Which TR and Why? Confessional Bibliology's Conflicting Answers to Key Questions
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 сер 2022
- This was a lecture delivered at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary's summer lecture series for pastors on July 26, 2022.
🎁 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
Thank you Dr. Ward! Your charity, clarity, and honesty toward those who hold opposing views is a breath of fresh air. It is a testimony to your heart for the truth.
Wow, thank you!
I'm definitely starting to get the cadence and flow of thought, comforted by my long time prayer of asking God to help me with the things I didn't know that I did not know...praise God
Glad to be of service!
Hey, bro Mark!
Thank you so much for my "edification requires intelligibility" coffee mug.
I've never had a more delicious cup of coffee. 😋
Ha! I’m jealous! I need to order one!
Great work, Mark! Always love your spirit in these conversations.
I appreciate that!
While he is no longer with us, one noteworthy scholar that comes to mind is Dr. J. Vernon McGhee. Dr. McGhee loved the 'Authorized' version, but at times lamented over unfortunate renderings of certain phrases. His radio ministry is faithfully broadcast daily, and millions have gleaned from his efforts. Thanks for all that you do Brother Ward, and I look forward to meeting you someday! 🙏🏼
Yes, and what a voice he had! Thank you for your kind word-and your good point!
Thank you for what you are doing for our Lord. 🤟
Pray for me!
@@markwardonwords yes, my dear brother. 🤟
Dude! That's a Tim Hortons coffee on the pulpit! I guess being so close to Canada has it's perks!
Yup!
Really enjoyed this! Thank you for sharing!
Glad you enjoyed it!
I love your content. I've been subscribed and follow for a while and I dabble in Koine a bit. Currently working through Psalms in the LXX.
Would you ever consider doing a series on textual discrepancies that are important? Either between the TR and the CT or just in general?
Thank you! Yes I would. I should.
Great job
Excellent!
Many thanks!
Excellent critique! I'm absolutely convinced that you are correct. Unfortunately, having truth on your side matters little when the issues are technical and your opponents sound as if they have a higher view of Scripture.
I agree. This issue takes some work by Christians to understand how we got the Bible and how it is preserved. However, Christians should be willing to put the time in to understand the basics of how we got the Bible and why we can have confidence that we have the Word of God in translations. Mark is making a dent.
@@davidguerrero25 I agree. He is doing great work!
I was encouraged to hear you say you prefer to have written discussions, so as to allow time for thought and because of challenges of face-to-face. I have tried to do the same, with a brother, on the topic of KJVOism. In my case, I feel that in addition to neither party really listening and thinking well face-to-face, there is a problem of social power imbalance, both in terms of my poor social skills and in terms of his position in social hierarchy. But of course, social media illustrates the pitfalls of written conversation! One of the problems is people perceive long slabs of text as some kind of assault, and simultaneously, most of those long slabs of text still aren't long enough to do anything but cherry pick from what they're responding to. I spent hours and hours, writing 5000 words in a full point-by-point response to one of his emails. Sensing he might not enjoy such a long response, I emailed him first to say, 'hey, I have a response for you but it's 5000 words long, shall I send it or not? Maybe it's better just to agree to disagree?' The answer was 'no, and no, let's meet in the new year'. I really can't see it going well!
He's asked me to "read some books that are contrary to your stated position and see if anything changes". Any suggestions? I don't think it's good to bug him in the meantime. He's an independent Baptist who likes the TBS, if that helps with book suggestions.
I think the most responsible and knowledgeable KJV-Onlyist is still E.F. Hills. Read *The King James Version Defended*, I suggest. It's fair for him to ask you to do this. And if you do read it, he should read something, too.
Thanks!
Thank YOU!
Is the next session available on UA-cam?
No. And probably won’t be. Considering this.
@@markwardonwordsGlad to know either way. Thanks for the update.
Dr Ward , thank you brother for taking the time to do research so that many like myself will be able to understand this more clearly.
What would you recommend for us in terms of materials for study ?
Of what in particular, friend?
@@markwardonwords You know brother , I think you have already answered my question over and over again.
Can I ask you a question or two about Reformed Baptist ? You had mentioned that you are in that camp .
Some in Confessional bibliology use same kjvo lies about the archaic words in the archaic kjv. A common kjvo lie is archaic kjv is actually bible english even though it is obviously almost the same as archaic shakespeare english. Instead of denying archaic kjv is a problem, can just admit that students have to use annotated shakespeare and modern shakespeare translations like No Fear Shakespeare (literal translation) and Shakespeare Made Simple (thought for thought translation), and archaic kjv readers can be helped by similar works like defined king james, TBS westminster, and modern TR translations done by evangelicals like nkjv and mev. Some Kjvo deny obvious truths like archaic kjv has a lot more archaic words than modern translations, and some kjvo deny there are modern translations with probably no archaic words like ncv, erv, gnt, cev, nlv (these are all much easier to understand than the archaic kjv bec another common kjvo lie is modern translations are hard to understand too). Archaic Kjv sometimes retains hebrew word order, greek word order, hebrew idioms, greek idioms, and these are problems and it is easier to understand thought for thought translations like nlt. Archaic Kjv used some archaic pronouns to distinguish singular you and plural you, and there are kjv alternatives that preserve this such as KJVer, kjv 2016 of Nick Sayers and Jubilee Bible. Many things are lost in translation and if really interested to understand more, instead of using archaic kjv, should study hebrew and greek (for example, YHWH is often mistranslated as LORD). Some kjvo claim they are open to new TR translations but in practice, just automatically reject modern translations of the TR like ylt, lsv, nkjv, mev, jubilee bible, just because modern translators make different translation choices from those of archaic kjv translators.
Thank you very much 🌹🌹🌹🌹
You're welcome 😊
Thank you sir
You're welcome!
Ted Letis spent some time at our IFB church in Millington, TN. This was back in the early 80s and I believe he was doing research for his doctorate during this time (hence his hanging out with a bunch of "Ruckmanites"). He even went out street preaching with us and a super nice guy! An absolute breath of fresh air among all of the nonsense this then 20-year old "baby Christian" sailor was was being exposed to! There were times when I wanted to take him aside and say "Get me out of here! Where can I find more balanced folks such as yourself?" I ultimately "swallowed the 'Ruckmanite' hook" after being stationed in San Diego and becoming a member of a "Hyles-Ruckmanite" IFB Church where I graduated from their institute and kept me in this world until 2003 when God dragged me out kicking and screaming. I believe my position closely mirrors that of Matthew Everhard although I am still quite Baptist (Calvinistic but not "1689 Reformed") and currently continuing my education in a Baptist seminary.
✔
There are 2 main types of english using people in confessional bibliology: 1> only uses kjv such as TBS. 2> open to modern english translations of the reformation era traditional texts like ylt, lsv, nkjv, mev.
Another way to classify is to consider which Reformation Era Traditional Texts are given more authority. Those who are Masoretic Texts, TRs, septuagint variants and Latin Vulgate Variants behind the kjv only believers can be called kjvo, and examples are Nick Sayers (kjv non corrector, does not fix kjv translation errors) who translated KJV 2016 and Jay P Green Sr (kjv corrector, fixes kjv translation errors) who translated KJ3. There are those who believe in various Reformation Era Masoretic Texts and TRs used for both english and non english translations and these can be called Reformation Era Traditional Texts Only, and example is Russell Stendal who translated Jubilee Bible.
I think Jeff Dollar (Calvinistic Methodist) is a CB, but he uses the NKJV.
Ah! The group grows by 50%-if this can be substantiated! I'll see if I can find out…
Is part 2 on here?
No. There was one big illustration I used that I was testing out for the first time, and though I think it was appropriate for an in-person setting, I wasn't ready to bring it to the glare of public scrutiny it would get on UA-cam. I'm still working on that.
Where can I get the next session content??
I have decided not to release it publicly. I included an illustration that was not quite ready for public consumption. That illustration was the central contribution of the talk, and I need time to work on it.
@@markwardonwords that first lecture is the best response/ rebuttal that I have seen . I have shared it with others and I’ll tell you brother Mark , it’s is a real eye opener for some .
The 5 categories are similar in practice bec they only use kjv and all of them can easily be called kjvo. Some in confessional bibliology use other modern translations of TR like nkjv and mev and these can still be called kjvo if they believe in all the texts and variants used by the kjv translators. There are Reformation Era Texts Only believers who also believe in masoretic texts, TRs and variants not used by the kjv and an example is Russell Stendal who translated the Jubilee bible (based on reformation era spanish translation, various english translations like William Tyndale and kjv, various masoretic texts, various TRs). Russell Stendal is obviously not kjvo bec he seems to like the William Tyndale translation over the kjv, so his Jubilee Bible might have more William Tyndale than kjv.
Mark Ward Will you be posting your "next session" with Q&A? Thanks
I think so. Not yet sure. Listening now for the third time to decide n
Erasmus, 2nd edition. There. Solved. Moving on. :P
The body of Moses, the tablets of the Law, the bronze serpent, the autographs, and the Jerusalem temple: Where are they? God knows our idolatrous hearts, so these physical objects are now denied us, lest we worship them instead of God Himself. And, Jesus teaches us to pray to the Father, not to יהוה, opening a new door of understanding to all, Jew & Gentile alike. I find the loudest proponents of any sort of absolutist position to be most ungracious at times
(James 3: 17). Thank you for this most excellent lecture! Blessings!
🙋🏼♂️📖
ethiopian orthodox is interesting bec they have a larger canon that includes 1 enoch and jubilees (these are complete in ethiopic). Samaritan Jews are interesting bec their canon is small and is only the 5 books of moses in the samaritan pentateuch. Qumran jews are interesting bec they were using 1 Enoch and Jubilees as sources for some of their favorite prophecies. Bec of dead sea scrolls discoveries, we now know more about the evolution of the OT from qumran to samaritan pentateuch, septuagint and the later masoretic text (those who formed the masoretic text had choices for many books which had shorter versions and longer versions). Dead sea scrolls also revealed 1 Enoch was translated from hebrew to greek and from greek to ethiopic, Jubilees original was hebrew and the ethiopic is just a translation. Many kjvo beliefs about the masoretic text are just not true.
Has too many ads. replays do not seem to have ads.
Regarding the riddle of which TR in confessional bibliology believed in by english users, most are probably similar to Jay P Green Sr and are believers in the Reformation Era masoretic texts, TRs, latin vulgate variants, some variants from complutensian polyglot used for the KJV, which in practice, as seen in the TBS translation work for non english languages, is usually, the reformation era masoretic text (and whatever variants) used for the KJV and scrivener TR (and whatever variants) used for the KJV. For example, currently, there are at least 2 chinese translation projects using reformation era TRs. I would guess TBS is using the scrivener TR (and whatever variants) used for the KJV to translate to chinese. Bearing Precious Seed the baptist translators are probably using scrivener TR (and whatever variants) used for the KJV and they also consult the KJV in doing translations to foreign languages like chinese.
Timothy Berg's paper, "Revelation 1:8 - An Example of How a Printing Error Became a Received Text" seems to argue that all TRs have an error here at Revelation 1:8. I think I am reading and understanding his paper correctly. So, if this is true then how can those who hold to the confessional bibliology position argue for a "kept pure in all ages" TR? I doubt it can be argued that the "Reformation Church" knowingly accepted this erronoeus reading. Therefore their acceptance of the reading should hold no weight in determining the correct reading. Has there been a rebuttal to Timothy Berg's paper?
You have to understand that the confessional bibliology position is not concerned with empirical facts! They simply do not sweat the details of differences in the various TR editions, they just don't care about that. Rather their position is a theological choice as a matter of faith. That is why whenever you engage in discussion, you will always be talking past each other. You will be talking empiricism and they will be talking confessional theology/apologetics!
TBS doctrinal statement seems to say they believe in all of the Reformation Era masoretic texts and TRs which were used to translate into english and non english languages. In practice, for non english languages, TBS does translate from Reformation Era masoretic texts and TRs (probably in practice using scrivener TR) to produce modern translations. In practice, for english, TBS is still KJV only, and has no interest in producing a new english modern translation. In practice, for english ,TBS is still kjvo and pretty much automatically rejects modern translations of the reformation era texts such as ylt, lsv, nkjv, mev.
Agree. On the TBS website you will find several booklets that critique modern versions. The TBS critiques of the NKJV I find the most interesting, especially the small booklet by Malcolm Watts becuase there is obvious double standards used. Typically this happens when the KJV is assumed to be the standard and therefore any deviation from the standard is an error.
There are Reformation Era Traditional Texts Only believers who have produced modern translations. They believe in the Reformation Era masoretic texts and Reformation Era TRs, plus maybe whatever other variants were popular during the Reformation Era. An example is Russell Stendal who translated the Jubilee Bible which is based on Reformation Era spanish translation, Reformation Era masoretic texts, Reformation Era TRs, Reformation Era english translations such as by William Tyndale and KJV.
About Matthew 5:17. When Jesus says the "law" he is not referring to the old testament law but to himself just as he was referring to himself when he said I will destroy and rebuild this temple in 3 days. We know that Jesus' reign and authority as Lord will come to and end at the 1000 year reign (1 Corinthians 15:24-26) when we get a new heaven and Earth.
Amen brother! Right on!
I actually do prefer the TR from a similar reason to the confessions, but I would never ne a textual absolutist. The confessions say that the text has been kept pure in the original languages through all ages. It does not say that it become more pure at some point. It also refutes those that treat the KJV's underlying text as perfect because of that one spot in Rev 16:5 with zero Greek support.
I appreciate this very much.
What I got from this video: they ARE essentially KJVO.
The views of the leading proponents of Confessional Bibliology are very similar but not identical those of mainstream IFB KJV-Onlyism. They are not akin to Ruckmanism.
Many are probably kjvo in practice and strictly only use kjv. Some believe in whatever materials were used to translate the KJV so can still be called kjvo bec of the KJV dependency.
This is a really stupid question that occurred to me in the context of the title. Do the KJVonlyists think that new translations of the Bible in other languages should be based on the KJV? While this started out as a bad faith question, I'm genuinely curious now... I know that most of them think tha the KJV is God's perfect revelation in English but how does this factor vis à vis other languages?
True KJVOs do insist that translations into other languages be made from the KJV. I know of at least 1, Sam Gipp, who has said that people just have to learn English in order to read the word of God. Confessional Biblioligists would prefer that non-English translations be made from Greek and Hebrew.
Current fundamentalist translators like TBS and Bearing Precious Seed baptists do use hebrew and greek to translate to foreign languages like chinese. TBS is probably using reformation era masoretic text and the scrivener TR to translate to chinese. Bearing Precious Seed baptists use similar reformation era texts plus they also consult the KJV when translating to chinese (they translated baptize = immerse). These translating organizations are inconsistent bec they like to make modern translations for non english languages but they refuse to make a modern translation for english even though KJV has been archaic for many years, bec the archaic KJV is still much loved by these translating organizations. All TBS is willing to do for english is their TBS westminster which has definitions for archaic words in the margins, and no interest in producing a new english translation. TBS westminster is actually not that useful bec it is missing many definitions where they are really needed. Bearing Precious Seed translators do not seem to have produced any helps for the archaic kjv and probably just rely on the kjv dictionaries of other people to supply definitions for archaic words in the kjv. Many fundamentalists believe archaic words are not a serious problem for the kjv which is just ridiculous (if you look at how students struggle to understand the similar archaic shakespeare).
@@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175 Right. I'm not aware of any truly King James Only people or organizations involved in translating the Bible. TBS is more of a KJV/TR advocacy organization. I too found their opposition to updating the language of the KJV to be inconsistent and disappointing.
@@nerdyyouthpastor8368 Some in TBS probably believe in the texts behind the KJV so bec of the kjv dependency, they can still be called kjvo.
@@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175 I would call anyone who insists that the King James is the only English translation that can rightly be considered the word of God KJVO. When I mentioned "true KJVOs," I was referring to the extremists who consider the KJV the only (or at least purest) word of God in any language in keeping with the definitions Dr. Ward gave.
Some reformation era texts only believers are really kjvo if they are dependent on the KJV to determine which texts to believe in (KJV translators used reformation era masoretic texts, TRs, latin vulgate variants, variants from the complutensian polyglot). For which KJV ? there are are those who believe in the first edition 1611 kjv, there are those who believe in the 1769 kjv, there are those who believe in a later printing of the kjv (there is no end to kjv revisions bec in america, kjv has no copyright and any american is free to modify and print the kjv).
Absolute beliefs seem mainly caused by addiction to traditions such as addiction to the kjv tradition or to Reformation Era Traditions like reformation era translations, reformation era masoretic texts, reformation era TRs, reformation era variants, etc. Much loved traditions being destroyed by modern knowledge can lead some to atheism.
It's good to hear mentioned how 1John 5:7 has been removed. That's one point the NWT often gets critiqued on, yet it was one of the first mainstream translations to remove it. Today nearly all translations, wisely, correctly and understandably leave it out.
Where can I get a good rebuttal to Letis ? His book has been floating in my church somewhat.
Do you know Tim Berg of kjbhistory.com? He may be a good source. He and I have both found Letis frustratingly hard to pin down. He almost seemed to delight in not being clear. =(
@@markwardonwords I am absolutely floored that the CB guys can’t answer the question of which TR and Why that one . I was at lunch with one of our elders and he began to advocate for the TR and I remembered your two questions. He just couldn’t answer definitively . This drives my absolutely insane Dr Mark ! How could men who call themselves Reformed fall for this line of reasoning?
@@michealferrell1677 I feel the same way. As I say in this video: I've never been so amazed and confounded. I do know a few CB guys who do speak to me clearly in answer to these questions, but only one-Christian McShaffrey-has actually answered them with definitive answers.
@@markwardonwords Dr Riddle is a Greek professor in our IRBS seminary and has much influence on the younger reformed guys . I was hoping that in the new Expansion of the confession by Dr Jim Renihan he would have said something contrary to the CB position but instead he walked a fine line between confirming the existence of the view among the framers of the WCF/ 2LCF and what I think is his personal view .
@@michealferrell1677 I've been wanting to read that chapter. I'd actually like to talk to someone at IRBS to find out what their official position is (though I'd like to do my due diligence first and read that chapter!).
Hello Bro. Ward, as you know I'm in the Ruckmanite group. There seems to be a misrepresentation of Ruckmanism that continues to be spread. Even if you don't agree with it, I'd love to feel like you understood and were arguing against Doc's real position.
I am attempting to speak with Tim Berg about it at the moment, as this misunderstanding is also very apparent in the last couple videos. I don't think you want to be publicly seen setting up the equivalent of a straw man of Dr. Ruckman's position, especially since this position was key in the movement you are writing against.
I’m listening. I trust you to represent Ruckman accurately. It was almost 20 years ago (or was it 20?!) that I did a deep dive into Ruckman’s views. I tried recently to listen again. I could hardly take it. Tim will listen, too.
@@markwardonwords Thank you, brother. I've added specifics in a new comment above.
Would love to know if you've heard responses from the Confessional Bibliology/Providential Preservation camp on this kind of thing (or if you have ideas on what kind of responses would happen): ua-cam.com/video/3XZYlzcPikM/v-deo.html
Been finding this very helpful to think about, especially as presuppositional approaches become more popular via Pr. Doug Wilson's ministry.
Been blessed by your resources, but also DeSoto's/Agros's interactions/critiques with yours as well. Been spending a lot of time diving into White/Riddle/Van Kleeck and trying to understand the different camps. The TR-comparison idea might be really helpful!
Peter Gurry, Text and Canon - another resource for self.
Send me an email through my contact form at byfaithweunderstand.com. I've got some thoughts for you. I've backed out of public engagement with CB, and I don't want to talk about them in this sort-of-public forum. I made one clarifying comment to Matthew Rose, and I'm hoping that can be the last thing I ever have to say publicly about CB. I'm not vowing or anything, and I might get pulled out of CB "retirement" one of these years to do some kind of public event/debate. But even that I'm unsure of. I just got tired of saying the same things to them and getting a mass of confusion and personal abuse in response (plus some private messages that were much more rational but which didn't satisfy me).
Peter Ruckman is less extreme than Gail bec Peter Ruckman does use english dictionaries, hebrew and greek to explain archaic words in the kjv. Chick Publications is less extreme than Gail bec Chick Publications does use english dictionaries to explain archaic words in the KJV. Gail is the most extreme bec she does not allow the use of english dictionaries, hebrew and greek to define archaic words in the kjv. KJVO Nick Sayers (a TR behind the KJV believer) has tried the method of Gail to guess the definitions of archaic words in the kjv using just the kjv contexts and Nick Sayers says the Gail method does not work most of the time.
Many kjvo are quite clear in what they believe. Jay P Green Sr in his preface for his KJ3 translation, says he believes in whatever was used by the kjv translators, and in practice, this is usually the reformation era masoretic text used by kjv translators and the TBS scrivener TR. Jay P Green Sr is a kjv corrector since he does fix the many translation errors of the kjv. Some kjv revisers believe kjv has 0 translation errors (are kjv non correctors) and will only update the archaic words to modern english (an example is Nick Sayers who translated the kjv 2016).
The Scrivner TR is the back-translated KJV, which used more than one TR plus the Vulgate and other sources. The question is, for those who say there is only one single perfectly transmitted TR: which TR do they believe that is? (It can't be the Scrivner TR since that is a combination of multiple sources: other TRs plus Vulgate etc.)
@@MM-jf1me all desires and all beliefs are irrational. Some TR believers just point to the scrivener TR which is a pretty simple belief. Some TR believers prefer to do some textual criticism of the various TRs which is probably a bit too complicated for most fundamentalists who prefer simpler beliefs.
Mark, their conclusions make perfect sense because they are all not saying that they are saying that the KJV corrects the TR. :D
Not sure I follow! Try me again!
Just wish to congratulate Dr. Ward, he is in the minority making contact and including information from the past, often not covered by many, lam going back to James White and Dan Wallace in the 90s facing the problem head on. They made great dialogue in defense and inclusion of the Alexandrian. But didn't covered much of the past arguments on this. There isn't any language on the entire earth today able to perfectly transmit Gods thoughts. The holy spirit works with human imperfections and gets the Godspell perfectly into our hearts. To expect a perfect bible with imperfect sinful man many tongues is not forward thinking. What is impossible for man is possible to God. The sceptics and absolutists should stop thinking with carnal humanist inclusions and resolute, for awhile. Iam a supporter of the byzantine type documents and the KJV. l can also do a bible study with modern bibles and bring many to Christ. I would give them a KJV for bible studies and doctrines. Gods spirit is alway at work. ( Godbless the boby.) AMEN
I have noticed that the label of KJV only-ism is being used by only those opposed to the usage of the KJV. So, maybe one who calls someone else with a potential derogatory word should first ask oneself if I should use that word on me first. So, could I be an onlyist if I hold a position of using a specific Bible translation is wrong while using any other Bible translation is okay to do? I would have to say yes that I would be an onlyist if I hold that position but I do not hold that position due to in every Bible I have including the KJV in Genesis there is the account of the Tower of Babel where the Lord God mixed up the languages, and I take this to mean that all languages should be viewed with equality and should strive to translate into all of these languages even if a writing system has to be made to do so.
Even the Roman Catholic Church went into an onlyist position when they through various methods had every other translation changed to the Vulgate for usage. So, a precedent for an onlyist position could be reasoned out from this historical fact, so one could view what the KJV Bible users ascribed as onlyist are just following historical precedent or they have chosen to believe that God has the ability through us fallible people to translate by miraculous measures an English text that can be viewed as inerrant. I personally do not see why this should be hard to believe seeing is how that I believe a man walked on water which to this day I have not yet done, resurrected another man in the tomb after four days by the name of Lazarus, and rose from a tomb himself his name is Jesus Christ Lord of us all.
I grew up in the movement, and I remember the label “KJV-Only” being something we wore proudly. I never intend it to be derogatory. I often use “KJV defender” instead, just in case.
Five books to read.1. The Odyssey and The Iliad, by Homer
2. Aeneid, by Virgil
3. Dante’s Divine Comedy
4. King James Bible
5. The plays of Shakespeare
The word of God is pure by definition (Ps 12:6, 119:140, Prov 30:5). Purity isn't defined by jot and tittle matching of a non-extant original autograph or of a particular edition of the KJV in someone's hand. The Scriptures are the anthology of Canonical books recognized and received as authentic by a consensus of born-again Spirit-filled believers in the vulgar language of every nation and generation unto which they have come; they are the very word of God in a written form given by inspiration of God - true in all its parts, perfect, pure, inerrant, infallible, etc. and the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. The inspiration of God implies true in all its parts, perfect, pure, inerrant, infallible, etc. and the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. The inspiration of God is without distinction in nature and is not limited by time. By the Scriptures, I mean the generally accepted consensus of versions, editions, and printings of the Scriptures. The Standard Version always takes precedence over sectarian, peculiar, private or individually preferred versions or editions. The Scriptures determine versions and editions; versions and editions do not determine the Scriptures. The preservation of Scriptures is not about preserving exact jots and tittles, but rather the preservation of God's written authority - Sola Scriptura.
Your statement of faith is appreciated, but what do you do with factual evidence in hand?
@@rossjpurdy You would have to explain further. Your definition of the term Scripture as used in the Scriptures would be helpful. A few facts:
1. The original autographs are no longer extant and can no longer be used to determine the Scriptures.
2. The definition of the Scriptures doesn't change over time, generation or culture.
3. Any edition of our English Authorized Version in someone's hand today could not have been used to to determine the Scriptures prior to 1611.
4. All believers in every age and language are commanded to read, obey and live the word of God as found in the Scriptures.
@@BrentRiggsPoland You need a definition for Scripture? There is no such thing as a consensus and since when did a consensus determine what Scripture is or is not? That is quite bizarre to say the least. I don't see that as a starting place and it certainly will not be an ending place. That only works for discrete groups all willing to to exclude any personal thoughts on the matter and willing to let someone else dictate that for them. No, we are all responsible to answer to God and that is simply too important to shuck and put into another's lap. Now except for your number 2, I do not disagree with those facts. The definition of what is Scripture should not change but it most certainly has through out history. Of course, that is the issue. Do we arbitrarily settle on a random print edition against all others or do we acknowledge the facts, face them, and deal with them honestly. Settling on a Reformation text in this day and age is akin to sticking one's head in the sand. It amounts to a lack of honesty and a failure to deal with reality because it is easier to do. But I speak of the facts which are that we have a mass of manuscripts in evidence which have been subjected to the handling by men who have copied them and passed them on. As soon as men started copying the word of God, purity of the word became a matter of degree. It has been a while since I watched the video but didn't Mark show that Hills was even incapable of certainty? At least he was then being honest. Given the evidence, the purity has taken some damage but with regard to the TR, it does not best represent the manuscripts today even if it may have for some time, But beyond that, there is a degree of impurity among the editions of the TR itself seeing as they do not agree with each other. We have done better and thus need to move on beyond the TR. Hopefully that illuminates my thinking.
@@rossjpurdy This is not the best forum to discuss these things. Your definition of the term Scripture as used in the Scriptures would indeed be helpful if your intent is to have a meaningful dialogue. The definition of the term Scripture does not change over time, generation or culture despite your objections. Remember, I’m asking for meaning (definition) of the term Scriptures and that meaning does not change. Indeed, the Scriptures have been copied, translated, and expanded throughout history, but the definition of the term Scriptures has not changed. By the way, the copying, translating and expansion of the Scriptures has no effect on the purity of the Scriptures (Ps 12:6, 119:140, Prov 30:5). My email is: mitexas@yahoo.com if you wish to discuss this further.
@@BrentRiggsPoland Those passages do not refer to Scriptures, they refer to words. They may be related if those words were recorded but not necessarily after having been copied (given they were recorded) through multiple generations and passed down through the centuries. So now you are faced with the same issues as everyone else because your Bible was not handed to you from out of the hand of God. So now I am interested to see your definition of Scripture seeing as you have already confused "words" for "Scripture"!
Riddle is dishonest concerning the TRs and kjv onlyism. I've listened to James White debate Jeff Riddle and kjv only is cult like. I would never allow Jeff to teach in my congregation if I were an Elder because of his intentional blindness on this matter. But I would never allow a Calvinist to teach either and Jeff and most at this lecture are Calvinists. I am not an Arminian either, I'm a born again believer. I refute Calvinism beginning with Calvinism's "definition" of sovereign, which is not found in the God breathed words from Genesis to Revelation.
I'm super careful to avoid calling someone dishonest. I feel like that's usually something only God knows. I would not call Jeff dishonest; I believe he is sincerely wrong.
At 18:00, you state incredulously that Dr. Ruckman views the King James as "fresh revelation from God." It seems from your statement that you're hearing something like "God spoke to the translators of the KJV and gave them something he didn't give to the autographic writers."
Dr. Ruckman didn't teach that. He taught that the advanced vocabulary available in the English language revealed more to the reader than the ambiguous original languages could offer. "Advanced revelation" is not the creation of some new message in English, but rather a clearer revealing of the message that is already there.
At 18:10 you state that Dr. Ruckman believed the King James was "even correcting the Greek and Hebrew." This sounds like you think Dr. Ruckman taught the KJV gave us a new message that corrected the original autographs. He never taught that.
What Dr. Ruckman taught was that the eclectic King James text corrected errors found within its body of source texts. This is the entire aim of reasoned eclecticism. Dr. Ward, we have Sinaiticus, why not simply use it instead of Nestle? Because you believe Nestle CORRECTS the errors of Sinaiticus by way of reasoned eclecticism.
In 20 years of study, including graduating from his institute, I've never found a single place where Dr. Ruckman said the KJV "corrects" the autographs. To teach that, he would be claiming errors in the original autographs. Dr. Ruckman was one of the most ardent defenders of the perfection, inspiration and preservation of the Bible. Do you really think he taught there were errors in the autographs that needed correcting? That would be one of the most incredible straw men I've ever encountered.
To be very clear, Dr. Ruckman's position was this: our English Bible corrected extant texts by way of reasoned eclecticism (and additional methods). It also offers the modern reader an improved revealing of the original intended message, by way of broader English vocabulary. While you may disagree with this position, I think you'll be hard pressed to call it "extreme," as you did in this talk (18:01). I can only believe this was passed down to you by someone who did not carefully read Dr. Ruckman.
Advanced revelation in the english language can probably be called a new revelation in the english language.
@@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175 The phrase is ambiguous, I will admit. But Dr. Ruckman never taught there was unique, new revelation in the English Bible that could not be found anywhere in the autographs. He simply taught that the sharper language made the existing revelation clearer. An important distinction.
@@Wesley-KJV-Ruckmanite Peter Ruckman obviously believed KJV is some type of new revelation bec the advanced revelation in the english language is only found in the KJV and not in other english translations. Peter Ruckman is not as extreme as Gail bec Peter Ruckman does use english dictionaries, hebrew and greek to explain archaic words in the KJV as seen in his commentaries on the KJV. KJV can be considered a new revelation if KJV is used to help determine which reformation era masoretic texts and which reformation era TRs to believe in. KJV translators also used some latin vulgate variants and some variants from the complutensian polyglot, and whatever the KJV translators used, is usually believed in by kjvo.
@@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175 I can see why you'd think this, but this advanced revelation is not exclusive to the KJV. It can be found, for example, in Isaiah 7:14 in most modern versions along with the KJV (where they render "alma" as "virgin").
Although there are a few instances where the KJV alone gets the reading right, as in Acts 12:4 (Easter, not passover). But this is a mechanism of good translating of the text that is there, not new verbal inspiration.
@@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175 "...whatever the KJV translators used, is usually believed in by kjvo..."
Yes Dr. Ruckman believed that the KJV translators chose good readings, but importantly, Dr. Ruckman did not believe that those readings were EXCLUSIVELY correct. He taught that minor variants, where eclecticism could not offer a definitive answer, and where there was no scriptural error in either variants, could BOTH be considered God's perfect, inspired words. A major distinction that most people just didn't pick up on in his writings. Thus the KJV did not "divine" by some magic revelation WHICH single source was exclusively right, but chose correct readings among several acceptable ones.
Poor martyr for the Modern Critical Text advocates!
This is a good example of the kind of engagement I get with CB proponents, and why I stopped trying after several years. But I will be meeting with a bigger name in that world in person soon. We may get somewhere.
I believe the 1611 KJV (not the KJV we have today) is God’s pure refined words in English today. Psalms 12 (I think it is) says that God’s words are like silver tried in a furnace of earth purified seven times. The 1611 KJV is the seventh English reformation Bible based on manuscripts of the original languages. They are, the Tyndale NT, Coverdale, Matthews, Great Bible, Geneva, Bishop’s, and the 1611.
The 1611 translators believed those earlier Bibles were good Bibles, but I believe God used those men to reach the pure words (in English) of the 1611 KJV (one final refinement).
On the other hand, the modern bibles come from Catholic manuscripts (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus). The Catholic Church (Vatican / Rome) is the church of Satan/antichrist. So if you read a modern Bible, you’re reading a Bible from the enemy.
Brother, I see what you are saying, but I just want to make a couple of points in response to your comment.
Firstly, in response to the Psalms 12 argument, the context of the passage must be looked at. “For the oppression of the poor, For the sighing of the needy, Now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him. 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.”
Psalm 12:5-7 KJV The Bible says in verse seven that God shall preserve “them” forever. Often people just apply this to God’s words; however, in the Hebrew that the King James Translators used, it says “him” instead of them. Because words is not a masculine noun the only other masculine noun would be the poor. Therefore, the Bible is saying that God would keep the poor forever. ( The KJV translators even put in their Bible in the margins that it is him in the original Hebrew.) Very few interpreters say that it is in reference to the words, and, even if it was, God seemingly left out which Word would be preserved.
In response to the 1611 KJV being the seventh English translation, even if that was solid theology, we do not read the 1611 KJV today. There were 1611, 1629, 1638, 1762 and 1769 (and several more) versions all with differences and most use the 1769.
In response to the modern translations coming from Catholic editions of manuscripts, I think it would interest you to know that the man who created the first five editions of the Textus Receptus was a Catholic Monk. In addition, the TR was made with great respect to the Catholic Latin Vulgate. Several locations within the TR, Erasmus didn’t have any Greek manuscripts, so he went along with the Latin Vulgate (Revelation). In addition many times when he saw something that disagreed with his manuscripts, but was in common use with the Catholics, he would side with the Catholics because he did not want to rock the boat. So if you are to believe that the Catholic Church is a wicked organization (which it is in many ways), and everything that comes out of it is evil, then you would have to believe that the text underlying the KJV which was translated by a Catholic Monk that deferred often to the Catholic vulgate is evil as well.
Dude the 1611 is ancient English that no one understands. Most KJV only-ists read the 1769 but think it’s the 1611. Also, the KJV added extra verses.
@@levigerbitz2550 thanks for your reply. You state we do not read the 1611 today. I wish to correct you. “Most” do not read the 1611 today. There are a few of us, myself included, that do read the 1611.
As for Psalms 12, I intentionally did not mention verse 7, as I know many interpret that verse that way. The 1611 does make a note, “Heb. him i. euery one of them”. But regardless of how you interpret verse 7, verse 6 still says God’s word is purified seven times.
And I’m not saying I’m 100% certain this is what Psalms 12:6 is referring to. But it makes sense when looking back at history.
And also, many times scripture has a spiritual meaning, as well as a natural meaning. So the spiritual meaning of verse 7 could be referring to God’s word, while the natural, to that other interpretation (just thinking aloud!).
Regarding the 1611 (and other reformation Bibles) being translated from Catholic sources…. I’d have to review the 1611 translator’s to the reader letter again to see what they say. But, I can say that the translators knew of the wickedness of the Catholic Church. And so they would not use any source material that they felt was tainted by the Catholic Church.
That is not the case today. There is not that discernment among the translators of modern bibles.
"The 1611 KJV is the seventh English reformation Bible based on manuscripts of the original languages. They are, the Tyndale NT, Coverdale, Matthews, Great Bible, Geneva, Bishop’s, and the 1611."
Tyndale's New Testament isn't a complete Bible, so it's hard to count it as comparable to the Coverdale Bible and its successors. (It's akin to counting the 1948 RSV New Testament as a separate version from the complete 1952 RSV Bible, when it's better understood as an incomplete edition.) So that's one reason that the numbering doesn't work.
But another problem is that some of those 16th century versions received significant updates in subsequent editions. The Bishops' Bible was especially prone to big changes from one edition to the next, sorta like a 1500s ESV. If Tyndale's incomplete Bible counts as one entry in the list, then surely the various editions of these other Bibles count, too. So the calculation of seven English Reformation Bibles is again thrown into question.
And third, it's questionable if the Geneva Bible should even count, as it's an offshoot of the "authorized" lineage. The first translation approved by Henry VIII was the Matthew Bible, which was a revision of the Coverdale Bible. Then the Matthew Bible was revised into the Great Bible. But as England briefly shifted back to Roman Catholicism, Myles Coverdale and other Protestants had to flee to Geneva. There, Coverdale participated in an unofficial revision of the Great Bible, one that didn't get monarchial approval even when England returned to Protestantism. Meanwhile, the Great Bible received its official revisions in the Bishops' Bible and KJV, both of which were made explicitly as monarch-approved rejections of the Geneva Bible. Thus, the Geneva Bible is similar to the NASB, which sits awkwardly outside of the official lineage of Standard Versions (ASV-RSV-NRSV) and can't really be considered a direct ancestor of the NRSV despite predating it.
Ergo, the argument is on shaky ground even before you evaluate the meaning of Psalm 12.6-7. It sounds good until you start looking at all the facts that have to be ignored to reach lucky number seven for the 1611 KJV.
"And if not, what would you say is the true word of God that we have today?"
It would have to be the Bible in its original languages. To the degree that any English version captures the correct nuances of meaning into our receptor language, that English version can too be called the "true word of God."
But since no English version can reflect both the formal and functional elements of translation at the same time, especially not without extensive footnotes, no version can be considered so definitive as to negate the value of other versions. I have certain translations that I will consult more quickly than others, but none of them are sufficient to replace the Hebrew and Greek on their own. (Granted, most Christians could probably get by with a half-decent English version, as most Christians aren't going to delve into the technical stuff, anyway.)
The good news is that even if you believe the Masoretic Hebrew and Byzantine Greek to be the most reliable transmission streams for each testament, you have a number of readily-available options (KJV, NKJV, and MEV) in addition to a slew of obscure or out-of-print versions. The bad news is that all of these translations use the same formal equivalence translation philosophy, so you're limited to one method of bringing the Bible into English.
I love the job 17:6 error you found. I use this on people, and I am always surprised how they try to wiggle around it and still claim kjv1611 is perfect.
A good channel that you may like: Jamie Russel-Christian Middle Earth
Great intelligent live conversations, live join ins
I remember you mentioning Job 17:6 before. What did you say the error was?
@@derekk1 Job compares himself to a tambourine in the KJV, which results from a confusion of תֹּפֶת ("spitting") with תָּפַף ("playing the timbrel").
@@MAMoreno Thanks for clarifying. However, how do you know what the Hebrew word they used was? And how do you know what it meant?
And furthermore, how do you know that there isn’t a spiritual meaning here, where tabret would be the correct word?
I haven’t studied this, but those are my thoughts that come to mind.
@@derekk1 tophet or topet is how I saw the English spelling of that hebrew word. The English word "spit" sounds as if you were to actually spit. Same with that hebrew word.
But it was only used once, and the translators had trouble comparing the words usage because it was found no where else, so they guessed.
All modern translations corrected it and it makes alot more sense.
Thecynicogue might be someone people like better. I just like that these guys don't shy away from a debate.