"Never Has It Been Easier to Read the KJV Than Now"
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 тра 2021
- In which I respond to the lone academic-but-critical review of Authorized, by Dr. Jeffrey Riddle.
If you like my C.S. Lewis hat, check out the little business owned by my good friend Micah Ellis, www.furtherupco.com.
🎁 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 really enjoy hearing the discussion when everyone is charitable about it!
Right!
Great video! I love that hat!! I was about to ask where you got it, but then I saw the description!
My buddy who designed it is so cool!
@@markwardonwords I ordered the beanie!
I had some questions, so I emailed him. He seems really cool!
Love your videos. Is there a way to contact you with a specific question in regard to this topic? I perceive that you will be gentle and charitable in your response to a pondering I have on the textual basis debate.
Sure thing. Use my contact form at byfaithweunderstand.com. I can’t promise a quick answer, but I will do my best to reply!
I was raised in a Puerto Rican Pentecostal church where we primarily relied on the Reina Valera Antigua 1909 translation. This particular version was not very common, as most Spanish churches had already transitioned to using the Reina Valera 1960. As I matured, I decided to explore different translations and eventually settled on the Spanish NIV, which became my preferred version. When it comes to my English bibles, I typically gravitate towards the NIV or the CSB translations. However, ever since discovering your channel, I mustered up the courage to purchase my first KJV, and it has brought me immense joy to read. The poetic and eloquent language used in this translation is truly captivating. I want to thank you brother Mark for the educational and amazing content you provide! May our Lord continue to bless your ministry!
PS I also purchased your book! Can’t wait to read it!
Awesome! Tell me what you think of the book when you finish it!
Mark, I’ve really enjoyed your UA-cam videos and respect your point of view. I understand that you feel the underlying manuscript issue is inconsequential, but many of us believe otherwise. Granted, many differences between the CT and TR are trivial but more than a few are not. Some are quite doctrinally significant. The ultimate question is: has the Church possessed the Word of God all along or did God decide to hide His true words away to be uncovered in the 18th Century (which, interestingly, is also exactly what the LDS Church believes about their sacred writ)?
Out of the myriad of English Bible translations, even you admit that those of us in the TR camp are really only left with two choices outside of the KJV: the NKJV and the MEV. Harper Collins is ferociously protective of the copyright on the NKJV (a trait that seems incongruous of a Bible version that God would want to mightily use) and the MEV has been in existence for less than a decade. Additionally, there are many translation issues with both of them that deviate considerably from the KJV.
The bottom line for some of us is that, until God clearly anoints a suitable replacement for the KJV, we will continue to use it. Honestly, I wish that there was a suitable translation in today’s English but, for His own inscrutable purposes, God has yet to ordain one.
I don’t really think that getting at the meaning of the KJV is quite the Herculean task you’ve suggested. If people are interested enough, God will lead them to teachers and resources to help them out. After all, “Hamlet” contains a few “false friends” itself, but if a High School English teacher can guide students toward the original meaning, couldn’t a gifted minister do the same with the Bible? I also wouldn’t expect the “plow boy” to purchase a 20 volume OED for several hundred dollars, but I would encourage him to use the free website Webstersdictionary1828.com to look up words in the KJV he might struggle with. I would also encourage any serious Bible student to avail themselves of a solid commentary or two (I often highly recommend Logos software) and to get under the teaching of a conservative, expository ministry. I don’t think God ever intended for us to just go away by ourselves and try to figure the Bible out on our own, some of my fellow KJV proponents’ opinions notwithstanding.
Thanks for all the hard work you’ve put into this project and for graciously sharing your insights with us on this UA-cam channel. Sorry about the lengthy comment, but I felt compelled to share the point of view of some of us who might be identified as KJV preferred rather than hardcore KJV Only.
@Shrewd The Wise, if this were the kind of spirit and interaction I received universally from my KJV/TR brothers, nearly all need for polemical statements on my channel would be removed. As it is, you know perhaps better than I do how irascible and pejorative many of our KJV-Only brothers get.
I'm not as suspicious of HarperCollins' ownership of the NKJV as you are, but I can't say it's a pro, exactly. I'm partially with you on that!
But I don't think that God ordains and anoints translations. When I actually look into the TR defenders' critiques of the NKJV, I'm simply not persuaded. Why should deviation from the KJV be inherently bad, unless God does tell us that he ordains and anoints translations?
If gifted ministers were training people to read the KJV, that would be FANTASTIC. Indeed, if they can get past the occasional negative comments about KJV-Onlyism, I'd like to think that such ministers would get more help from my channel (and forthcoming book!) than any other source. I don't just give them fish; I teach them how to fish. But I was at a preachers fellowship recently for KJV-Only pastors (I was invited by a very courteous host pastor!), and I say again what I've said before: I simply have not seen any evidence that KJV-Only pastors are doing this. They themselves are tripped up by my false friends, as I have been.
I don't think that your summary ("has the Church possessed the Word of God all along or did God decide to hide His true word away to be uncovered in the 18th [you meant 19th] Century") is accurate; it's just a lot more complicated than that. But as you know, I don't debate that issue on my channel. I urge you only to take Dan Wallace's Credo House course on textual criticism-or talk to one of my respected friends who *is* willing to talk NTTC with those who insist on the exclusive use of the KJV. (Tim Berg? Do you know him? He's fantastic!)
But you are willing to consider the NKJV and MEV as possibilities. You also speak kindly to me, and you are clearly not hardcore KJV-Only! And you recommend Logos! We are not far apart, brother!
@@markwardonwords Your response is gracious and informative as always. You truly have a gift for telling people you feel they’re wrong in a wonderfully gentle way lol!
I appreciate the references you listed concerning NTTC. I am familiar with Dan Wallace’s work, but I was unaware of the course you mentioned. I am not familiar with Tim Berg, but intend to look into his resources, as well.
I know a lot of KJV folks are not open to rethinking their position, especially some of the more vocal adherents, but my intention is no more nor less than pleasing the Lord and following His will for my life. I definitely, in no way, feel that the issue of what Bible version a person uses is anywhere near as crucial as many have made it out to be.
On a side note, I recently stayed in a hotel and had my first chance to look at a Gideon’s ESV that retains a lot of the TR readings. I wonder why Crossway hasn’t made this version more widely available. A version like that could be the perfect answer for those of us who prefer the TR but, like you, would appreciate a version with more updated language. And if Holman were to ever release a CSB with TR readings it would definitely be my go to version!
Thanks again! God bless you and yours.
Wow-very interesting. Do you really think your tribe is large enough to induce Crossway or Holman to do this? You likely know better than I. My strong, strong impression after years of searching for people like you (people who are TR-Only but not exactly KJV-Only) has yielded maybe three or four hits. I’d love to be wrong!
@@markwardonwords The size of my tribe (or lack thereof) is probably exactly why they haven’t made it more widely available lol! The only info I could find when researching the Gideon’s ESV was from KJVO folks who decried how it was TR but not KJV (one used the expression “putting lipstick on a pig” to describe it). Maybe I should write Crossway directly and find out if they’ve considered retailing the version. They probably realize that the niche would be very small, however, and would not likely be worth a marketing campaign.
I just don’t see this happening. Your tribe indeed is too small! Can you legally get hold of a Gideon ESV? I’ll bet you could!
Thank you for your videos! Learned a lot. As an Afrikaans speaking South African I was in search of a good English version Bible and ended up with the ESV. Love the KJV, but not always understanding the old English words and expressions, it made me look further to something more understandable and easier to read. Also reading the GNB, NIV and NET, but the ESV is my English go to Bible. We have the same issue here in South Africa with the old 1933/1953 Afrikaans translation (translated directly from the old Dutch State Bible) and the modern versions. Keep on with the good work.
Many thanks!
what do we have to do? wait for Dr. Riddle to pass in order to get a good update? I've been read kjv for 20 years. (give or take) but after watching some of your videos, I'm truly concerned about my own under standing of the kj language and I'm a college graduate.
It’s mostly minor stuff, and even I admit that. But I think it’s enough to justify a revision.
@@markwardonwords btw, thank you for your honest reviews. I love your style of communication and clearly stated, honest opinion.👍
@@redrain7730 Thank you for your kind word!
Do you think the ESV is appropriate for new believers?
of course!!
Yes, but I want to feel free to recommend something easier if the new believer is a poor reader.
@@markwardonwords I agree. In the back of my head is that a bunch of people today would say even the ESV and NASB can be too hard to understand. If they are saying that (And I don't think it's true) how much more true is it that the KJV is too hard to understand.
The one thing to keep in mind about the ESV is that it's a light update of the RSV, which itself was more than happy to appeal to readers who grew up with the KJV. As such, the ESV is sometimes bound to tradition even when it leads to less-than-contemporary English. For example, Psalm 23 still opens up with the classic words, "The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want." This usage of the word "want" is bordering on archaic. (Most of the ESV's family members in the KJV lineage---the NRSV, NKJV, and MEV--do the same thing here.)
Because of this trend, the ESV may not be ideal for new believers who are less interested in the modern English Bible sounding like the traditional English Bible and are more interested in understanding the text. By contrast, the more recent CSB translates the opening verse of Psalm 23 like so: "The LORD is my shepherd; I have what I need." Even the 2020 update of the NASB (itself a cousin of the ESV) has realized the need for updated language here: "
The LORD is my shepherd, I will not be in need."
@@MAMoreno, I agree with this completely.
Do you have any recommendations on a KJV dictionary for someone to read with the KJV?
The TBS Westminster Reference Edition is pretty good. But it’s incomplete; it isn’t designed to give definitions, just updated glosses (one-word translation equivalents). You need the massive, 20-volume OED to really get full coverage. Or a contemporary translation.
@@markwardonwords Unfortunately, the OED is not the most accessible resource. The 20-volume OED is over $1,000, and the monthly subscription of $30 is also pricey. Some libraries (not mine, unfortunately) have an institutional subscription so their members can access it online. So if anyone has access to something like that, they should totally take advantage of it. How thorough is the 2 volume set? I've considered buying a used copy off of abebooks or thriftbook, but I'm not sure how beneficial it would be to me.
@@calebschaaf1555, I just heard from a friend who bought the two-volume abridgment, and it is a worthy replacement. The two-volume micro-print set is cheaper, down to $100: www.amazon.com/dp/B005E9M9M4?tag=3755-20 They pop up at thrift stores for much cheaper sometimes, too. Mine was $4 Canadian at a thrift store. A friend got it for me. =)
@@markwardonwords Is the micro-print set the same as the 20-volume set, just with a tiny typeface?
@@calebschaaf1555, yes, that's right. A little sleuthing should get the set into your hands for a good price.
Thank you thank you now I see with my own eyes what you or saying and reading your book you need to keep up the GOOD WORKS GOD BLESS
You are so welcome!
Recently discovered your channel and find it thought-provoking. I tried reading the KJV in 1987 when first becoming a follower of Jesus. I had a very difficult time with it and eventually went with the 84 NIV. Since then I have found myself coming back to this issue of whether the KJV is best. I have many friends convinced it is. I still wonder why baptism isn't translated as immersion. Appreciate your videos.
Keep watching! I promise my videos will help! Get your friends to watch, too. Especially this series: ua-cam.com/play/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc.html
Plowboy here. Your point that as pastors, congregations will adopt the views of the pastor is correct. BUT, a good pastor will strive to grow his listeners to the place where they become thinkings and studiers themselves. I was a preacher for 42 years and encouraged our people to get a bible that speaks to them! While time, and language marches on, the pandora's box of todays bible translation market truly muddies the water. How many modern updates do we truly need? How many change the required 10% for copyright dollars only to churn out another "update" in a short amount of time? How many of todays gems are fostered by greed rather then a better understanding of God's word? I think we also need to be careful we do not jump from the fry pan into the fire.
I've got a video coming out in early April, I believe, on this very point!
I'm with you, and the plough boy, all the way, Mark! You know, having been reading the Legacy Standard Bible online for a couple weeks, as well as having one which will be in my hands any day now, it has to be the best translation I have read so far. I'll qualify this by saying that I have only read the KJV, the NKJV, the MEV, and JP Green's KJ3. I am actually excited about the LSB because the level of clarity it offers is entirely different to the others. I know loads of Americans, and whomever else, know the NASB intimately, but I've never approached it because, for one thing, it says American, but secondly it has never crossed my path. Please forgive my typos, I can only read with one eye!
(My English Grandmother, Mum's Mum, was a Truelove.)
Thank you so much for the support!
Love your videos. I really need to order and read your book. And it’s comical how many people are commenting on this video without even watching it.
That’s the internet for you. ;)
is there a modern translation out of TR?...
Yes, absolutely! There are two major ones, the NKJV and the MEV. I recommend both of them.
And the WEB based on the majority text should be better than one based on a tiny subset of the majority text called the texts Receptus. I wonder what he thinks about the KJV MEV parallel Bible ?
Would love to see a conversation between the two of you.
This is unlikely to occur, I’m afraid.
The KJV is a “ Version “ based on a limited collection of manuscripts. As a pastor, I use it along with the ESV, NASB, NET, HCSB, LEB, TLV and enjoy and learn the true depth of the riches within each of these “ translations “ or “ versions “
Me too!
The KJV translators would agree that the more translations the merrier for greater understanding and clarity thereof.
I use multiple translations. My main "go to" translation in Bible studies that I attend is the NKJV, but use others for personal reading. Depending on what I'm watching on UA-cam, I might also use ESV.
Loved it bro ❤️.
Thank you, sir!
I find that current English readers are already struggling with early 19th century English, let alone Early Modern English. And it goes without saying that Riddle's use of "never" in this statement must be hyperbolic if he is using it in good faith. Obviously, someone reading the KJV in the 17th and 18th centuries would have far less difficulty reading it than a 21st century reader does.
That said, in the comment section of his blog, I noticed that he phrased his claim more reasonably. He says that "it has never been easier to explore a difficult term when reading the KJV or any translation." The word "never" is still not a great word choice, but this version of the statement is less patently absurd if taken at face value.
I myself once said in a video something that set up my opponents for an easy gotcha; I presumed too much charity from them, and they were all over me. It is true that I could have put a more charitable spin on Dr. Riddle’s statement there. I know he doesn’t mean it’s easier now than when the KJV was released. But the statement, even with a more charitable spin, is still pretty extreme and, yes, absurd; it even subtly acknowledges the truth of what I’m saying: that there are lots of words in the KJV that you have to look up!
Typically I use the KJV exclusively, but recently purchased a NASB study bible and have been using it heavily. Figured I would share my recent expansion in translations with you. I do still enjoy the KJV though.
Excellent! I enjoy both, too.
And you would enjoy the 1901 ASV even more than the KJV and the NASB
An excellent argument for and against a new translation. The reality is it is a personal struggle for most. One example from my personal experience, after 20+ years of reading various translations, is a desire to understand the text yet constantly skipping a word for further extrapolation of meaning. I do take the time now, if I question the word no matter what translation I am using, to go to the greek definition. The Koine greek. Another example, from a nephew, was the desire to read the bible but in a translation without all the "thees and thous" as he put it. I gave him a nice CSB translation so he could begin to grasp the concepts of grace and mercy and the gospel. There are souls out there that need to be able to go through that initial door in a language they can understand. If the fire is lit then one day he, and many others, may pick up a KJV and really understand the archaic language, although not fully, but will make the necessary connections. In other words, start them with simple arithmetic before you give them algebra. If I can give this one recent example, how many more are drowning out there without a lifeboat while some dangle a life preserver just out of reach? Or perhaps the analogy is a little backward: A life preserver within reach until the lifeboat can be sent to carry them back to the ship.
This is kind of the way I used to think about the KJV: it was the 100 proof stuff (I don't know alcohol at all, so I'm not sure if that analogy works!); it was the advanced class. I was intellectually arrogant, so I was all for that! But as time has passed, I have come to see it differently. I never want to make any laypeople feel that the KJV is "the real Bible" and theirs only a pale imitation.
Why not give him a hard to find 1901 ASV which is just as poetic and majestic as the KJV with the archaic language updated?
I agree that the time is now as waiting just a little too long will surely do more damage then moving a little too soon. Nowhere is this more apparent then in my own church during corporate and responsive reading. Though my church is a hardline KJVO and I a KJV user and lover for almost three decades now, the overall clarity of versions like the NASB, ESV, CSB, and NKJV side by side is unquestionable especially for the unchurched, under-churched and the younger generations. I believe a trend toward denial and prideful arrogance are two of the biggest roadblocks preventing conversation in this area much less instituting change. Unfortunately I fear that this denial and pridefulness will win out in the end and ultimately will hinder more then bring forth good fruit...
Adam, I have to agree with you in every detail.
Good point on sticking to the intended audience, the plow boy. Even with the words being obsolete 100 years ago, the KJV was breathed in everyday language to keep the understanding alive. We are now missing both. Like the phrase “you’re putting words in my mouth” then reading 2 Samuel 14v3, and our current interpretation is someone falsely representing us, not advising us what to say. We know all those words, but the understanding of the phrase now requires more than plow boy’s learning.
Right. Vernacular translation-putting the Bible into the language of the people-is a value for which you have to continue to fight, because language changes.
I think that the plow boy of Tyndale's day would have had to have things explained to him, too, as found in Tyndale's work...words like imputeth, justified, sanctification. Every generation has to be taught/have things explained; there is no getting around that.
SD, I have affirmed what you’ve just said countless times. And yet I continue to hear it over and over from my KJV only commenters: why?
@@markwardonwords I think it is because that while you say that you agree with and understand that all versions have words that would need to be defined/explained, it remains the main reason why you advocate for modern versions--the KJV has some words in it that would need to be defined/explained. For myself, that does not seem logical.
SD, you’ve watched enough of my videos- what do you think my answer to your comment will be?
Even with smartphones, most high schoolers are probably as smart as plow boys.
Love your spirit Brother. Greatly lacking today, sadly!
Pray for me, please! I've got the old man.
I think the only thing that will end the KJVO debate is when churches start demanding their pastors preach the entire word of God expositionally, verse by verse. I came out of a KJVO, independent fundamental Baptist background and I’m pretty well versed in the preaching. I don’t think it’s unfair to say the majority of those pastors preach “The KJV” rather than FROM the KJV and do so in an “air” of “we are better than them because we don’t believe in perverted Bibles.” I have zero tolerance for such pastors ranking them about 3/10ths of a percent away from a KJV cult. It’s to easy to rail about Bible perversions and exegetical preaching takes work. The flip side of my view is that there are plenty of butts willing and desirous to sit in the pews and amen such shallow “preaching.” The good ones, pastors and congregants will come out of it.
You are a true word smith. Keep up the good work smithy.
Many thanks, Arnold. I do appreciate your consistent encouragement.
Has anyone taken the KJV and added footnotes that explain all of the false friends and changes meanings, so that all you would have to do is glance down at the notes (and not go grab a dictionary, (or worse yet, read on after encountering a false friend without realizing that you don't understand the word)? I know we have the NKJV, but is there an Authorized version with detailed linguistic footnotes? This would seem to extend the life of the KJV and satisfy some of the issues raised in your response.
I have proposed this very thing. It may happen!
@@markwardonwords It would be a great tool to have (I majored in both English and History in college, and Shakespeare was my emphasis in English - so I do enjoy Elizabethan English). However, I am reading through the NLT at present and am quite enjoying it; though I think, long term, that the NKJV will end up being my go to Bible.
Great video Mark. I am kind of in the middle with this issue. I used to attend a staunch KJV only church. Like most of these churches, there are other issues that are problematic beyond just the use of the KJV, so I left and don't consider myself KJV only. I use the KJV at my current church because I translate for the pastor. His sermons are in Spanish and he uses the RV 1960. In my own private reading I often use the NLT....I translation on the opposite polar end! My "problem" for not exclusively using the NLT is not because I have an issue with modern Bible translations. I agree with you in that we need Bibles in the modern vernacular. My concern is with the textual differences. I just can't help it. I don't fully trust modern Bible translations because of this. I, of course, am not a Bible scholar. It would be great Mark if you could kind of touch on this subject. Most of my KJV only friends are more concerned with this issue than the actual translation in modern Bibles.
We find men and denominations are imperfect. Time has shown the KJV is the unmatched, definitive word of God for English-speaking people. Because of personal experiences or arguments presented to us, we need to guard against blending these together as though there is something amiss with the KJV. It is right for us to test what we are taught and what we find in denominations against the Bible, and we need the whole counsel of God as found in the KJV to do just that. I am not going to abandon or lessen my dependence on the KJV because of the flaws of men; in fact, they make that dependence all the more needful.
There are meaningful doctrinal differences between the KJV and modern versions. The book titled Missing in Modern Bibles: The Old Heresy Revived by Jack A. Moorman powerfully and succinctly highlights these differences and why they matter.
Some would minimize those differences or dismiss them under various banners, but in the light of scripture's clear warnings, they do so at their own peril.
Godly men and women in their homes are capable of helping the next generation along in their study and understanding of the KJV. Godly pastors and teachers can and do equip their congregations in the same.
@@sdlorah6450 what about those people who have never used the KJV at all? There are Christians who love the Lord serve the Lord spread the gospel and they do it using any of the modern versions. I am not trying to argue here. However I have to say I don't mind archaic words being replaced with modern equivalents. I am more concerned with the textual differences between the King James Version and modern versions.
@@chaplainclaude7384 You ask good questions and express legitimate concerns. You are correct in saying that there are believers that love and serve the Lord and use the modern versions...I was one of them. I do not disparage them or their work. Many of them do not know of the important differences between the KJV and modern versions like the ESV, NASB, and NIV which are in more common use today. I think that many would be appalled by the differences were they to see them for themselves. These people teach orthodox doctrine, but do not realize that the doctrinal heart of many passages has been weakened/changed in verses in modern versions. People today still enjoy the influence of the KJV though the lives of their pastors/parents. As people get away from the KJV, though, the teaching and learning of future generations will be negatively effected by a departure from the KJV.
The fact is that taking the word of God to others has never been an easy task. Cultural and language barriers have to be overcome when evangelizing the nations. In some places, even the biblical words/concepts of sheep and shepherds have to be explained to people, but we would not drop or change these because they were unknown to them. Definitions for unknown words are easily found in the era of modern technology and can aid readers in their understanding.
Most modern versions use a different underlying text as compared to the KJV, i.e. the textual issue. Those versions largely depend upon the Greek text of Westcott and Hort who utilized two manuscripts in the care of the Roman Catholic Church in the assembly of their Greek text in the 1800s. These manuscripts differ in significant ways from the manuscripts that underlie the KJV and other Reformation-era Bibles. The work of these men and their beliefs as stated in their own writings reach into the lives of unsuspecting church goers today that use versions based on their text. Dr. Moorman's book provides great information on this most important aspect of the Bible version issue.
Believers can be sympathetic to reading issues and work to address these things, but we cannot abandon the KJV for modern versions because of the many problems with them.
@@sdlorah6450 thank you. KJV is the only version I trust 100%. That being said I am not against a Bible in the current vernacular if it truly followed the KJV underlying text.
I finally got hold of the KJVER; I had never seen one in real life. It does look like it has done this.
That was wonderful, Dr. Ward--well said. I love your nuanced responses. For me, in my less nuanced way, the big issue boils down to WHY the KJV people think it's a good idea to place a stumbling block in the way of today's "ploughboy" by requiring him to overcome language differences when the simple solution is to put a Bible in front of him he doesn't need the help of a dictionary to read? Sincere, God-loving people who take the KVJO position seem to really have a blind spot about that and are, I think, going to find it much more difficult than they imagine to justify themselves in the end on this point.
Thank you, Claudia! It's an honor to have you watch my videos. I do think there are sincere, God-loving, KJV-Only folks. I am glad that God is their (and my!) judge, and that I am not. Even after all my time spent on this issue, it's hard for me to understand why they're so insistent, and why they can't or won't see what I'm saying. I often cry out to the Lord and ask, "Why?! How long, O Lord?"
In evaluating this topic, it is helpful to know that research shows that modern versions do contain words that today's average highschooler would probably need to look up: rostrum, ethnarch, portico, epochs, and cohort (NASB 1995); and verdant, rivulets, pim, Praetorium, and Syrtis Sands (NKJV). In each instance, these words replace an easy KJV word in the vocabulary of an average second-grader.
(To my knowledge, none of these instances include harder words desired to be retained as explained in the video...)
Difficult things vs. difficult words, Shirley. It’s a bit frustrating to have to repeat this over and over. :(
@@markwardonwords To me, it seems like you are trying to make a distinction when there is no difference. If an average highschooler would have to look up the KJV's besom, chambering, gainsaying, etc., I do not see how that is different than the same person having to look up the modern version's rostrum, ethnarch, portico, etc.
I have patiently answered this argument on numerous occasions. I think I'll write up a standard reply I can use in the future. And you may possibly have provoked another video (even though I've already answered this in multiple videos, and indeed have one scheduled for release next Thursday in which I tackle it yet again!).
1. No one is saying that the inclusion of difficult or obscure words in English Bibles is in itself a bad thing-*if the Hebrew and Greek concepts at play are difficult or obscure.* So "Arabah," "mandrakes," "rostrum," "ethnarch, "satrap," "Rabshakeh," "praetorian," and many other *things* we don't have in our culture will be obscure in translation for many readers. The same is true of "justification" and "sanctification" and other theological concepts unfamiliar to the untaught. All good Bible translations will necessarily include such words-*words that name difficult or obscure things or concepts.* What I am objecting to is the unnecessary difficulty created by archaic or obsolete words when contemporary, known equivalents are available.
2. If you want to play the "count the difficult words" game, I'm in! KJV-Onlyists themselves produce lists of archaic KJV words going into the hundreds. And I have taken their work a step further, distinguishing between categories of archaic words. As you know, I focus on dead words (words we know we don't know, like "besom," "chambering," and "beeves") and false friends (words we don't know we don't know, like "halt," "remove," and "commend"). There are few if any dead words in modern translations; "verdant" is not dead, even if it is not super common or is more poetic (indeed, the NIV and NKJV use it in the poetry of the Song of Songs, for example). One might occasionally complain that a given modern translation chose a word that was too highfalutin (maybe "verdant"?) when something more intelligible was available (like "green"!). But I think that by doing so, such an one would be granting my use of Paul's principle in 1 Cor 14-and would therefore be required to subject the KJV to the same evaluation. I can't find any KJV defenders who are interested in doing that, who are willing to count the archaic words in the KJV vs. those in any of the modern versions-or all of them put together. To say, "But the modern versions have difficult words, too!" is to ignore the explicit advice of the KJV translators, who said (and I translate), "We name things by their predominant characteristics. We don't call a handsome man ugly because he has a wart on his hand." The predominant characteristic of the modern versions is their use of contemporary, intelligible English; the predominant characteristic of the KJV is its use of a different English, an archaic English that no one alive finds fully intelligible.
I grew up on the KJV, but it wasn't presented as the only acceptable translation. I'm grateful for its legacy and its influence on many generations of English speaking Christians (and non-Christians too).
As I grew as a believer, the transition to more modern translations felt normal snd natural.
One memory from my middle school years haunts me, regarding the KJV. There was a kid who came to our church for a period of time, I believe at the invitation of a gray-haired saint who was not a family member of his.
Needless to say, he was more than a little bit out of his element. When we'd go around the room reading, we always knew that the gears would grind when his turn came. "Thee", "ye", "shew", and word orders that are odd to us tripped him up every time. His general low reading level didn't help matters either. I wish I could say that we were patient with him, knowing that he was previously unchurched, but I'd be lying. He eventually stopped coming.
I know that the KJV usage doesn't bear the full responsibility for his being put off, but that situation really showed up the divide between churched and unchurched. It was another means by which a young man was needlessly alienated from church and Christian fellowship.
This story is important to me. It’s true that the KJV doesn’t bear sole blame. But those who chose to use it do bear some.
@@markwardonwords Right. Now, in fairness, this was back in the 80s when, arguably, the majority of evangelical churches still used the KJV, and the NIV and NASB still had that "new car smell" to them.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that it was an avoidable obstacle that was put in this kid's way.
Anyone who can't read the KJV is also missing out on the great Shakespeare. It makes me sad.
I myself struggle to understand the KJV in many places.
P.s I also have the James Moffitt translation. Found it for free
I never have read that one. I should!
I got a strange usage for you Mark. Slightly possible candidate as a false friend. It got me for a second. In Jer 3:2 “Lift up thine eyes unto the high places, and see where hast thou not been lien with.” I suppose this is an archaic spelling of ‘lain’? As in that, they were ravished or sexually immoral? For a second I mistook as lien in the sense to take away one’s property but the context refuted that. Interesting, The NKJV has “lain with men” adding the with men as if implied.
David Norton updated the spelling to "lain" in the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible (2005). So did the Revised Version (1885). It is certainly a case where there's been a shift in spelling (and pronunciation, most likely), but it's technically the same word. Why Parris and Blayney (who updated the KJV to its typical modern form) failed to update the spelling in the 1760s is the real mystery: "lain" is the spelling in Samuel Johnson's 1755 dictionary, so they should have conformed the text to match his spelling as they did with so many other words.
@@MAMoreno
Yeah, it’s a strange spelling indeed. I would like to see a little more revision than David Norton but less than the RV. A faithful revision should retain the TR though there are a few places where corrections would be good. Get rid of 1 John 5:7 for sure. That’s my opinion. I know KJVonlyist will never embrace any revision. Unless they themselves are revised a little. The NKJV is a pretty solid modern revision of the KJV. It follows the vocabulary of the KJV pretty closely even to a fault sometimes. The few genuinely TR only/preferred guys I know embrace the NKJV but that’s because they’re actually interested in the Greek text.
One of my favorites is in the book of Acts: And landing at Syracuse, we tarried there three days. And from thence we "fetched a compass", and came to Rhegium: This was my thinking when I read this verse: "Jimmy, go and fetch me that thar compass, we going hunting"😂
Right! Love that one!
I have read aloud in videos the Translator's to the Reader in the King James bible, in 9 parts on my channel, to save all those from missng out who have not, will not, nor can not, read it for themselves!
Ah, interesting!
The NKJV uses the word " falter" in 1st Kings 18:21.
That’s a mildly “dynamic” rendering. I’m fine with it.
for people learning english, in the philippines, good news translation is very popular. New Life Version was created for the inuit learning english. Personally, I always learn something new from easy to read versions such as the New Century Version or the similar ERV. English Version for the Deaf gave rise to both New Century Version and the ERV. English is just 1 of the languages I know so I know english less than people who know only english.
Perhaps, but is understanding it any easier?
Not sure I follow.
@@markwardonwords Well...how does reading that Gehazi was a dishonorable man help me in any way?
I'm still not sure I follow!
@@markwardonwords I'm never sure I follow
@@markwardonwords Many stories in the bible like that...I'm just not sure how reading them helps me or helps my life. How does reading that evil men beat and raped a man's wife all night long until she died help me? Why do I care that Benjamin got 5 times more food than his brothers?
“One may have his TR and read it too.” Brilliant!
Takes some real knowledge to get that line as you did. Thank you!
@@markwardonwords “All such an one” also made me chuckle. I’m afraid I’ve found myself binging on your channel. I and a fellow associate pastor watched a couple vids today, one of which was Incredi-NASB. Riveting, educational, and hilarious. Just saw the one about the ex-KJV extremist too. Very cool and encouraging. Keep doing what you do brother. You’re blessing a lot of people.
Good video
Thank you!
Every Christian should read and refer to more than just one version! I love the KJV for it's majesty but also read NASB, ESV, NET, and NKJV.
Right! Agreed!
I think you overstate the case for the lengths of means to comprehend the KJV. Yes dead words and false friends. I think any informed kjv user is aware of this danger by now and do our best to instruct folks when they want to use the kjv. As long as you aren't kjv only compare it to another translation. Then the original websters that can be got cheaply in print doesnt catch everyything but it gets most of them though yes the OED is to be preferred on that front. Context gets the remainder. And while I do think the kjv does it better than any other English translation (including the nkjv by a slight margin) across a number of metrics it doesn't offend me if someone wants to use another translation. Great. Understanding is great. Get it any way you can as long as its a legitimate translation from legitimate sources (so anything from whichever TR to whichever edition of the critical greek texts). What I don't think you should do is push another translation(s) on a congregation if they don't want it. Let them decide when they want to do that...when they want to switch from the kjv. Until then give them the tools to understand the Bible they want to use.
Edit: the mere fact that we got along just fine until the last thirty years or so (when other translations really started becoming popular) says a lot against your case. Generally people rise to the occasion. Should the HAVE to? Nope. But we want too ... many of us. And it's starting to feel like yall aren't OK with that. I'm all for calling out the kjv bunch. Their ideas are poison.
Again you've got a point. A good one. But we get it. Now for those of us and our congregations that want to keep with the kjv leave us alone.
Us non kjv onky kjv users don't judge you for your NASB don't judge us for our kjv (I'm speaking simply and bluntly because I'm busy...don't take that statement too hard...no time at the moment for nuance :) )
Further edit: I don't think it's malicious judgment but it's there. A sense of "We know best" Almost condescension. Maybe it isn't that but it comes off that way.
There is truth in what you say. We are still in a transition period in which the KJV can be (and absolutely is) still useful in congregational and other institutional settings. And I definitely grant that there are many users of the KJV who are not KJV-Only. They, then, ought to welcome most of the work that I do. It's true that when people listen to me, they are going to get the extra message, based on my individual judgment, that it's time to move on from the KJV in institutional contexts-that use of the KJV is a violation of 1 Cor 14's principle that edification requires intelligibility. But I see room for Christian liberty here, and your argument is the best one in response ("Leave us alone; the readability problem isn't yet as bad as you say!"). My target is KJV-Onlyism, not all users of the KJV. My target is those who build a doctrine to justify their tradition and then use that doctrine to separate from other believers. As a good friend in the Free Pres denomination told me last fall, "I get why you're firing at the KJVOs, but don't forget that sometimes you're hitting me!" All I can say is that since then, especially, I have tried not to hit him by accident (or on purpose!).
@@markwardonwords I appreciate that...the avoidance of trying to hit us folks who just want to use it.
@@markwardonwords I read your book and enjoyed it. I have found use in it. And I stand firmly against the kjvo rhetoric.
I do fear that people who thought they were on the scholars' side are now feeling pushed out, put upon, and put in our place as the plebians we are ;) .
I know I have felt that way. But my view is not an uninformed one. I've spent more time than I'd like to admit on this topic. I genuinely think the KJV is better in everything BESIDES it's decidedly-not-current vernacular, the two Granville Sharps instances, and the johanine comma.
And, feeling I'm reasonably educated in topic (informed at least), reasonably studied, having a B.A. in English and in a seminary MA program currently, I would rather not like to be spoken at as if the erudite divines from the ivory tower must descend to rescue my benighted soul from ignorance.
That sounds snippy. It isn't. More an attempt at humor to express a genuine feeling that i think is not uncommon.
Most of us hangers on (as it were) that aren't kjvo arent doing it just for tradition. I ramble. All I mean brother is be careful not to loose allies in the war against sectarianism. We can stand together with you and other scholars leading this charge in all common doctrines but it will be difficult if we start feeling like we are being told we can read any good translation but the KJV. That starts sounds very much like what we are fighting against.
Addendum/Appendix???: And, while as I noted, we should not have to rely on tools to understand our English translation if we don't want too, it is almost a moot point when we rightly encourage people to use interlinears and lexicons and other helps that get the layman as close to the original languages as possible.
And this is where some of the argument seems to have tension. I hear you say using tools is an unneeded weight on the plowboy and then most scholars [and I assume you as well) would say but you must use tools, translations won't suffice (and they wont of course) in the pursuit to intelligibility of the text.
The kjv reader is taking an extra step but all serious minded Christians who have the means are encouraged to compare translations and avail themselves of Hebrew and Greek aides.
So by that metric how important is the lack of modern parlance and syntax anyway?
Again I understand your mission is to push back against KJVO and also transition us out but idk, it's almost a distinction without a difference if I'm advised to use tools anyway.
Thank you, Mark, this is another good, well thought through video.
One note I would like to make. The statement by Dr Riddle, "... never has it been easier to read the KJV than now." is unlogical. For it to be true, it means that the original 1611 readers did not understand and read the KJV as well as we do in 2022. I find that a strange sentiment.
I do tend to think that he excludes those people from his assessment. But, again, he shouldn't!
With all the (justified) concern about technology distracting us from God and His Word, it's definitely counter-cultural to suggest the best way to read the Bible is with frequent references to a dictionary on one's phone. And counter-sensical.
I think another word for "halt" would be to stagger. As for false friends. I don't think you are taking to farmers, I think you are referring to city slickers who are well versed in Greek. But this was posted 2 years ago.
What of locked away bibles? I have heard the myth tat the Dough Rheims bible was printed and then locked away..
Hi I am a foreigner în this country (American citizen for 18 years now) and I read KJV. I prefer it. Mainly because of the tenses. I agree to have the dead words and the false friends replaced. I even came across full sentences that together might mean one word. Like litle parables inserted in the text that obviously meant something awhile ago.I personally read my favorite KJV Sword Bible by Whitaker House. Lots of translations and explanations at the end of the verses. Great help.
So: the thou's, ye, shouldest, didst etc. And the names and attributes of God like El Shaday, El, Eloa, Shavaot, etc.with a litle note under the verses with the meaning would greatly improve the understanding of the situations, EX: (John 11:25 I am the Resurrection and the life......and right after that HE (Jesus) resurects Lazarus. I've seen the same thing in the old testament. Correlation between what HE (GOD) does an who HE (GOD) is.) All this should stay for accuracy and relevance. I speak 3 languages, 2 fluent and 2 writing fluent. English is one of the very few if not the only one language that I know in which you have to explain yourself in regards to singular or plural words in sentences. I believe that it is easier to memorize 10 to 15 words that actually describe a situation, or commandment, (thou's ye etc). than 100's of dead words. I would really enjoy a (KJV) sort of speak that has the old dead words replaced with modern well known words. For a better readability first of all and for better understood text. Keep the thou's, Elohim, thee, Rapha, etc. May the GOD of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob bless you brother.
Is this not this "much ado about nothing?" There are dozens, nay hundreds of English translations. Who is stopping them from buying those? Is this about persuading Pastors to not use the KJV?
I believe that pastors should use fully intelligible contemporary English translations in institutional contexts like churches (and camps and mission boards and publications), because edification requires intelligibility. But it's not a zero-sum game. The KJV is still largely intelligible. It's sufficiently unintelligible in places, however, that I think pastors and other ministry leaders should take steps to replace or revise it in institutional contexts. For private reading, I'm happy for people to do what they want. I hope they'll continue to use the KJV but also use our embarrassment of riches in contemporary translation.
2K subs 😊 🎉
I’m grateful to the Lord and to my subscribers!
If the KJV is easier to read for today then why consult the Oxford dictionary or the list of Bible word with equivalent modern definition. Maybe if one knows Hebrew Masoretic Text Aramaic and TR then the the Bible list or dictionary as guide for Sunday school students or Bible College students who don't know Hebrew,Aramaic or Greek is to be consulted or referred to regularly.I personally believe reading modern translations are helpful I know because that's why I'm doing.
Right: why should we need a dictionary to look up words whose contemporary equivalents we already know?
Pastor Mark I agree but I have to rephrase my comment by saying there are times when using the dictionary for those where English is a secondary language but in general no need.
His argument hinges on me having a smartphone which I don't have. Why should I have to pay for a smartphone in order to understand my Bible? This argument doesn't seem very inclusive of the plough boys.
And smartphones have only been common for just over a decade.
KJV-onlyism has been a big hit on my Christian walk.
Ever since I heard of the reasons why KJV is the only inspired Bible (hopefully at least in English), the (1769)KJV has been my first English Bible. I say English because I'm not even native to the English language. I'm from and in Lithuania which has its own language, I first read a Lithuanian Bible my mom got probably before I was even born ever since I became Christian. And from reading 30 whole chapters of Genesis in that Bible, I remember barely any word I read since I probably wasn't focusing on what I was reading. After being told the KJV is the best Bible I quickly forgot that I wasn't a native English speaker. All I was probably thinking was getting a KJV. I got one, I began reading it, later got NKJV, then NRSV, and then later because of KJV-onlyism again, I got the 1611KJV.
And now, (almost) whenever I read any Bible translation, if it's not the 1611KJV, I feel guilty since my brain has been indoctrinated that the 1611KJV was the only inspired Word of God, some reasons, to me and probably others, still seem like good reasons.
I wrote this because I want to know what KJV-onlyism has done to me, and that I could get this thing out of my head so I could be guilt-free reading whatever English or Lithuanian Bible I choose(I'm probably gonna choose Lithuanian soon).
Ouch. My heart really goes out to you! I have been to Lithuania, and my wife's family is from Lithuania! She is Lithuanian-Jewish on her maternal grandfather's side. I will never, ever forget Vilnius. I've often wondered what happened to my friend Thomas there. I stayed with him in his Soviet-era apartment.
All I can do is send you back to the Bible. Be as strict as the Bible is, and be as free as the Bible is. The Bible never insists that you use only one Bible translation. It never warns against bad Bible translations. It never suggests that you must learn a certain holy language (whether Hebrew or Greek) to worship God in truth. No, God wishes to use Abraham's Seed to bless all the families of the earth. Christ's Gospel goes out to all nations. People of every tongue will praise the Lamb at the last day. And that includes Lithuanian.
The KJV is easier to read now because of modern technology; e.g., Internet & software. But that assumes one has access to and takes advantage of such resources; otherwise, it's relatively more expensive, slow and tedious process to wade though physical books like Laurence Vance's "Archaic Words and the Authorized Version" and old dictionaries.
I definitely agree that the KJV should not be the first Bible edition offered to new believers and especially not ESL new believers. I've read the KJV for over 30 years because it was introduced to me as a new believer; but I also read other modern Bible editions including the NET2 because it has great notes. :)
Right on!
I find the King James Only position puzzling, if not somewhat unreasonable. As much as I love reading the King James Bible, which is my favourite version, one must recognise that it is only a translation. To argue that other translations are not the word of God makes no sense to me. I also read the bible in Chinese. I know other people who reads the bible in other Asian languages. Are we then to assert that these other translations are not the word of God? I believe that the debate should be focussed on the accuracy and quality of the translations. Let’s face it, most of us won’t have the time or ability to learn biblical Hebrew or Koine Greek to the point that we can comfortably read the bible in the original language. Thus we need the Bible to be translated into a language that we understand. Comprehension is ultimately what is important to a reader.
Agreed. And yet if you cannot read Hebrew and Greek, it is by definition difficult or impossible to debate the quality and accuracy of a given translation. Outliers - versions that are obviously too literal or obviously paraphrastic - can be identified if all you know is English. But among the translations that are vying for official use in churches, the differences have to be adjudicated by people who know the original languages. And that is the situation God gave us. Most Christians have to trust someone to translate the Bible for us.
@@markwardonwords Well said. Mark, please keep up the good work. I thoroughly enjoy your channel. It is very informative. Looking forward to more videos.
@@cls7271, I need to hear this-thank you for the kind word!
Thank goodness for the Blue letter Bible where it's easy to compare the good old AV with the other translations - usually NASB95. Personally , I don't want to stray too far from the KJV . I'm not going beyond the NASB95. I just don't trust these institutions to translate.
I do trust them-the evangelical translators of major contemporary versions. I’ve read their commentaries and books and heard their lectures and sermons. They’re not perfect, of course. But they are responsible. And I have learned much from them.
@@markwardonwords It's difficult for me but I admit that I am liking my NASB lately. I was just reading Ezekiel 20:46 and the AV was better with the word south. I run in to that a lot , using the AV and the NASB as a study tool
I’m able to understand the KJV but it also helps that my dad is from Barbados so it’s easier for me to understand different dialects of English.
I still bet I can help you! But I'd LOVE to get a specific example of an English word they use in Barbados that helped you understand the KJV!
@@markwardonwords English in Barbados isn’t the same as English in Canada or the united kingdom it makes it easier to understand the KJV and also you know they’re Anglican in Barbados right?
Hey
Hey!
Your case that the KJV is not adequately intelligible to all readers is true in my case. I tried really hard to read it when I first began serious Bible study. I can’t make sense of it without reading some paragraphs over and over or frequent stops to look up words. I respect the KJV. It’s just not in my language.
RIGHT! I don't know why people have such trouble understanding this case. I really, honestly don't know why.
The availability of the masterpiece of translation....the NKJV makes all such debate on this mere distractive minutia.
The NKJV is a good choice!
And charger means a tray in old English. E.g. The head of John the baptist on a charger. Kjv is really hard to read.
Right! I kind of picked that up from context (and from seeing paintings of the scene), but the modern translations use a more commonly known word.
"Why did they bring John's head in on a Dodge?"
You're funny. Good Job.
=)
Thank you. I believe it is time for change as well. You have made that clear.
✔
There is also the World English Bible, which is public domain and based on the majority text for the new testament and the BHS for the old testament, with footnotes referring to the dead sea scrolls and Septuagint. It's more conservative textually than most modern translations, but the TR has readings which exist in no Greek manuscript, especially in Revelation. It also has the advantage of including the Apocrypha, but that's a different debate. Anyway, thank you again for your videos, which approach the subject in a calm and clear manner.
Thank you for the kind word!
the King James says :"Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
2 But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night." Why "walketh" and not "walk", "why "standeth" and not "stand"? Why "sittith" and not "sit"?
The words are literally out of date! Its not a big theorlogcal thing. No one says "Im gonna walketh to the corner, to sitteth on thee bus"
I cant get over how people think King James is the "REAL" version, when the bible is greek and hebrew!
People sometimes have difficulty understanding and accepting the way God chose to give us his word.
It makes for richer reading but this applies to the Geneva bible and ASV as well
Thanks for the video. I've not read KJV but the topic is very interesting.
By all means, read the KJV! But if you do so, you'll want to watch through my Fifty False Friends in the KJV series first. ua-cam.com/play/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc.html
Read the KJV and the 1901 ASV
Nice hat. Even nicer response to a critical review. If anyone missed the "apt to teach" false friend video it's here: ua-cam.com/video/RK2mrQJPVBM/v-deo.html
.
.
.
[I needed to edit my comment and then it disappeared so I'm rewriting this. I hope I didn't double-comment.]
Ha! Thanks-and I do not know why some comments disappear. I saw it, too, in my notifications, and it was gone…
We'd be a lot better off if all English bibles were banned, and we instead had to read the bible in Latin (or in the original tongues, of course). I attend Latin Mass every week, and Scripture is read aloud in Latin, like it has been for at least the last 1,600 years.
My friend, how well do you understand Latin?
@@markwardonwords I was just kidding. But yes, every week I hear Scripture read aloud in Latin by a priest at Mass. (I follow along with a missal that provides the Douay-Rheims translation.). You Protestants seem positively OBSESSED with bible translations.
It is as if, the man is afraid of dictionaries and actual Bible study done by believers. Any heart felt and Spirit led effort will come to the truth; be it immediate or through more inquiry. With all the translations that are readily available that he fully endorses, this obsession with the King James is suspect.
Friend, how are people supposed to look up words they don’t realize they’re misunderstanding?
Sir, you answered your own question with the word "realize". If one does not realize something, one would not think to ask the question in the first place.
Right!
With the internet, it is now easy to understand archaic kjv using free kjv verse by verse commentaries easily found on the internet.
Hmm. But I don't have any evidence this is happening! And people don't look up false friends, because they don't realize they're misunderstanding!
@@markwardonwords Maybe some are too busy to read the kjv together with a free kjv commentary (To detect false friends, have to read every verse in parallel with a free kjv commentary). A kjv verse by verse commentary is just a bigger study bible. It is now very easy to do parallel reading with the internet. In practice, maybe more are relying on the defined king james or TBS westminster.
I use the AV exclusively, and I believe that it remains the most accurate English translation available today (especially due to its employment of archaic words of its time, such as "thou," thee," and "ye" to distinguish between singular and plural pronouns, as the original languages do). No other modern Bible even seeks to make their texts accurate, even if it means using outdated words to match the language and syntax of the original languages; modern translators value readability over accuracy, which is seen in the sea of modern Bibles (and their editions) that have washed over the Church today.
Having said that, I do agree with you, Mark, that it's time for a modest update to the KJV, not as the NKJV nor MEV have done, but in the same philosophy of translation as was done in the 1769 edition of the KJV. But the two translations that you continually recommend for us TR-only advocates (the NKJV and MEV) are insufficient and do not reflect the style and worldview of the KJV translators, simply because they have different presuppositions in translation philosophies. The KJV translators were willing to translate passages literally, no matter where it may have led (cf. 1 Samuel 25:34 - "any that pisseth against the wall"), whereas, the NKJV and MEV have chosen to use a dynamic equivalent reading ("one male").
Nonetheless, the standard of a sound translation ought to be the one that places accuracy above readability, and not the other way around. The KJV, however imperfectly you may believe, excels in that standard above any other modern translation, with the expense of having "false friends," as you've put it. The NKJV and MEV fall woefully short, and those of us in the TR-only camp know that, which is why we continue to use the KJV. Nonetheless, I agree that we should be working on a modest update to the KJV, based on the presuppositions of the KJV translators.
EnduringPoet, you write with clarity and care. You, I must presume, are an educated person who gives attention to detail. But can I ask what may seem at first like a rude question? Here goes… =) Can you read Hebrew or Greek?
Next question, no matter your answer to the first: you gave one example of the greater accuracy of the KJV over the NKJV and MEV. I'm certain you don't think that one example is sufficient to prove your point, so I'm not complaining that you gave only one. But theoretically: how many examples do you think it would take for you to get to a place of "sufficient sampling"? And what if I offer some counterexamples? What would the ratio need to be between 1) examples of the KJV's superior accuracy and 2) examples of the NKJV's or MEV's superior accuracy before you felt you'd proved your point? Maybe 80/20? 60/40? Do you see what I'm getting at?
@@markwardonwords, that's not a rude question; I can't read neither Hebrew nor Greek. Given today's technology with the availability of Bible software (such as Logos, which I like a lot), though, it's easy to go into the original languages and understand what the grammar and syntax are in various passages of Scripture. So I know what you're getting at, as it pertains to parts of speech in Hebrew and Greek which we don't use in the English language (i.e., feminine and masculine nouns, etc.). Those sorts of things can be appended in footnotes in the margin of a KJV, anyway, just as definitions of "dead words" can be (found in such study Bibles as the Defined King James Bible).
To answer your next question about how many examples of accuracy between the KJV and the NKJV & MEV would be considered a "sufficient sampling," I'd say that such examples ought to be *weighed*, not *counted*. As an example of what I mean, let me use your phrase about "false friends." You've claimed that the KJV has "50 false friends," but I believe none of those "false friends" are as "deadly" as the "false friend" found in the NKJV and MEV, "you." As you already know, there are over 20,000 places in the Bible where it makes distinctions between singular and plural pronouns, and each of those places are crucially important in correct interpretation of passages. I'll give you 2 instances of how "deadly" that "false friend" is in the NKJV (and by extension, it applies to the MEV).
In Genesis 7:1, the NKJV reads, "Then the LORD said to Noah, 'Come into the ark, you and all your household, because I have seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation.'" From reading that passage, whom has God considered "righteous before Me in this generation"? Is it Noah and all of his household, or is it Noah, alone? You can't tell in the NKJV's rendering.
But not so in the KJV, for it reads, "And the LORD said unto Noah, 'Come, thou and all thy house, into the ark, for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation." By the use of "thee," which is a singular pronoun in the KJV to reflect the original language, we clearly see that it was Noah, alone, whom God saw as "righteous before me in this generation." Such a rendering opens doors in our studies in subjects like covenant theology, where we see the theme of God declaring one person righteous, and yet, God graciously saves both him (or her) AND his (or her) household. But that rich picture is obscured by translations like the NKJV.
In Luke 22:31-32, the NKJV reads, "And the Lord said, “Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren." And you know where I'm going with that passage. So we have tens of thousands of cases in the NKJV where that "false friend" "you" is constantly throwing mud in the eyes of its readers, where the KJV doesn't.
I could give further examples of how the KJV surpasses the NKJV and MEV in its retaining of words like "dragons" in the OT, where that word reaches it thematic culmination in the book of Revelation, where God calls Satan a "dragon," meaning that dragons, historically, have always existed (we'd call them "dinosaurs" today); or the fact that the KJV consistently transliterates Hebrew names in the NT with their Greek equivalents (as the NKJV and MEV do with "Jesus," but with no other Hebrew name); or how the KJV accurately translates passages like Hebrews 3:16, while the NKJV and MEV mistranslate it, creating a contradiction that was never there in the KJV; or other factors of superiority. But, once again, those examples have to be *weighed*, not *counted*.
My friend, as I read your sampling of passages in which second-person pronouns marked for number would be helpful, I noticed that these are passages commonly used to make the point. I simply do not believe that this distinction is "crucial" in 20,000 places. I think those places need to be weighed, not counted. =) And I think they need to be weighed against dead words and false friends and archaic syntax. I think they need to be weighed against the power of context in most cases to demonstrate whether "you" is singular or plural. I've done this kind of weighing, and I think you know the results I came to.
I rarely run into defenders of the KJV who can write as clearly and cogently as you can. I'm not insulting others or attempting to puff you up; I am stating the facts from my experience. I tend to equate good writing with intelligence. So I'm sure you can follow me here… Imagine that the Bible was being translated into English for the first time starting today. Would it occur to anyone to use "thee" and "thou"? Should it? If so, how many other elements of historical English should the translators pull in? Old English had grammatical gender; that could be really helpful. There are certain words from Middle English that we no longer use that would help translators mimic alliteration in Hebrew poetry. There are words in Chaucer that could help them turn Psalm 119 into an acrostic poem. Many forms in the Hebrew and Greek are necessarily lost when translated into languages that simply do things differently.
In all my years hearing preaching from the KJV-and people might be surprised to find that those years ended only in 2017 for me-I don't think I heard the "thee/ye" distinction mentioned more than a handful of times. If it is crucial to proper understanding, I would have heard it. I grew up in KJV-Onlyism and did not know that "you" was always plural in the KJV (somehow I had picked up that "thee" was singular). I feel reasonably confident that no one ever explained this to me until I got to college English.
If I weigh the five or ten passages in which, yes, I admit that the older pronoun forms are a help to those who know what they're doing-if I weigh those places against the fifty false friends that occur 1,362 times in the KJV… If I weigh my repeated experiences with non-Christians, lay Christians, *and preachers* misunderstanding archaic language in the KJV (it happened again last night at a church meeting; a man's whole message was based on a misunderstanding of the KJV), both weighing and counting bring me to a different conclusion. And listen: I'm not telling anyone to throw the KJV in the trash. I haven't! I'm telling them it's awfully odd for exclusive use of the KJV to be a doctrine as the weight of those dead words and false friends continues to rise over time.
I don't agree that using archaic terms like "Thee" and "Ye" is the appropriate way to distinguish between singular and plural. The real solution is to use "you" for singular and "you people," "you guys," or "you all" for plural (at least in cases where it isn't entirely clear whether it's singular or plural, which is very few places).
@@markwardonwords, the problem with using pragmatics in the use of "you" in translations such as the NKJV and the MEV is that the context isn't usually clear as to whether the pronoun is singular or plural. There's also an inconsistency in calling out whether a pronoun is singular or plural in the modern translations.
For example, in the NKJV's rendering of John 4:48, it says, "Then Jesus said to him, 'Unless you people see signs and wonders, you will by no means believe.'" The word "people" is in italics, showing that it was added to signify that "you" is plural, which is good for correct interpretation. However, the NKJV does that nowhere else in the other instances of plural pronouns in Scripture. The implication seems to be that it was important to show readers that "you" in John 4:48 was plural (lest anyone should misinterpret the passage), but no other instances where "you" is plural was it necessary to add "people" in italics to reinforce that. Like the NKJV, the ESV is also inconsistent in its use of footnotes to denote where plural cases of "you" are employed from the original language, with the same implication as aforementioned.
If the Bible was being translated today, for the first time, would it occur to anyone to use "thee" and "thou"? Of course not, but there's a subtle anachronism in your question. The fact that we don't make distinctions today between "you" singular and "you" plural has nothing to do with the fact that English, in its original conception (to my knowledge), made those distinctions, using "thee" and "thou." Thus, you can't use contemporary English as the standard to judge whether or not we ought to institute singular and plural pronoun distinctions in a scenario of the creation of a pioneer English translation.
Should we continue to use "thee"s and "ye"s today? Yes, because there's historic precedent for it in English Bible translation. Our philosophy of translation is to make the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic the standard, not the English. Therefore, the English needs to conform to the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, not the other way around. That takes me to your excellent suggestion about using old English for grammatical gender and Middle English for mimicking alliteration in Hebrew poetry. I believe that's an innovative and faithful technique for making an English translation more "Hebraic" and "Greek." And for those "false friends" from the old and Middle English, we can simply footnote what the word meant in English, matching it to the appropriate Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic word/phrase/expression.
I understand that you're not telling us to "throw away our KJVs." I clearly see your intentions in your presentations, Dr. Ward, and I really appreciate your humility, intelligence, and catholicity in addressing these issues. I've actually learned a lot from your videos, and I plan on buying your book, Authorized, as it will be a great aid for me in my KJV Bible studies. But as a TR-advocate, I do not agree with your conclusion that we should move from the KJV to other translations which utilize textual critic philosophies that are founded in naturalism, 19th Century rationalism, and undermine the presuppositions held by our early Church Fathers and those of the Reformation that God's word has been kept pure in all ages. And, yes, I know that's a subject for another day. :D
I was raised “king James or go home.” It’s still my daily study Bible but maybe that’s the important word… Study.
I believe that I benefit from a more approachable translation when I simply want to be saturated by The Word. When I’m feeling studious the king James version has that value for me. I will also freely admit that I am comforted by the poetry of the king James.
When I finish my current trip through my king James over the next few months I believe my next trip through the Bible will be one of those more approachable versions and I will gladly take it all in. Be well, brothers and sisters.
Excellent! I'm in accord with all you say. Enjoy that trip!
Thank you so much for this video.
I just fail to see the issue as stated by the TR only/KJV only proponents. If theirs was a position of TR only because they think it is more pure and more reliable, I would think they would recommend the modern NKJV and the MEV. I think the NKJV does a great job at keeping with the tradition of the KJV and allows the reader, at the same time, to have access to God's Word in intelligible English.
One can't assume anymore, especially in our current time, that young people Middle School/High School and even undergraduate college age to know and understand English the way one or two generations ago did. With very few exceptions public education in the US has precipitously declined not only in English proficiency but also in other subjects as well. The placement tests show the decline.
For the life of me, I can't see what the objection is to facilitate reading level to a wide mix of readers.
This unmovable position concerning TR only/KJV only appears to have moved from whatever it was that gave birth to this position to something more emotional.
May the Lord grant wisdom.
I do have that abiding question: why does only a tiny percentage of TR defenders use the NKJV or MEV in the pulpit? I don't know the answer.
Many TR only people often become KJV only people and along with that illogical and ridiculous nonsense in a desperate attempt to protect the KJV at the expense of the church and plow boys.
I'd put it the other way: many KJV-Only people realize that TR-Onlyism is doctrinally safer, so they move to that position-without realizing that the two positions are identical (outside of Ruckmanism).
@@markwardonwords that makes sense, I guess I didn’t think about it in that way.
Excellent rebuttal… 👍
Wasn’t somebody burnt at the stake for translating the bible into the language of the ‘vulgar?’
Yes!
I am far from being an KJVO. Most of the time I use it most.
I would use the NASB for teaching and have
NIV anyone be for the 2011 as I didn't get the 2011 tell a few years ago my notes are not in it yet
NLT & LB for reading
Have a new bible I got this year EHV
Like it for the most part
Have the PTP and Message
And see what all the hubbub is about with them.
And of course I have some other mainstream translations as well the ESV that we rise standard and new revised standard one with the apocalifa one without
I'm not a fan of TPT, but the others you mention all have their place.
@@markwardonwords I don't really know how I feel about it. I have only look at it. And even if I did like it would not be for studying. And a few people I know ask me to look into it
You my like the EHV there are a couple of views on it on UA-cam.
And I misplaced my James Moffitt translation but I think he comes out of Scotland around the early 1900s
I find it a bit ironic that Dr. Riddle believes that the KJV shouldn't be updated when he is most likely using the 1769 Blayney Revision himself. The two Blayney revisions (Which built on other revisions.) were produced specifically to update language and spelling so it was easier to understand. The 1769 has over 12,000 more words that the 1611 with all of them added to clarify passages.
If he truly believed the KJV doesn't need updating why doesn't he actually us the 1611 edition?
John, I've looked at David Norton's work-is that where you are getting your figures? It does indeed seem to me that the various KJV-Only views out there don't adequately explain why the 1769 revision is okay but not any others.
@@markwardonwords I'm not familiar with David Norton but I have a friend who used word counting software on multiple bible translations several years ago. These numbers are almost exactly what you find using a Google search. This is what he came up with:
1611 KJV: 774,746
1769 Blayney Revision: 788,280
ESV: 757,439
NLT: 747,891
NIV: 727,969
CSB: 718,943
NKJV: 770,430
NASB: 782,815
He didn't state which edition/year of the modern translations and admittedly it's hard to find consistent numbers for the KJV online. It is widely cited as having 783,137 words, but there are other suggestions (perhaps depending on the edition) that give it up to 790,676 words. Based on how close he is to all the other translations (at least according to Google. lol) I believe his number of 788,280 for the 1769 Blayney to be fairly accurate.
When I came to know of the King James after many years in the modern versions, it was the King James itself that shed revealing light on the modern versions; verse-by-verse comparisons between the KJV and modern versions were alarming. Because of that light, I persevered through the adjustment period that is required when one begins to read the KJV instead of the modern versions. I am thankful that during that transition period I was not subjected to hearing that the KJV was too hard or unintelligible. I have concern for those for whom such talk would discourage them from the worthwhile, necessary pursuit of complete and consistent truth as found in the pages of the KJV.
This is great! What a blessing that we have so many versions available and the Authorized Version still available to us. I think everyone would rejoice with you in that the AV propelled your daily reading and understanding forward. Just bear in mind this is not typically the case. Last year I took Marks challenge and read through a modern translation. I found myself actually weeping over verses I had missed the meaning of. I’m now a lover of the AV but prefer other versions for my daily bread.
@@Esteele6687 Thanks for writing...We as believers are called to earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints (Jude 3b). That faith is given to us in the inspired, inerrant word of God. The KJV is the word of God for English-speaking men.
Once I saw for myself how modern versions contradict the KJV or lack important words, phrases, and whole verses, I could no longer use or recommend them in good conscience. Modern versions do not simply update words (i.e. provide modern synonyms for lesser-known words), they go far beyond that. The Jehovah's Witnesses at my door could have used my NIV to show that Jesus is not God, but had an origin, as stated in their doctrine, by pointing to Micah 5:2, a prophetic verse about Jesus Christ, which wrongly states of him 'whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.' The KJV states in the same verse that Jesus is 'from everlasting.'
The NIV states in Isaiah 14:12, "How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!" The KJV states in the same verse, How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Two examples show how the person of Christ is wrongly represented in the NIV, even blasphemously so. Jesus Christ did not have an origin as stated in the NIV, neither did he fall from heaven as stated in the NIV (the Morning Star is Jesus Christ; ref. Revelation 22:16). These are no small matters. Further comparisons between the KJV and modern versions show not only the person of Christ but his work and many other doctrines effected.
Jesus prayed, Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth (John 17:17, KJV). My NIV, much to my consternation and dismay, was no longer the complete, inerrant word of truth as I had once thought it to be when I had compared it to the complete, correct, consistent word of God as found in the KJV. The implications of these things are grievous to myself and others!
The saints have been entrusted with and called to many things. Today's believers must recognize and reject the subtle (and not-so-subtle!) attacks on the word of God as found in modern versions. The timeless warnings of scripture provide the explanation and source behind these attacks, thus we should not be surprised.
I hope that you will give consideration to these things...again, thanks for writing.
@@sm8johnthreesixteen The KJV is certainly not inerrant. One of its more infamous errors is one that it inherited from earlier translations from centuries past. In Deuteronomy 33.17-18, Moses speaks of Joseph (and, by extension, his descendants). Moses states that "his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth." The problem, of course, is that רְאֵם was mistranslated into Greek as μονοκέρωτος, which then led it to be mistranslated into Latin as _unicornis_ (in some passages, at least: the Vulgate favors _rhinocerotis_ here, and the KJV translators had the good sense to list the alternative gloss _rhinoceros_ in the margin sometimes).
How do we know that _unicorn_ is most certainly wrong here? Well, for one, the Hebrew word is singular, but the translators had to resort to making it plural in order to make any sense out of their word choice. The text is otherwise clear: the animal in question has at least two horns, and a unicorn is by definition a one-horned animal (uni = one, corn = horn). Furthermore, modern studies of cognate languages have indicated that the Hebrew word probably means the aurochs, which is why the 1881 Revised Version opted to use the term _wild-ox_ instead.
@@sm8johnthreesixteen Again it’s great that you have found a translation you love. Unfortunately a transliterated Latin word is a poor example.
Thanks for the discussion, everyone.
Dr. Riddle is pretty stubborn, to put it mildly....
I ultimately have decided to back out of public controversy with him. Some of his friends I still talk with privately; we've been able to keep a conversation going.
@@markwardonwords , I do understand and it is the best idea most likely.
Plow on!
That's my intent!
it is possible to learn 1611 kjv archaic english and the shakespeare archaic english, just as it is possible to learn hebrew and greek, but much easier to just use the nkjv and or the mev. Muslims are more hardworking since they do learn koran arabic just to read the koran. There are people who are lifetime learners of hebrew and greek. There are also fulltime lifetime learners of 1611 archaic english and most of these are shakespeare professors, and there is an annotated kjv from norton critical editions similar to the norton critical editions of shakespeare plays such as Hamlet.
Agreed. It is possible to learn. But should it be obligatory?
Hi Mark, we have spoken before on Matthew Everhart’s channel.
The case I make for the KJVO position is very simple and it’s this;
The modern translations testify against itself in being the word of God, trustworthy to be read and believed on by saints.
Why do I say this? Let me present two points.
All “real” Bibles say;
1. that the word of God is true.
2. The Jesus Christ is sinless
If we can find places where modern translations say something false (eg rom 8:1 not condemnation to them that are in Christ, see 1 Cor 11:29-34 to see why it’s false)
Then we know the modern translations say things that are not true.
If there are places that make Jesus Christ a transgressor ( eg Mat 5:22 & mark 3:5 make Jesus under judgement, and therefore a sinner)
Then these Bibles are not even qualify to be called Bibles.
We don’t need to get into the weeds if the argument. The modern translations fall flat in their faces from the get go. And no real bible believer will ever pick up a modern translation.
You would have to be educated out of a bible believing position with worldly wisdom to ever consider a modern translation.
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
The NKJV and MEV both follow the expanded textual readings in Matthew 5.22 and Romans 8.1, so it's not as simple as saying "modern translations." But if you think that Matthew 5.22 needs the words "without cause" to make sense in light of Christ's angry reactions elsewhere, you've misread the rhetorical point of the verse. Even anger with reasonable cause can lead to murderous behavior if you indulge it. The well-intentioned scribe who added these words to the teachings of Jesus didn't actually fix anything.
In the case of Romans 8.1, we have three different variants: the short one (seen in most modern versions), the intermediate one (seen in the Vulgate and its English translations), and the long one (seen in TR-based English versions). Even if we accept that the shortest one has been abridged, the extant evidence would strongly favor the reading that stops with "who walk not according to the flesh" over the expanded form from later manuscripts, "who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit."
@@MAMoreno
what do you mean by "extant evidence would strongly favor" just because a manuscript is older, it actually says nothing about how true it is.
and even then we're only talking about the parchment itself, not the words on the manuscript. Its quite possible (and likely) that the "later manuscripts" were more recent copies because it was the line of manuscripts used and it was warn out to the point where it had to be rewritten again. where as the "older manuscripts" are older because no one used them.
You probably will keep on with KJv babble n rambling until the rapture . why not just give it a break until then and stop with the pedantic tomes , recognize the accuracy of the textus receptus n chill
Because Christ’s body is being divided by false teaching, and vulnerable people are being kept from fully intelligible translations of God’s word. Nonetheless, I do plan to stop most of my public work on this topic in 2024.
There are examples in the bible of jews and gentiles being able to read the OT on their own, so there is nothing wrong and probably desirable to have modern translations that allows people to be able to read the bible on their own without the help of parents and preachers. For people who know very few english words, there are easy english words translations like ncv, erv, gnt, cev, nlv that allow them to read the bible on their own without the help of parents and preachers. For archaic kjv, possible to read archaic kjv on your own if you use annotated kjvs like defined king james and or TBS westminster.
You change words and you destroy cross references. There has to be a final authority, that’s common sense. It can’t be “oh the Bible is the final authority” yeah, which one? The NIV? The ESV? The CSB? The NKJV? They all say something different. It’s not rocket science.
You have to have a final authority to be able to run to, otherwise any argument is invalid.
Friend, I do have a final authority: the inspired Hebrew and Greek.
@@markwardonwords so you have the originals?
I have faithful copies of the originals.
@@markwardonwords so you believe these faithful copies in Hebrew and Greek of the originals are the perfect word of God?
This is the KJVO dance. And I won't dance (I'm too much of a fundamentalist to dance, anyway). I believe I have faithful copies of the Hebrew and Greek originals; I do not have perfect copies. If you believe you have perfect copies, then make or use a translation of those texts into fully intelligible, contemporary English, my sister. The NKJV and MEV, in fact, are based on the same Hebrew and Greek texts as the KJV.
To the die hard kjv onlyist the answer to when will the kjv be unintelligible is, sadly, never. And doctrine will become even more twisted in the process.
There’s a simple solution to the conundrum one would think would make KJO enthusiasts happy. Take a KJV, purge it of the archaic language, outdated and confusing vocabulary and strip out its false friends and replace it with clear, intelligible and modern language. That’s already been done so Tyndale’s ploughboy can happily read it. A modernised KJV that retains the cadence, grandiloquent expression and literary qualities without the baggage. Yet they object to it along with everything else. Modernisation is s bridge too far and tradition must be preserved even going against sense and sensibility. A modest change shouldn’t mean throwing out the baby with the bath water but for some people, even that is too radical. Saving the KJV for future generations may be a laudable goal but not everyone is in favour of it.
Yes, I have worked through multiple means to try to get traction on a KJV update. Haven't gotten very far, and neither has any attempt made by others. But I believe there are some KJV defenders who are sincerely open to such a possibility.
There was no need to respond to the reviewer with a video bec the reviewer is obviously out of touch with reality in order to hold on to kjvo beliefs. The reviewer believes in the common lie and spreads the common lie that modern versions have just as many archaic words as the kjv or even more archaic words than the kjv. There are modern versions using very simple english words that probably have no archaic words such as nlt, ncv, erv, cev, gnt, voice, message. The reviewer also denies the obvious truth that 1611 words that have changed in meaning are a problem for modern readers. The reviewer probably should have at least recommended some annotated kjvs to help avoid misunderstanding the 1611 words that have changed in meaning. The reviewer is kjvo bec for english, the reviewer seems to believe the reformation era traditional texts and latin vulgate behind the kjv (not the bishop's bible, not the geneva bible) are the best compared to other reformation era TRs used for english translations and for non english translations. The main objection of the reviewer is to the critical text so the reviewer basically rejects tons of evidence that supports the critical text consensus so the reviewer is out of touch with reality. The reviewer seems to be kjvo bec even if in theory, the reviewer allows for new english translations of the particular reformation era traditional texts that he favors in order to replace the kjv, the reviewer, in practice, seems to reject all modern TR translations done by evangelicals such as ylt, lsv, nkjv, mev, maybe bec he believes only the translation choices of the kjv translators can be the correct translation choices.
KJVER: Never before has the KJV been easier to read than now
KJV was always easy to read
The fact is that the King James Version is still the best and most accurate Bible available in English. When will it be time to finally stop using the KJV? When a new Bible comes out that is good enough that we can no longer say that the KJV is the best and most accurate. Until then, the best you can probably do is to pick a modern translation that seems decent to you and use it alongside the King James.
My friend, can you read Hebrew or Greek? If not, how do you know the KJV is the most accurate?
@@markwardonwords A fair question. I cannot read Hebrew or Greek. After thinking about this, it occurs to me that perhaps I should've used the word "trustworthy," instead of "accurate."
The people who copied down the Biblical manuscripts for us managed to keep an incredible level of consistency in the text, even over a period of many centuries. Thus, it can be seen from their behavior and from the results of their work that these are people whose work can be trusted.
People who argue in favor of modern critical texts will often point out that many new manuscripts have been discovered since the time the KJV was first published and will say that we should consider _all_ of the evidence when trying to determine what the original text was--but then these same people will fail to mention that the vast majority of manuscripts discovered serve to reaffirm the correctness of the Received Text and that the critical texts they advocate actually override the vast majority of the evidence, using a tiny number of manuscripts that deviate in significant ways from the others. This makes me less inclined to trust these people's work.
And in their quest to make scripture more accessible, Reformation Era translators always put accuracy first and always followed the original text as closely as they realistically could. But when modern translators are far too loose in their treatment of the text; when they remove features found in older translations, just to make it sound more like contemporary spoken language; when they censor passages that are likely to make people uncomfortable (seriously?); when they make "feel good" changes, like capitalizing pronouns for God, that do nothing whatsoever to help the accuracy or understandability of the text--this tells me that these modern translators don't share the same seriousness and dedication as those who came before them.
If you do not have a Bible that you believe to be without error, then you are your own final authority.
In replies to this video Mark Ward says, "I have faithful copies of the originals." His only basis for saying that is opinion. Without the originals in hand there is no absolute standard to prove they are "faithful copies." An accurate statement would be, "In my opinion I have faithful copies of the originals." So we are right back at, if you do not have a Bible that you believe to be without error, you (your opinion) are/is your final authority.
If your scripture contain errors, it isn't' the word of God.
And BTW, the tired, old "even the translators stated..." Their statements about what they did are not scripture. And, in addition, when Paul wrote 1 Cor 7 Paul thought HE was the one giving instruction instead of God!
10 ¶ And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
12 But to the rest SPEAK I, NOT THE LORD: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
In vs 12 Paul writes, thinking he is giving his opinion, but he is wrong. He is actually penning the word of God, unknowingly. So when the translators give their opinion about their work (extra biblically I repeat) it is a non-issue. If Paul writes scripture thinking he is giving his own opinion instead of the word of God, then the translators can translate exactly how God wanted it translated, with realizing that is what they are doing.
In another video, I see Mark Ward sent a fellow a book written by John Piper, The Pleasures of God. If Mark Ward endorses the beliefs of John Piper as stated in this book, then Mark Ward endorses the Calvinist system.
Calvinists attack the Holy Bible because it destroys Calvinism. And it does the same to Arminianism, Catholicism, Seventh Day Adventism, Moromonism, Protestantism, and every other "ism" out there.
(And before people embarrass themselves, taking God at His word and believing that He preserved His word and provided His word as He promised, is not an "ism,")
All of these "ism" followers believe the same thing. "All Bibles contain errors." They provide themselves cover for their systems. Since they maintain all Bibles contain error, then their opinion about their system is just as good as any one who disagrees.
But if the Holy Bible is the final authority? Then all these man-made systems are false.
In another comment Mark Ward says, "if you have perfect copies then make or use a translation..." If God is not involved in the translation, then personal prejudice is involved. If Mark Ward were to do a translation, is there any doubt that his preference for Calvinism would be inserted into his translation, consciously or unconsciously? Of course it would. And in the translations done in producing hundreds of conflicting "Bibles" that is exactly what has happened.
A perfect example is fount in 1 John 3:9. The Holy Bible says "commit sin" and the false bibles say "practice sin." The change is made to buttress lordship salvation and Arminianism. Calvinism lets a person sin and remain saved... but if you "practice sin" ? Arminianism lets a person get saved, but they can lose it. Both systems put believers in hell, they just go about it differently. The former says "they were never saved their practiced sin proves it" while the latter says "they practiced sin and lost it." Neither system is correct - the Bible is correct. The new man does not commit sin, the old man - the flesh does. The Bible explains this in Romans 7.
If you witness enough to the lost, you will have unsaved people people use this issue against you. "You Christians can't even decide which Bible to believe!" That objection holds no weight when a Bible believer witnesses to them.
Ask yourself a question, "Why do I want to believe that I can't have in my hands and read for myself a pure and perfect Bible?"
It isn't the Holy Spirit of God leading people to think "There is no Bible without error."
I believe in the inspiration of the Bible, both the Old and the New Testaments. I believe that the Bible is inerrant in the original autographs. I stand with the vast, vast majority of orthodox Christians in these beliefs. And on these points I stand with 99.999% of evangelical Christians who can read Hebrew and Greek.
The New King James Version and the Modern English Version both use the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts as the King James. And they translate those texts into fully intelligible contemporary English, which means they meet the principle of 1 Corinthians 14, edification requires intelligibility. I recommend the NKJV and MEV to you.
@@markwardonwords So in other words, "An absolute standard USED to exist, but no longer does...."
Some of the "original autographs" were short lived. In Moses' case, he was the only human being to lay eyes on the originals before he destroyed them. In Jeremiah's case only a limited number of people saw the originals before Jehudi destroyed them. Nonetheless, God preserved His word.
God preserved His word and an absolute standard does exist today. And it isn't found in hundreds of books that contradict themselves and leave it up to the reader to lean on his own opinion. The question today usually is, "What does this verse mean to you?" No, the question should be, "What did God mean when He had it written?"
You make two suggestions and interestingly enough in 1 John 3:9 the NKJ says "commit" and the ME says "practice." These two words are hardly equivalents. "Practice" could be defined as repeating the same action to become more efficient and improving the chance of consistently achieving the desired outcome. On the other hand, a person "commits" homicide even when he kills a person without forethought - they certainly didn't practice the act aforetime. (And, to repeat again - there are doctrinal reasons why "practice" is selected.)
In the Bible correcting camp, opposing translations are not really a problem. Translation is subjective . And because of this,individual opinion becomes the authority. A pastor/preacher/teacher selects the version they like best and aligns most closely with their preconceived beliefs. If they believe "practice" - but use the NKJ then they correct the correction - "The NKJ says "commit" but the correct translation is "practice." Or, they might say, "The correct translation can be found in the ME, where we find the word practice instead of commit." In any event, what matters is OPINION. In this camp, the individual's opinion is the final authority.
The fact that people who want their opinion to be the final authority agree that all Bibles contain error and Hebrew and Greek is USED (to their own ends) is hardly persuasive to me. The vast majority of vegans (99.999% I would suppose,) think that they should not eat meat. That doesn't convince me to turn down a nice ribeye.
@@criley011 The Word of God is not confined to one translation. The Bible calls for translations. For example, the great commission in Matthew 28 is one of them. How are we supposed to make disciples of every nation and to teach them what's in the Bible unless we translate God's Word? The Bible also needs to be translated so that people can understand the reading of it (all the way to the laymen). This calls for the bible to be in the vernacular language so that everyone can understand the word of God. We have an example of this in Nehemiah 8:1-8 where Ezra reads from the Book of the Law before the congregation of Israel. Verse 8 of that chapter shows us that Ezra and other men helped people understand the Words that were in God's Law and spoke to them clearly. A translation is not a translation if no one can understand it.
@@murgetjoseph6303 First of all, some points to consider.
The OT was not given in multiple languages, nor was the NT. Each was given to man in one language (with a few foreign words included along with the translations for those words). It is perfectly consistent for God to combine the OT and NT and provide them in one language, too. It is also noteworthy that Chinese pilots speak to Chinese air traffic controllers in English as the plane flies over Peking.
And contrary to your point, in neither the OT or NT does God instruct His people to translate the scriptures into other languages. In OT times a person would have to learn Hebrew if they wanted to read the scriptures. Similarly, during the early church one would need to be able to read Greek. Again, it would be perfectly consistent for a person to need to read English to be able to read the book where God combines both testaments. (And, again, we live in a world where English is called the universal language.) Also, when God gave the OT in Hebrew and the NT in Greek He didn't provide it in multiple versions in each language - much less multiple versions in each language that contradicted one another
You mention translating into different languages... f we follow the template of Bible correctors, then there would be hundreds of conflicting versions in each of the various languages throughout the world. The mess that exists in English would be multiplied tremendously.
The fact that God has preserved His word in English certainly does not mean that believers can't preach the gospel in other languages. They can and do now as they have in the past.. But, when the command was given to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature... and to teach and make disciples ... the only scriptures were in Hebrew. No NT scripture in Greek was even written at that point.
Regarding Ezra - Ezra was a Jew reading the law of Moses to other Jews in Hebrew. There was no translating being done. Just as God has gifted some as pastors and teachers to edify the church, Ezra was gifted and had the ability to teach and explain the scriptures to the Jews. And you can bet your bottom dollar Ezra believed he had the pure, inerrant, preserved word of God as he taught them. There are still men teaching from the pure word of God today. God's book is still preserved and inerrant, and available.
@@criley011 Thank you for your reply.
In the time of Ezra, many Jews lost their ability to speak Hebrew while in exile (though the Jewish priest apparently had to maintain it), the Bible had to be translated for them. This sets up some of the contexts in Nehemiah 8:8. We also need to see that at some point before the time of Christ, enough Jews stopped speaking Hebrew that the Hebrew Bible had to be translated into Greek, producing what we now call the Septuagint.
The Great Commission in Matthew 28 most clearly demands the need for vernacular Bible translation for Christians Today. How else can Christians teach the nations to observe everything he has commanded them if those commands aren't translated out of Hebrew and Greek and into languages people understand? It is also surprising to see that vernacular translation is actually inside the NT itself. The NT apostles quote the Septuagint, which is itself a vernacular translation. We can say that the Septuagint is man-on-the-street Greek rather than literary or classical Greek.
1 Corinthians 14 there is a call by Paul to use the vernacular language of the people. So that the people would not be confused and lost by what is spoken, but so that they can be edified and instructed (building up of faith). We can see this in 1 Corinthians 14:9-12, "So with yourselves, if with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air. 10There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning, 11but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me. 12So with yourselves, since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, strive to excel in building up the church."(ESV). In this context, Paul was all for speaking in tongues. But he actually instructed someone gifted by the Holy Spirit with a tongue to sit down and be quiet if there was no interpreter present (1 Cor. 14:28). The key here is that the church needs to be edified by one's gift. That's how important it is that speech in the church be understandable - because without understandable speech there can be no edification. Praise the Lord that He has gifted men and women within the church that are scholars and are able to translate Greek and Hebrew into our contemporary language of today! This leads saints to the building up of God's Church. In God's providence, He has equipped translators like Wayne Grudem (ESV) and Douglas Moo (NIV) for the edification of the saints.
The Doctrine of preservation of Scripture means that God's Words are preserved and the original meaning is still intact. In order words, the gospel message is still intact. The historical accounts and stories in the Bible are still intact. But the Lord has not promised perfect translations. We have none of the original autographs today of the Hebrew text and the greek. The KJV, NKJV, and ESV (and other modern translations) are all translated from the same text. There's variants in all three of the translations mentioned above. But the issues are just small scribal errors. The meaning of Scripture is still clear dispite the small scribal errors.
I also agree with Mark Ward's explanation of the "dead words" and "False friends" that are found in the KJV tranlsation. There are words and phrases that have different meanings now than what they meant in 1611. And they can really throw people off in our day in age, especially in envangelism for example. This shows us that the english language is changing(like any other language)! As langauges changes I believe there needs to come a point where the translations need to be updated to the vernacular language of that time. Hense the NKJV is much easier for people to understand than the KJV.
The critical text is not good the text receptors is what was used for the king James the king James does not have any mistakes just because you wanna make some money or you’re paid up say this or you’re just dishonest or are you just stupid this is ridiculous the king James is fine for anybody and plus it’s more accurate than the critical text Bible’s
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