 1611 so the kjv does have errors coming from the errors in the hebrew text and greek text used for the translation, translation errors and typo errors. Belief in a perfect 1611 kjv is only possible if you reject tons of evidence used by expert consensus. I just thank god I did not grow up kjv only bec I read nasb and good news translation when I was young. I highly recommend simple english words translations like nlt, ncv, erv, gnt, cev, nlv, voice, message. Literal translations are unable to communicate properly in too many places.
I use both.
I love the KJV. There ate many versions out there that read more like watered down paraphrases, or worse yet, are more like someone's interpretation of what the Bible is actually saying. I pretty much have used the KJV for years even though I do view different version to see how they translate certain words. The KJV is very literal in many places. A literal translation is not understood without much study. However, a loose translation will leave much out that a more literal translation does not.
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
I would not consider myself a KJV only guy. It would be more accurate to say I put my spiritual trust in the family of manuscripts and bibles used through time that ended up as the TR and KJV because they have a proven track record of doing God's work on earth. I look at modern CT versions during study but I just don't see any reason to shift away from using the KJV in coordination with the NKJV as my main bibles. (and yes I do think the NKJV does a PRETTY good job of modernizing the KJV. I realize some disagree.)
My main complaint about modern translations is not that they are 'all wrong' or 'demonically evil.' My issue is that they are SOOO many and that they are constantly changing. I have spoken to people who use apps and online bible tools for study. When reading a random group of 10 verses, they will use ESV wording for verse 1-3, NASB words for verse 4, NLT for part of verse 5 with some interlinear words mixed because they liked how they sound. Then they will use NIV and some NASB wording for verse 6. Once they get to verse 7, they like CSB. And finally verse 8-10 they ended up back with the ESV.
That.. to my mind... is dangerous.
That isn't 'reading' the bible and learning God's word. That is using the variability due to the vast number of modern translations to essentially create your own bible version as you 'feel' it should be. The large number of modern translations can be a great gift, but there has become a real problem of people 'creating' their own versions of the bible on the fly without even realizing they are doing it.
Find a part of the bible that challenges you? Just go read 10 other translations, one of them will probably word it in a way you can feel good about.
I used to find your objection to modern translations-the fact that they change so often-less persuasive than I do now. I have come to believe that it is unrealistic to expect people to be okay with revisions at the level of frequency used by, for example, the ESV translators.
I personally have never met anyone who uses modern translations the way you've described-mixing them all up like that. I certainly agree that no one should be creating their own Bible version based on how they feel. But what's the alternative? Accepting the translation decisions of one and only one group of English scholars? Where does the Bible tell us to do that? That would seem to treat their work as almost inspired or perfect, something the KJV translators explicitly rejected. Plus, when I compare the major English translations, I rarely come to serious disagreements. 99% of the time, they're saying the same thing in slightly different words.
I have definitely not found, while reading contemporary evangelical English translations, that if I don't like one of them, another will tell me what I want to hear. I'd challenge you to provide an example of that charge from among the KJV, ESV, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NASB, and CSB.
@@markwardonwords I will admit my example was a bit exaggerated for effect, but I stand by the concept.
Sorry if this response is way too long, it got away from me a bit…
You may not have had this experience but I have had conversations with very well-meaning believers about the more 'challenging' parts of the Bible (those parts that tend to contradict today's social standards), and when presented with a verse that is quite direct in its wording, instead of grappling with what the Bible says and attempting to understand the meaning, their response is "Well if you read the NIV it says it THIS way." Then later when discussing another verse, they will resort to the wording of the CSB (or ESV or NASB or some other translation).
From my point of view, it is quite common to see ‘modern Bible readers’ essentially cobbling together their own mental idea of the scripture using influence from whatever translation they happen to like for a verse (or word). This becomes a problem because a) there are just so many now and b) not all versions are translated with the same methods (for example reading half the verse using a more literal translation but replacing some words with those found in a more paraphrase translation) and not all modern bibles are translated with what I would say is ‘the highest quality' (mainly not avoiding modern social influences).
It's not that these readers are trusting the decisions of English scholars as you put it. It is that they feel free to pick and choose on a verse-by-verse case, based on their own gut which wording they 'like’ best. This picking is not based on their scholarship, not on their expertise, not some deep study of ancient languages, but often by which translation uses the wording they feel they can agree with most (or which version can be used to best prove their particular point at the time). This problem is only exacerbated by the fact that there are new translations and new revisions of old translations coming out CONSTANTLY. In 50 years, it feels like we are going to have 100+ English Bible versions/revisions. At some point it becomes detrimental not helpful. (I would argue it already has)
I agree with you that MOST contemporary evangelical bibles agree MOST of the time, and I by no means do I think that someone using ESV, NASB and NIV etc in conjunction with each other are somehow following the path to eternal fire. But I do think having access to countless different wordings of the same scripture creates a VERY unstable long-term foundation for Christian doctrine as a whole. In a very short amount of time, we have taken something that was incredibly solid (almost all Christians using essentially 1 version of the Bible) to something that feels insanely fluid.
That is a problem that is growing not shrinking.
@@markwardonwords As a related but totally different problem unbelievers will also look at the fact that there are SO many different versions of the Bible and use that as an excuse to see the scriptures themselves as untrustworthy (after all even Christians can't agree on what it says, they will think), or they will use these many variations as a way to attack the faith wholesale.
@@ChancyC I'm not saying that what you've reported is impossible, but I'd really like to see an example. Evangelical translations don't tend to take non-evangelical interpretations of passages. Instead, I have had the experience-literally thousands of times over two decades, half my life-of checking multiple translations and finding greater clarity, not more muddiness.
You have mentioned that you use the NKJV. When it doesn't quite agree with the KJV, how do you decide which is best or right?
@@markwardonwords As I mentioned in my first comment, I tend to say, I put my spiritual trust in the family of manuscripts and Bibles used throughout time that ended up as the TR and KJV because they have a proven track record of doing God's work on earth. That is my foundational base on which I start any analysis.
So while I don't see the KJV as the FINAL and perfect, I do need to see quite compelling evidence to take a modern interpretations over it (they simply don't have the track record to back them up). So if there is a disagreement between NKJV and KJV, I TEND to land on the side of KJV out of caution more than preference, but sometimes it's clear the NKJV is using a better word (I am fine for example losing the word unicorn in the NKJV).
But the differences between the KJV and NKJV are FAR FAR fewer than the differences say between the KJV and NIV for example. Also the NKJV is not evolving constantly (at least not as of yet), meaning its easy to see, know, mark down, and contemplate deeply about all of the differences as you read through. Modern translations don't even stay consistent with themselves for more than a decade.
And I would agree that YOU would find better clarity than muddiness with the multiple translations, you are a VERY educated person who has made the study of the Bible the endeavor of your life. The problem is, the plowboy you so often talk about doesn't have any of that. So my point is, in an attempt to give the plowboy a clearer tool to learn scripture, we saying, "here.... here are 50 slighly different tools, they are all just as good, all just as correct, all have their benefits, don't get lost and good luck... also we will hand you 5 more next year."
Showing that the kjv has plenty of archaic english does not necessarily lead to use of critical text translations bec there are other options: 1> use annotated kjvs done by fundamentalists like defined king james and or tbs westminster. 2> read archaic kjv in parallel with kjv verse by verse commentaries done by more conservative believers from the 1600s, 1700s and 1800s, which might be acceptable to some fundamentalists. 3> use annotated kjvs done by evangelicals like kjver, tyndale house publishers kjv, thomas nelson reference, reformation heritage study bible. 4> switch to TR translations done by evangelicals like ylt, lsv, nkjv, mev.
I don't think anyone said you could make that leap!
@@jwatson181 My guess is the 4 are mainly promoting the critical text.
@@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175 That is their position, but they would not use that argument to promote the critical text. They are using that argument to dismantle KJVO, which is appropriate.
@@jwatson181 Archaic words, IMHO, do not necessitate abandoning the KJV. Archaic words are easily understood in most cases by similarities to current words and the context. Context determines semantics.
@@rolpittman This qaa the same argument used for the Latin Vulgate. Also, please leave the straw man of abandoning the KJV. I have no issues with reading the KJV; I have seven of them! KjVO is the problem.
Be careful, slander is rebuking or claiming lies about someone. Even the Lord Jesus χριστος, and several of his disciples in the Epistles applied harsh rebuke or condemnation to those clearly teaching false doctrine or causing division, etc. Often times when discussing what is false, what is false is discussed and the extreme opposite is then discussed as though those 2 ends are the alternatives, which they are not, without discussing how the scripture discusses the matter, mainly how believers are to love one another, which is clear to anyone who has any Spiritual maturity. I've encountered at least 3 kjv onlyists. 1) was going door to door telling people that the modern translations are demonic, not God's word. A customer of mine, he came to my sandblasting yard. 2) An elderly lady in my bible study at her home who affirmed that the kjv bible literally came down from heaven. 3) a female customer in her 40s-50s said that I was being used by demons even though we agreed on every doctrine mentioned, textual criticism was of the devil, etc. I spoke kindly to them and they actually needed rebuke and correction. The 3rd one jumped into her car and drove like a mad man to get away from me. The male customer was willing to discuss the matter, he approached me, and I politely, as a brother, challenged him and used his words on him and he simply defaulted to "they're just words", his response to my exposing his clearly false claims.
I was too kind to these believers, I was slandered by them. False doctrine is to be refuted and there is supposed to be rebuke when needed. Be careful, with all due respect, in making things one extreme or the other as many, if not most I've listened to over the last 40 years, have done.
Interesting analysis by Peter Van Kleeck, Jr. of the "emotional trauma" reflected by some of the panelists and how this is shaping the conversation here on "Textual Absolutism": standardsacredtext.com/2022/07/15/the-emotional-trauma-behind-the-textual-confidence-collective/
My guess is people who used to be kjvo spent some time being out of touch with reality and so are traumatized once they see the reality bec the truth can be unpleasant.
My impression is standardsacredtext kjvo junior had been brainwashed by his kjvo seniors so kjvo junior will probably be traumatized once he gets out of his matrix of illusions. standardsacredtext junior seems to be reformation era traditional texts only believer who seems to favor the latest edition of the TR and also believes kjv is the culmination of good english translations so can probably also call him kjvo. Some who prefer the latest TR or best TR have graduated to majority texts only beliefs. standardsacredtext junior in practice seems to use the scrivener TR so can probably call him scrivener TR only believer. The scrivener TR is basically based on the TRs and latin vulgate behind the kjv so standardsacredtext junior can also be called kjvo. Standardsacredtext junior's kjvo belief is built on sand which is maintained only by rejecting the tons of evidence supporting the expert consensus for the critical text.
Elijah Hixson is the correct spelling.
Jeff, I'd suggest you read more of what Van Kleeck says before endorsing his views. I think you may not find you enjoy quite the accord you appear to me to be assuming.
These 7 videos will probably fall on the blind eyes and deaf ears of kjvo believers who reject the tons of evidence supporting the critical text consensus bec these kjvo believers are just out of touch with reality in order to hold on to desired beliefs and to hold on to reformation era traditions such as reformation era traditional texts only and reformation era traditional translations only (these old traditions no longer agree with the tons of evidence we have for the critical text consensus). The catholic church for long ages rejected the tons of evidence supporting the critical text consensus but in the mid 1960s vatican II reforms, the catholic church did decide to accept some realities from expert consensus including the tons of evidence supporting the critical text consensus, by ditching the traditional latin vulgate (catholic church also started to accept the tons of evidence supporting science consensus such as the theory of evolution).
Fundamentalists rejecting new things like the latest critical text and modern translations is just bec of being tied to old tradtions particularly Reformation Era Traditions. Fundamentalists tend to prefer older stuff like Reformation Era masoretic text and Reformation Era TRs, also older commentaries. Every time somebody does a new TR translation, Fundamentalists go over the new TR translations like nkjv and mev and complain that the modern translation choices are not the same as the translation choices of the kjv translators, even if these fundamentalists will claim they are open to new TR translations. Aside from kjvo, these believers can be called Reformation Era Traditions Only believers.
To make people ditch texts with lots of copying errors like latin vulgate, byzantine texts, 1600s TRs, majority texts, kjv, have to do the hard work of presenting the large body of evidence used by the critical text consensus that includes both believers and atheists like bart. This is hard work bec believers who prefer tradition are adept at rejecting large amount of evidences in order to maintain favored beliefs. Bec of tradition, kjv only believers strongly believe 2022 translators cannot be better than 1611 translators which is just ridiculous and shows how strong are the desires that lead to kjv only beliefs.
According to Peter Montoro, they will try to defend the critical text and modern translations, that in spite of not having perfect knowledge about textual variants and not having perfect translations, there is no need to believe in a new perfect revelation like the kjv, or to become atheists like Bart. Peter Montoro and Elijah Hixson will defend critical texts that have some uncertainties, Mark Ward and Timothy Berg will explain modern translations that have some translation difficulties here and there. The main problem will be some christians have a very strong desire to have a perfect translation (unchanging) from god that will have no translation errors (they tireless defend all of the kjv translation errors), no typo errors (they believe all typo errors have already been fixed after 400 years), these believers do not like changes and sort of prefer to believe there is a same kjv yesterday, same kjv today, and same kjv tomorrow, and deny the reality that kjv text is actually still slowly evolving bec of having many printers and having many digital copies (all of these people continue to do tiny fixes to the kjv whether typo fixes or minor translation fixes, new typos have also been introduced into digital kjvs). Studying textual criticism too much will probably continue to produce atheists like Bart, bec it can become hard to believe why god does not care to take better care of his message and does not even care about preventing typos both in the critical text and in printed bibles, and the problem of copying errors in the critical text and the problem of typos are versions of the problem of evil (god either does not care or is powerless to prevent simple copying errors and typos in the critical text and in printed bibles) that contributed to Bart becoming an atheist.
So is it fair to say that what turned y’all onto the textual confidence trail was not some inherent problem with the KJV, but rather it was the inadequate teaching and arguments made to your young minds? Your confidence in the KJV was shaken and so you sought out confidence via some other path? Also, would you say that the confidence you had in the KJV when you were young was a different species of confidence compared to the confidence you currently have? Thank you.
My guess is there is plenty of evidence supporting the critical text consensus. Kjv only beliefs maybe involve plenty of denial of plenty of evidence and plenty of denial of reality.
Now, that's a rather plainly spoken comment . . . .
My confidence in the KJV has never been shaken. It is stronger than ever. I know in detail that the KJV is good and trustworthy. My KJV-Onlyism as a teen consisted mainly in distrust of the versions my pastor said were corrupt, not in a belief that the KJV itself was perfect. But I confess I do not recall very well precisely what I was thinking at 15. Or if I was thinking that precisely!
I think you missed the point. The point is not that the KJV is a bad translation but rather the point is that the KJV is not the only good translation.
@@davidguerrero25 bec of archaic english, kjv is now a bad translation, altho this can be remedied by using annotated kjvs.
Belief in an eternal KJV that existed from the very beginning seems like the historical jesus theory on how a human Jesus became god. Kjv believers who reject the translation choices of evangelical TR translators of ylt, lsv, nkjv, mev are not being malicious but is caused by the simple belief in a perfect kjv translation (in spite of ongoing minor translation fixes on the kjv done by various paper printers and digital printers).
It does seem like all 4 used to use the kjv exclusively altho Elijah Hixson did not have a kjv only church but just a kjv using church that very soon switched out of the kjv. Can maybe call it the League Of Recovering Ex Exclusive KJV Users.
Biblical Hebrews Aramaic Greek is very attractive and fascinating. Why do we exclude biblical Hebrew by reading bibles? BY READING HEBREW ON PSALM GOD'S WORD MORE PURE SIMPLE CLEAR TO ME. Luther said that The Jews drink out of the original spring, The Greeks drink out of the stream. THE Latins however out of the puddle. I LOVE KOREAN VERSION BIBLE. BUT MORE KJV. AND UNTIL NOT LONG AFTER MORE LOVE HEBREW. KJV is not ultimate choice, but rather Kjv is superb and sublime. Other translations is also worthy to be referred. I am not fluent with Biblical language, but by only knowing Hebrew Alphabet greatly helpful for understanding original meaning and nuances. REPENT is better understood by metanoia μετάνοια Greek soldiers turn around by upper command. Much more clearly understood by שב(shub) destroying house , throwing away old way of life. It reminds me of Abraham departed out of Haran. For example Psalm 15 I cannot find any peculiar things about Worship even for KJV. Only Through Biblical Hebrews I can clearly see conditions of entering tabernacle and Worship. Tamim Tsedeck Emets confirm Heavenly Father Jesus Christ Holy Spirit present in every Worship and Life. God is Love :Agape Ahavah Charity. OX Powerful or Sacrifice MAN Incarnation LION King EAGLE PROTECTION and Flying high Mark Matthew Luke John. I miss Martin Loyd Jones Johnathan Edward's John Owen John bunyan Jeremiah Burroughs Thomas Boston Thomas Brooks Richard sibbes and so on. Where is Puritan Nowadays? Too Old and Rugged? DIGGING Bible is biblical nerd? If so I really and gladly want to be.
Dr. Ward, I am not a Jehovah's witness.... And I have more to say than that. There are a couple verses I would like to ask for your expert opinion on. First, Isaiah 42:8 I am the LORD; that is my name;... And second Deuteronomy 32:3 Because I will publish the name of the LORD:... And Psalm 20:7 Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
Ok, that's 3, but each of these from the KJV translation, have something unique. Verse 1 has God saying his name is LORD. Would I read that in a Hebrew Masoretic text? (I'm aware of the vowel argument) Verse 2 says I will publish the name of the LORD....and I'm still waiting for that name to be published 411 years later... #irony And verse 3 says we will remember the name of the LORD our God.....and it seems it was forgotten in this translation in English. Am I wrong to say that these are not accurate translations of the Hebrew they were taken from?
I am not arguing that translations are bad or evil if they choose not to translate God's name, rather I am simply asking if it's reasonable to say that these are not perfect translations for the obvious reason? I have been attending a KJV only church for 34 years now, and I feel like there is a GIANT Elephant in the room that is sitting there staring at all of us, each time we repeat the affirmation "the KJV is the perfect, pure, word of God without error, in every jot and tittle". And I feel like the Elephant is whispering in my ear, saying, Except for the place...you know, where they didn't publish God's name, where it said "I will publish the name of the LORD"....? Am I crazy?
It is always better to learn hebrew and greek bec many things are lost in translation. For example, the hebrew elohim is plural and means many gods. For YHWH, the correct pronunciation had already been lost bec jews had not pronounced it for a long time by the time of Jesus. For an english translation, maybe better to print it as YHWH rather than LORD. Early christians used the septuagint translation which has greek lord for YHWH, so the septuagint translation was not that accurate too.
@@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175 I know the rabbis were forbidding people to speak God's name. But even if people are not exactly sure how to pronounce it the way people did 2,500 years ago, why do we have to pronounce it exactly as they did? We all say Jesus name, and a thousand years ago in English, it was Iesu, then it was Iesus, and it is Iesus in the 1611 KJV, and does not finally appear as Jesus until after the KJV was already completed..... So I have to ask, Is it wrong or disrespectful to Jesus, if we say Jesus?.... I don't think it is. And the KJV only advocates have a problem already with this, because if the KJV is absolute perfection, every single letter of it, then they already transliterated YHVH as Jehovah, 4 times in the Old testament..... If the KJV is absolute perfection then the transliteration of Jehovah must also be rightly called perfect. And if that is a perfect representation of his name, then it should be perfect to use that name when God is saying what his name is.... That's my point that I'm getting at.
I think this is a real problem for the KJV only position, if they go as far as to claim every word of it is perfect. That claim sticks a person with Jehovah as a perfect transliteration of YHVH, and then they have to also explain how it's perfect to use it 4 times and then perfect not to use it in spots where the scripture is very specifically addressing that specific name..... I think the honest position is to say that the translation is not a perfect representation of the original. That doesn't mean it's useless or bad, but it should be acknowledged.
@@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175 One quick point I should make, is that Jews who read a Hebrew text, may have been saying Lord out loud with their voice, but they were still reading YHVH..... And that's different than just officially changing it outright. And on that note, the Greek Old testament fragment found a year ago not far from Qumran in a cave, had YHVH printed in the Greek text. Which demonstrates that even some scribes making Greek scrolls were still including God's name, and they were not exclusively changing it to kurios in their Greek texts.
@@coryaustin4474 Probably better to print it as YHWH and let readers decide how to pronounce it bec the correct pronunciation was lost more than 2,000 years ago.
@@coryaustin4474 If you print it as YHWH, readers are free to pronounce it or some readers maybe will prefer to substitute lord during reading. Printing it as YHWH gives the most flexibility and avoids useless debates about how to pronounce YHWH since the pronunciation got lost more than 2,000 years ago.
Peter Ruckman, David Sorenson, Hyde Park Missionary Baptist Church, they all use hebrew and greek to explain archaic kjv words in their kjv commentaries. Gail does not allow hebrew, greek and english dictionaries and have to guess the meaning of archaic kjv words based on context. Comparison of archaic english with latin is probably not that accurate, bec archaic Hamlet can still be easily read with annotated Hamlet like Arden Shakespeare Hamlet. Acts 8 v26 to v40 has the example of a guy being able to read the old testament on his own. Protestants are trying to achieve the same with the new testament by having protestants being able to read the new testament on their own, so there are translations for people who can read magazines, there are translations for people who dropped out of school, there are translations for kids, there are translations for people learning english. For archaic kjv, it is possible to read archaic kjv on your own by using annotated kjvs like defined king james and or TBS westminster, or by reading archaic kjv in parallel with free kjv verse by verse commentaries easily found on the internet. Aside from defending modern translations from critical text, better to just learn hebrew and greek bec many things are lost in translation. For example, 1 corinthians 6 v9, the greek word with strong number 3120: malakos is male, malake is female, malakon is neuter. All of these greek words that can be male, female or neuter are lost in translation and can affect interpretation.
Why some have problems with Reasoned eclecticism.
I John 5:7 is found in a majority of the Latin,
but not the Greek so out it goes.
Good will towards men
Doxology in Matthew
Without cause
God manifest in the flesh
Are a majority in the Greek but not in the Latin,
so out they go
The PA and Mark 16:9-20 are a majority in both the Greek
and Latin so out they go.
Even the “not yet” found in the two of the earliest(P66.P75) in John 7:8
some throw out.
If as an orthodox Christian you don't see a problem,
what would you see as a problem?
So are you supporting the use of all known readings? Or just some of them?
@@coryaustin4474 I support a methodology based on the texts of the Apostolic Churches. I equate texts with books All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical. 39 Articles of Religion
@@jamessheffield4173 Does that mean you would accept the Latin readings, even if they don't appear in the Greek manuscripts?
@@coryaustin4474 The point of the meme is that if you reject the texts of the Greek Churches as corrupt, you can't use them to reject the Comma of John.
@@jamessheffield4173 Ok, I see your point now. If you undermine the authenticity of evidence, you shouldn't turn around and then use it as authoritative evidence. Got it. But personally, arguing in favor of the Johannine comma, requires using very little to support it.....and the issue is that people who support it are often criticizing others who use a few Alexandrian manuscripts to support readings they don't approve of. And they actually have early manuscripts with the readings they use. That doesn't make it right, even if they are very old Bibles. But the problem is that KJB only advocates absolutely demonize people who use minority readings when they aren't in the KJB....and then they turn around and demand all others bow to their minority readings. And it does not sit well with people.
Agnosticism
Please interact with our arguments, friend. And continue watching as we get into them.
Although I do not generally agree with these gentlemen, it is inaccurate and unfair to call their beliefs agnostic. This is precisely the type of hyperbole and inaccuracies they were discussing. It hurts the cause of those who defend the KJV.
The KJV translators wrote something for you in the KJV 1611. "in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily?........to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption..... Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded."
The KJV translators who knew full well what the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic scripture said, and who knew full well what their translation in English said, ALSO SAID that it was necessary to further expound the translation in the margin, in order to understand more fully what the underlying text states. They are very clear that those who dogmatize upon every exact word of the KJV translation are going to be wrong at some point....so they offer advice as the ones who knew this translation better than anyone else.... "it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve, to resolve upon modesty with S. Augustine,...... it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain."
The KJV translators would rather have you make doubt of a thing, than to dogmatize based on your presumptions. And if that is agnosticism, then the KJV translators were agnostics too. To build upon Roland Pittman's post, I would agree that this type of post hurts the KJV defenders, and further, it demonstrates a complete lack of either understanding, or agreement, with the KJV translators, and what they said, literally in the original 1611 KJV..... In the end, this type of post makes you look like you are yourself only, not KJV only, since the KJV translators don't agree with you.
The best thing I have ever done regarding Bible translations, was reading everything I could find that the KJV translators said about their translation, and also reading what I could find, that William Tyndale had to say about specific translations.
Excuses, Excuses
This is hilarious Jesus is the Word of God, The bible is the Word of God! How can God shift your heart that Jesus is the centre of your faith 🤦🏽♂️
John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
So the wolf creates a pack, sigh.
Please interact with the arguments made in the video.
Secondly. You can make a Bible read easier without changing the context. Such as taking away the miracle of Jesus birth. Born of a virgin. Now only a young woman. First born. Now just a son of a young woman. Now He is not the first born, born of a virgin. But He couldve been the son of Joseph... So, please explain
Quite deceiving to say that because of the king james, you did not have Jesus at the centre of your faith... As the King James version uplifts the Godhood of Jesus. No one has ever said the king james is perfect. But, to say that youve never experienced yhe gospel of Jesus thanks to the king james is absurd. As many many millions of people have heard the gospel, and had the gospel of Jesus in the centre kf their faith thanks to this spesific translation. A bit biased I would say...
That's not what he said, my friend. At least three of us heard the gospel through the KJV.