More New KJV-Only Arguments (Part 2 of 3)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лип 2024
- 🎁 Help Mark Ward bring the Bible to the plow boy in his own English!
✅ / @markwardonwords
✅ / mlward
✅ buymeacoffee.com/mlward
👏 Many, many thanks to the UA-cam channel members and Patreon supporters who make this work possible!
▶ UA-cam:
Larry Castle, Sarah Leslie, Christopher Scaparo, Drane Pipes, David H, Jesse and Leigh Davenport, Meghan Brown, Justin Bellars, Lynn Hartter, Alan Milnes, Rich Smith, Lynn Stewart, Matt Stidham, Karen Duncan, Gregory Brown, Brad Ullner, David Podesta, Frank Hartmann, Andrew Brady, Tricia Maddox Behncke, Caleb Richardson, PAClassic87 95, James Duly, Deep Dive Discipleship, Todd Bryant, M.A. Moreno, whubertx, Joel Richardson, Orlando Vergel Jr, OSchrock, Eric Couture, Bryon Self, Average Gun Guy, Brad Dixon, Derek Ralston, Brent Zenthoefer, Reid Ferguson, Dale Buchanan, James Goering, David Saxon, Travis Manhart, Josiah Dennis, judy couchman, Kimberly Miller, Jonathan Clemens, Robert Daniels, Tiny Bibles, ThatLittleBrownDog, Gregory Chase, Robert Gifford, GEN_Lee_Accepted, Lanny Faulkner, Benjamin Randolph
▶ PATREON:
Paul Gibson, gnomax, Nathan Hall, D. H. Wallenstein, Keith Martin, Beth Benoit, Cody Hughes, Arvid D, Frank Hartmann, Thomas Jacobs, David Stein, Andy B, Deborah Reinhardt, Desert Cross Tortoise Fox, Robert Daniels, Rick Erickson, Lanny M Faulkner, Lucas Key, Dave Thawley, William McAuliff, Razgriz, James Goering, Edward Woods, Thomas Balzamo, Brent M Zenthoefer, Tyler Rolfe, Ruth Lammert, Gregory Nelson Chase, Caleb Farris, Jess English, Aaron Spence, John Day, Brent Karding, Steve McDowell, Adam Avaritt, James Allman, Steven McDougal, Henry Jordan, Nathan Howard, Rich Weatherly, Joshua Witt, Matthew Lindquist, Luc + Eileen Shannon, Easy_Peasy , Jeremy Steinhart, Steve Groom, Corey Henley, Luke Burgess, Joel, Joshua Bolch, Tyler Harrison, Angela Ruckman, Nathan N, Bryan Wilson, David Peterson, Eric Mossman, Jeremiah Mays, Caleb Dugan, Donna Ward, James D Leeper, Nate Patterson, Dennis Kendall, Michelle Lewis, Lewis Kiger, Dustin Burlet, Michael Butera, Miguel Lopez, CRB, Dean C Brown, MICHAEL L DUNAVANT, Jess Mainous, Brownfell, Joshua Barzon, Benjamin Randolph
▶ BUY ME A COFFEE:
Stephen, Joshua, Cody, Evan, Robert, Joel, Brian, Michael, Stacey, Justin, Jason, Jimmy, Nathan, Kim, Carl, Tom, Zach, Frank, Jenna, DH, Robert, Papa D, Ben, Anirudh, John, Alan, Ben, Phil, Cody, Adam, Kayla, Sarah, Darlene, Caleb, Scott, Anonymous (18x)
"While he certainly believed in being led by the Holy Spirit, he avoided obscurity at all costs. In other words, it was better to be plain and approximate than perfect and obscure." - David Teems on Tyndale pg 76
Your defense is in the spirit of Tyndale. This was great. I love this. Very edifying.
Thank you, brother!
Test
So long as people can understand it, it doesn't matter if it is not true? Even Peter said that some of the things Paul wrote about were hard to understand. All of the Bible isn't meant to be on a first grade level.
@bobbyadkins6983 no one is suggesting that the entire Bible has to be on a first grade level. This is a false dichotomy.
Where the original author said things that are difficult to understand, it makes sense for the translations to also have difficulties. The problem is creating unnecessary (emphasis on UNNECESSARY) difficulties in translations by using and retaining archaic words, syntax, punctuation, and senses unnecessarily. These are not was Peter is talking about when he said Paul said some things that are hard to understand. Scripture also gives milk and things that were easy to understand that are made harder today unnecessarily by maintaining the philosophy of KJVOnlyism.
@@EricCouture315 I was replying to the comment about Tyndale. I'd rather translate something that may be or seem to be obscure if it's the accurate translating of it than to write it in a less accurate way just to make it easier to understand. Sometimes what seems obscure just needs to be studied more. What version doesn't have some things in it that seem obscure? My main problem with the other versions is they are translated from different manuscripts.
Not only did God inspire the Scriptures in a more complex than English, BUT he gave to the church very smart men and equipped them to translate and do this work for the building up of the Church 😊
Thank the Lord, thank you Mark!
I read from the KJV and depending on how I feel that night I usually have 1 of these translations to support my understanding: ESV, NIV, NASB 2020.
Tonight I read from the NIV Life Application to compliment my Ruckman Reference 🙏. Tomorrow I may use the ESV Jesus Bible to compliment my Ruckman KJV.
In truth, when reading from only the KJV everything is fine! The Word is beautiful and the Holy Spirit fills me with happiness. But when I compliment my studies with another translation my understanding widens into real gratitude. The NASB 2020 was my first cover to cover read through and I’m happy it was. I have embraced the KJV but because of my HIStory with the NASB, I’m able to “include” with enough maturity to benefit!
Thanks for this series, Brother. Very well done.
Dear Mark - I am going to miss the day when I no longer see your videos on You Tube on the KJV - I have thoroughly appreciated in full your breadth of knowledge and steadfastness to the Gospel - it is a rare (rare) feat to truly accomplish being passionate, relevant, and charitable all at the same time. Mark Ward - I tip my hat to you my friend
Many thanks, Dustin. My gratitude to you is profound.
“Hello, enemies!” Hahaha I love it. This was an excellent rebuttal. Ross seems to be equivocating “difficulties in readability” that are inherent in differing writing styles of Biblical authors and “difficulties in readability” that are inherent to reading a 400+ year old version of your own language. His argument would only make sense if he was refuting the claim that the KJV authors wrote in an English that their contemporaries wouldn’t understand. And nobody is making that claim. In fact, he is sort of making YOUR point that the readability of the KJV was both reflective of the “difficulties” of the underlying texts AND it was put into functional English of the time that the average person would understand; in other words, a version of English that is no longer functional to the majority English-speaking world and is not able to edify its readers/hearers.
Brilliant analysis!
I’m not a Greek reader or an English language nerd but I love watching your videos to learn more. Maybe this makes me nerd 🤷♂️ I love all Bible translations and I do love to read the KJV, but I am so thankful that this is not the only one. This morning as I read from the KJV I came across a phrase I didn’t understand but with a quick glance at my CSB I understood it. I’m so thankful for your hard and nerdy work and I look forward to seeing part 3!
You remind me of me😂
“Hello enemies! “💁🏼♀️ sounds very mean girlish lol 🤣
I actually think Mr. Ward was too kind about the first argument in this video. I don’t think it’s a good argument at all to say that the Greek or the Hebrew was high level at the time. Because whether it’s high-level or low level language, it’s still the language of the time. the English of the king James, whether high or low level is not the language of the time now. I can listen to a person much more intelligent than me. That speaks much more eloquently than I speak and still understand everything they’re saying. Because they are still speaking my current language. Someone like Jordan Peterson, for example. However, the English of the King James Bible almost seems like a foreign language to me. Reading modern Bible versions has helped me understand so much that was very difficult in the KJV.
That’s a great point that I have not heard before from anyone and I never thought about it from that angle. Well said and thank you Beef Cake.
Good video. The Greek New Testament was still written in Koine Greek, the common language of the people, and yet, even Peter said there are things in Paul that are hard to understand. Reading a modern translation like the NIV is still going to take work, no one is saying otherwise. The point is, we shouldn't make the Bible needlessly *more* hard to understand by using language that isn't common.
Right. That’s it.
The kjv isn't needlessly hard to understand though.
@@MrSeedi76 Have you bothered to watch Dr. Ward's "false friend" videos? When a word that we still use meant something completely different in the 1600s, that's needlessly difficult. The KJV is NOT unintelligible. It can for the most part still be understood, but it is needlessly difficult.
@@MrSeedi76it wasn't when it was written, but it sure is now
I’ll just have to keep watching as not-an-enemy 😂
Love it!
Hello enemies 😂 That is a sense of humor right there.
reminds me of an auto dealer in metro Philadelphia who personally signed off his TV commercials with "Good night, Frankie" while waving. A coworker explained that this dealer was notoriously crooked (wow! he MUST be bad!), that his father, (a man of high rank in G.M.A.C.) was trying to shut him down, and that his father was the Frank being addressed.
Thank you, Brother Mark.🌹⭐🌹You have a fantastic sense of humor,Mate. Wonderful, enjoyable lesson. I'm looking forward to part 3. Blessings to you and yours.🌹⭐🌹
Almost immediately I see an issue with his approach. Would the Greek and Hebrew used by the original authors have been as difficult for the Greek and Hebrew speakers of that time as the King's English is for English speakers of our time? I think the answer is no.The Greek and Hebrew were still in common use. The Kings English is not. Yes, there are portions of Scripture that have more sophisticated and use more difficult constructions. But that is a different hard than using a language that is no longer used with those same constructions.
Koine in English means common.
The 8* people, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, operating the writing utensil (at their disposal) “penned” the 27 NT Autographa in the Common Greek of 2K years ago known today as Koine Greek
In a rare instance where the original author is deliberately trying to imitate an older style of Hebrew or Greek, there might be some justification for a translator choosing to switch to semi-Elizabethan English temporarily. (I don't see this happening in a committee-based translation, though.)
The problem with the idea that the biblical texts should be super easy to understand in translation (the kjv is quite easy to read BTW) is that we're dealing with 2,000 year old and even older texts. The authors of the Bible thought very differently from us. They didn't just use a different language. That's why there is the concept of the foreign text in theology. I'm not saying that the biblical texts should be made obscure on purpose by the translation but the opposite often happens with modern translations - they are more of an interpretation of the text based on the worldview of the translators than a proper translation. They choose particular words that might sound far less ambiguous than some of the original texts thereby giving people an interpretation not a translation.
A ton of modern translations are also heavily influenced by modern fundamentalist groups or evangelical viewpoints. I hate getting a particular fundamentalist worldview from a modern translation.
@@MrSeedi76 The authors of the Bible didn't think much like Reformation-era Anglicans, either, so the problem is there with any translation. Interpretation in even the most literal of translations is essentially inevitable, so the question is this: How much interpretive responsibility belongs to the translator, and how much of it should be saved for study aids that accompany the translation? (And if the publisher of the translation will never let it be released in a study Bible or commentary that contradicts the translator's own theological viewpoint, does it even matter?)
Even if the translator should avoid theological bias where possible, should the translator also avoid paraphrasing obscure Hebrew idioms and leave the reader to figure out what "cover his feet" (1 Samuel 24.3) and "cleanness of teeth" (Amos 4.6) mean? Is such obscure language part of the experience of encountering the foreignness of the text, or is it a silly barrier to create between the author and the reader, one that we don't create in translations of other texts?
I have no idea why i like your videos so much . I just do.
I know exactly zero kjv onlyists, but i find the existence of the argument fascinating.
I know one KJVO - former co-worker.
Can’t defend his position to save himself from a stampede of crawling babies. He will fall back to “the KJV is the only true English translation*” to every refutation whether direct** or as a counter to the 2-3 talking points he’s attempted.
**I’ve shown several issues KJVOs don’t talk about much less admit to hear the above
00:12 Or, you could begin each video by entering the room, taking off your sweater, changing your shoes and say “Howdy neighbor.”
Ha! Yes!
Can’t believe you’re giving this away for free! Thanks for all you do.
My pleasure!
Pausing during his argument before listening to your reply, and all I can think is "This might be somewhat effective as an argument for ALLOWING the continued use of the KJV, but not remotely as an argument for its exclusive use."
Right! I say the same!
The vocal inflections by this KJ defender come across like a lecture to a 5-year-old to me. This is why I have learned to always reflect on a discussion for a while, before I settle on a conclusion. And your response to the arguments is, as always, VERY well researched and accurate, Mark.
Sigh; the only problem with this video is that the people who really need to watch it, probably won't.
"The Holy Ghost dictated..." lol oh no.
I noticed that as well.
Fascinating stuff. So again, he's making interesting observations, and somewhat valid points, that don't actually draw a line to supporting a KJVO position. And as you point out, the complexity of certain biblical passages to a native Greek speaker of the time is quite different from the complexities those same passages present to us. It feels like translations like the KJV, NKJV, NASB, etc get that part right (setting aside the archaisms).
Right. That's it!
20:03 there’s actually a place this “sticking to Greek word order” causes issues in the KJV (I only noticed when looking in a commentary while studying Greek). Ironically, in 1 John 2:19, the KJV says “but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” Notice how it ends: “they were not all of us.” It sounds like John says some of the antichrists ARE from us! But in the Greek, the “all” is the nominative, so it should be translated to English “they all were not of us,” thus making the clear meaning connect in English.
I think the radical KJV onlyivsts would get rid of all newer English translations if they could. It was King James's family that eventually banned the Geneva Bible in England. Again, if anyone thinks the KJV is easier to read than the newer English translations, its just not true and even absurd. The KJV is not any easier to read than the 1599 Geneva Bible I have on my phone.
Great job on this video. Thank you! 🙂
Some of the Greek word order would have even Yoda tongue-tied. 😂
I love the way Greek can even just casually do away with entire words. My memory verse at the moment is Revelation 4:11. It begins with "Worthy are". No need to say "worthy are you" because the form of "are" is second-person singular. If any English translation really did operate word-for-word, it would be extremely confusing! On word order itself, though, funnily enough the ESV in this verse is closer to the Greek and therefore more Yoda-like than the KJV!
Excellent!
Many thanks!
Very good! 👍🤟
I really appreciate your explanation of word order in Greek. Ross’s arguments you addressed in this video reflect a common problem with him. He is very intelligent, but he understands Greek and Hebrew as complicated mathematical systems and consistently fails to understand how language and linguistics actually works.
Great discussion! Question: Without reviewing the video again, did I hear him state that the Holy Spirit "dictated" the Greek and Hebrew autographs? Am I to assume that he believes that the Old and New Testament authors did not use their own writing style, etc. but instead had the Holy Ghost dictate to them the scriptures and Paul, Luke, Moses, etc. simply got out a quill or other writing utensil of the time and jot down what the Holy Spirit was dictating to them? I though it odd he would use the word "dictated" regarding the transmission of the scriptures, given that one can clearly see differences of writing style in each of the authors of Holy Writ in the original languages.
I also noticed he clearly is in the camp that Paul is the author of Hebrews, whereas the text itself does not declare who the author is, like in many of the other New Testament epistles.
I noticed those things too. Not sure what his full thoughts are in those topics.
Dear Dr. Ward,
Thank you for taking the time to review my "Is the King James Version (KJV) Too Hard to Understand? James White / Thomas Ross Debate Review 11" video in two videos (and apparently a third video coming). Someone brought these videos to my attention and so I thought I should take a peek. I hope that both my video--which, of course, was not about anything you said in particular, but about Dr. White's comments in our debate--and your response will contribute to Christians thinking Biblically about the issue of Bible translation, and evaluating their philosophy of Bible translation from a sola Scriptura perspective, instead of just creating whatever standard they wish. If my video and your responses lead to that happening, then something useful for God's kingdom will certainly have been accomplished for His glory.
Lord willing, at some point I will create a response to your videos. You may not be surprised that I have not found your responses especially compelling, although I am looking forward to hearing what you have to say in part three. I was wondering if you would be so kind as to let me know:
1.) If, before I produced my video, you had written or set forth in any setting an exegetical basis for your position on Bible translations, other than your claim that the KJV is in a different language and so violates 1 Corinthians 14 on not speaking in foreign tongues in the church without an interpreter. I must say that I find the idea that 1 Corinthians 14 teaches that we must abandon the KJV, or at least its exclusive use in English, most unconvincing exegetically. I would like to confirm that you view my claim that we should evaluate what is appropriate for English Bible translations based on the level of difficulty of the Old Testament and New Testament Hebrew and Greek texts as a claim that is indeed "novel" or new to you, and thus as something that you never considered before writing your book Authorized?
2.) If you could please also let me know how many times you have read the Greek NT cover to cover and / or the Hebrew OT, as well as what training in the languages you have, I would appreciate that as well. It will help me to be accurate in what I say in response to you, as I am sure we both believe accuracy is very important, as our God is a God of truth. Thank you very much. Let me say that I also appreciate that you provided a significant quote from my video and appeared to want to accurately represent me. I thank you for that.
3.) I would also be interested in seeing if you have any grammatical sources for your claim that the difficulty in Luke-Acts, for example, versus the Johannine literature, is mainly because participles are placed in different locations, as well as your other grammatical claims. Some of the claims seemed quite unusual to my mind, and I would like to know if any Greek grammarians make such affirmations as you made. I may be into having sources for my claims more than most people who make UA-cam videos, but I did not notice any grammatical sources cited in your videos.
4.) When you spoke about a test that you had given to KJVO pastors that definitively proved that they did not understand the KJV themselves, I was interested and took the test, and had some KJVO folk take it as well. I must say that they did much, much better than did the people whom you surveyed. (I myself got a 19 out of 20, and I think that the one I got wrong was a problem with the question.) I am wondering if it is possible to get more information about who these people are. Are they Baptists? Are they people who believe in justification by works or baptismal regeneration and do not even have the Holy Spirit, as one finds even among various denominational "Baptist" groups if one goes house to house regularly in evangelism? Would they claim to be fundamentalists?
5.) I would be interested if you have done anything to encourage KJVO saints to do something like read KJVs that have the (small number of) archaic words defined in the margin of their Bibles, as do many study Bibles, the Defined KJV, etc. If not, could you explain why you believe such a solution to your "false friends" idea is insufficient, and why what needs to be done is to replace the KJV with a multiplicity of modern versions that do things like take "hell" out of the Old Testament and replace it with that easy to understand and commonly used word "Sheol," or attack the classical doctrine of the Trinity by changing the Son from being "only begotten" to being "unique," or change the Son's going forth from the Father in His eternal generation from being "from everlasting" to the Arian "from ancient days," and so on, that would be appreciated. If you do not appreciate such changes in modern versions, I am wondering if you have any written sources or videos warning about them. I at least would rather have a Bible that teaches Athanasian Trinitarianism but uses "conversation" in an older sense meaning "conduct" than a Bible that has a nice new "conduct" translation but undermines the holy Trinity in some verses (while, thankfully, still supporting it in others).
Also, please feel free to get in touch with me if you ever change your mind about being willing to publicly dialogue or debate on this matter. I happen to think there would be more profit from a face-to-face encounter where we both have equal time to present our case than there is in your producing videos on your UA-cam channel that are mainly preaching to your choir while I do the same on my KJB1611 channel with videos that will mainly be watched by people who are already convinced of the perfect preservation of Scripture.
Finally, thank you for complementing me as being "super intelligent." That was very kind of you. The "very dangerous" part, maybe not so much, but I suppose we can't have everything.
I am not planning to respond to any comments here, as I am not convinced that UA-cam comments are the best place to engage in scholarly discussion, but I will look forward to hearing from you if you are able to answer my questions.
Thanks again,
Thomas
Ross has said he won’t reply here. So I’ll reply to just two items for the sake of my viewers. (No reply on nos. 1, 2, and 5.)
3. I mentioned in the video that I was offering my thoughts as a reader of the Greek New Testament; I self-consciously chose not to cite authorities here.
4. All of the information I am able to release publicly about the participants in the study is available at kjbstudyproject.com, on the Demographic Data page that is linked in the main navigational menu. I refer interested viewers there.
how do I send you a KJV video to review important video
The first argument you address in this video makes me wonder how difficult people whose native language is closer to Koine Greek (than English is) find the books of the New Testament. Working out which modern language has the closest grammatical structure and assessing how easy its native speakers find the NT is probably the best way to assess how easy or difficult the text was for the original audience.
Hmmmm … how difficult, or easy, do modern Greeks find New Testament Greek?
Whew! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 Loved this video; and I’m the plow girl, so I stay amazed at your expertise in all of this! Word placement is key for me & I love my ESV, NIV & CSB translations, to name some. I have to admit my eyes glazed over when I tried to read my KJV Chronological LA Study Bible (should have purchased the NLT, which is not a fave translation for me). 🤦🏼♀️
More New KJV-Only Arguments (Part 2 of 3)
1. Dr. Ward speaking at 0:20-29: "I pray I can persuade you that KJV-Onlyism is a great evil, precisely because it has won over so many people who are themselves not evil."
Response: "Are you speaking from experience?" (Quoting Major T.E. Lawrence inquiring of his commanding officer General Allenby in the 1962 film Lawrence of Arabia)
2. Dr. Ward speaking at 13:18-25: "The but immediately left the boat and the father of them they followed him." (Matthew 4:22 Painfully Literal Version)
Response: My totally depraved understanding of this verse would read: "The rear end immediately left the boat and the father of the butt cheeks, they followed behind him."
3. Dr. Ward speaking at 14:19-26: "I think the King James became the second landmark work after Tyndale in an excellent tradition that has served the English speaking church well."
Response: My only caveat is that the KJV translators did not follow Tyndale's faithfulness to the Greek regarding the conjunction in the first sentence clause of 1 Corinthians 11:27:
A. Tyndale Bible, c. 1522-35: "Wherefore whosoever shall eat of this bread, OR drink of the cup unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord."
B. King James Version, 1611: "Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, AND drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord."
4. Dr. Ward, in this video you rightfully deemed it necessary to go into detail to answer what I consider is Thomas Ross' general plausibility argument for KJV usage by way of analogy to the Textus Receptus that I crudely decipher as:
Since -
A. The Textus Receptus was accepted as singular for so many centuries, thereby becoming locked in as God's inspired word despite it containing many passages of syntax complexity,
- then -
B. We should also cleave to the KJV as having stood the test of time despite its own syntax complexity.
5. Dr. Ward, I think you have found your most formidable opponent in Thomas Ross in the matter of KJV Onlyism:
A. He rejects the Ruckman/Riplinger "double inspiration" position.
B. As indicated in his 2023 debate with James White, Ross can go on the attack for what he argues is the uninspired eclecticism of the Critical Text.
C. In other words, Thomas Ross throws down the gauntlet in challenging anyone to "outnerd" him.
D. If it was possible, Thomas Ross looks to "out Sola Scriptura" even James White via the TR and KJV.
For me, if I am concerned about Inerrancy, I will go back to the Scriptures that St. Paul called "Inspired". the Septuagint. I use the Septuagint as my primary Old Testament study Bible. King James was an Anglican, KJV is an Anglican Bible, I am an Anglican, but it is full of errors because the English translators did not have access to the ancient texts that we have today.
The Anglican Church has far more errors. I am grieved to see it and I pray that you guys repent of the evil. Love the sinner not the sin. There's no place in the church for gay priests and gay marriage. Cast the sin out.
The argument from KJV Only Fans is the the main source material is the Latin Vulgate. Modern translation uses the four codex, they are the Codex Vaticanus in the Vatican Library, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Alexandrinus in the British Library, and the Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus in the Bibliothèque nationale de France in Paris. And people freak out at Codex Vaticanus because is the Roman Catholics codex. And there are more copies of the Latin Vulgate. And more accurate. (face palm moment)
Latin Vulgate is a Roman Catholic source material. And there is no signs of the Vatican tempering with Codex Vaticanus .
@@1968gadgetyoFor an alleged earlier document, there is no mention of Vaticanus before 1475. Secondly, comparing the writing styles alone does not scientifically conclude that it is as old as what is claimed. The fact that it is a "Roman Catholics codex" does not bother me.
Side note regarding The Message. I would say that a major problem area is how it renders the Beatitudes in Matthew ch 5.
I’ve think the whole text of the Message is a major problem.
Thanks for content that was great but that ending had me chuckling.
Edit* Where is part 3 sir?
Coming next Thursday! It's long and intense!
Thank you sir! I feel dumb right now, I thought this series was from a few years ago for some reason. Lol.
Again thank you Mark for the awesome work and content you put out. It's been helping me a lot the last week or so, and thanks for the speedy response.
A Greeklish that wonderful language we Bible nerds translate into when we can't be bothered to smooth out our translations. It's almost like knowing Greek and translating it intlelligablly are different skill sets or something.
Right! You’re so right.
Some people completely miss what Christ did on the Cross. Their way is the only way. I cut my teeth on a Nkjv taught Sunday school classes with it. Then went to a kjv for what ever reason I just got another nkjv and it was like coming home. I don't understand why these supposedly intelligent people miss the message. We as his Church are supposed to be of one mind and one accord. Not worried about what translation someone uses. Maybe I have read the book wrong.Thats not what Christ told us to do before he ascended to heaven. If the apostle Paul was still around we would be getting a letter. I guess haters are gonna hate. Keep up the good work.
His slow, condescending mode of speech reminds me of the Governing Body of JWs.
That's a great comparison!
Whose speech are you referring to? Mark's or Thomas'?
@@murrydixon5221 Thomas'
@@fnjesusfreak So the man gets criticized for speaking too fast and criticized for speaking too slow. Cut the brother some slack
@fnjesusfreak
During their debate, watch Ross talk VERY fast and long winded responding* to James White’s question about Acts 5:30 & 10:39.
*not answering
Ross made himself look silly thinking he outsmarted JW.
Very good, Mark. Your secret is safe with me. The jocks and cheerleaders will never know.
Phew! Thank you. They don’t watch educational UA-cam. ;)
If Luke and Hebrews are harder to read in Greek, then they should be translated accurately into the English used today, for the people alive now..... The more these KJV only people speak, the more they sound like the Catholics who argued against Tyndale and hung him....
You are correct.
@hayfield etc
For the past 2-3 years I have charged KJVOs w/catholic-like persecution w/words
Thank you, @markwardonwords. There is non-Koiné morphology, etc. in Hebrews and Acts, but also in John... Where the Greek is semiticised, should natural English still be used?
Did the texts have punctuation? I have seen both ancient texts and punctuation in Hebrew and in Greek was not present.
I love the language nerd club.
Hi Mark, just wanted to ask you something about a previous video: you said that Thomas Ross is an “extremist”. I personally had never heard of him before your video, but I’m just curious what views he holds that are extreme. I tried researching him and couldn’t come across anything too weird about him (despite the KJVO position… lol) so I’m just wondering what you meant.
Thanks for all you do, God bless
Alex, I'm going to have to politely decline to answer this. Tossing mean names around isn't my usual M.O., as you may know. I'm in the awkward spot of not really wanting to explain why I said that and yet not being able in good conscience to walk it back. What I said is true. Contact me privately and I can explain more.
@@markwardonwords Hi Mark, thank you for your reply, and I understand that stance of “tossing names” not being helpful and that being a tricky situation. I am interested, if you’d be willing, in hearing more of an explanation though so if you could tell me how to privately dm you I will gladly take you up on that. Thanks again!
Awe… I know Tim!
I would say word order in the originals can be important if it us used to show emphasis. But English does not show emphasis that way.. So the translators would need to find a way to show the emphasis in the target language.
Thank you for a really interesting and informative series.
I was particularly interested in your discussion of word order, since I’ve studied Latin. You said that some books of the NT are difficult in Greek (for native English speakers, at least) due to the word order that’s so different from English. Would a native Greek speaker in the first century have found the language of those books significantly more difficult than John? Would a native speaker of a language with cases, such as Russian, find the ancient Greek of Hebrews much more difficult than that of John?
Excellent, excellent questions. I do not know the answers.
That was an extremely weak argument since however hard the KJV was for 1611 readers, it's much harder for us. Too bad those translators weren't inspired to write it in 2024 English so that it would have been suitably hard to their readers.
Mark, you did it again - even after I begged you not to. You used that (gasp!) NASBy word again!
I go back into therapy next week. Thanks a lot, Mark!
Submit the bill for your therapy to notme@notme.com.
They believe it is a divinely inspired translation, and they are afraid that if they switch to a different version they will go to hell.
Some KJV only people definitely try to plant seeds of doubt about God, unless you accept their position.
No one believes that. If you watched the debate, Mr. Ross even says that the gospel is in the New World Translation although it is a horrible translation.
@@murrydixon5221 Jack Hyles believed that. I tried to give you a link to his sermon about it, but it is gone now.
What Jack Hyles believed or did not believe is not the point here. He is not Thomas Ross or James White or Mark Ward.
@@murrydixon5221 I know they don't. I was just saying that some people do preach that you can't be saved from reading other Bibles. I know people who attended Hyles Bible College, and there are probably 10's of thousands of people who are alive who have attended that church or school in some capacity.
Hello friend!
I’ve been studying scripture for close to 30 years. Every English translation has issues in one area or another. But some modern English translations actually change meaning, context and try to indoctrinate the reader in what is not there. Equip yourself with with more concordances, dictionaries and lexicons than commentaries. This has been very profitable for me.
Great job of refuting the “KJV only” crowd. I was raised that KJV was perfect and not to be revised or modified in any way. I’m so glad I let go of my pride and humbled myself to listen to the arguments for and against KJV-onlyism. I have not found a reason to stick with the KJV. I’ve drawn closer to God simply because I readily understand more modern translations. In the end understanding God’s Words is much more important than looking like you understand them!
My pastor has shown from Revelation “appearance takes a back seat to what God sees.”
I'm not KJV only in any dogmatic or supernatural sense but there are quite a few reasons to prefer the KJV over modern ones. All of these are reasons of translation and language. The kjv isn't hard to understand and in quite a few instances it's way better than modern translations. And I do actually read koine Greek as I studied theology myself.
Does the fact that Hebrews is joining Luke and Acts in these Greek difficulties point to the fact that Luke wrote Hebrews? Hebrews is an amazing book and I would love to know its author. Thanks for the video and the insight into Greek.
I've long thought so, yes. And I'm not the only one. But it's unknowable!
Which modern translations are in the "highest" English?
The modern versions that trace back to the Tyndale-KJV are typically in rather lofty and difficult English. The NEB and REB sometimes aim for a very high register.
@@MAMoreno From greatest to least?
@@DrGero15 That's rather subjective. I'd say that the ESV and NRSV are in a higher register of English than the NASB, but that's about as far as I could rank them.
So are Luke and Acts more "comlex" because they were geared towards the defense of Paul in court?
16:30 Also, his argument only works if the KJV is equally as inspired as the Original Autographa. Which he doesn't say out loud. But sure seems to imply often.
Agreed. One of the most profound quotes I've come across regarding KJV-Onlyism is actually this statement from Charles Hodge about Catholicism:
"The invocation of saints as practised in the Church of Rome is idolatrous. Even if it be conceded that the theory as expounded by theologians is free from this charge, it remains true that the practice involves all the elements of idolatry. Blessings are sought from the saints which God only can bestow; and attributes are assumed to belong to them which belong to God alone. Every kind of blessing, temporal and spiritual, is sought at their hands, and sought directly from them as the givers. This [Catholic apologist] Robert Bellarmin admits so far as the words employed are concerned. He says it is right to say: “Holy Peter, save me; open to me the gates of heaven; give me repentance, courage,” etc. God alone can grant these blessings; the people are told to seek them at the hands of creatures. This is idolatry. Practically it is taken for granted that the saints are everywhere present, that they can hear prayers addressed to them from all parts of the earth at the same time; that they know our thoughts and unexpressed desires. This is to assume that they possess divine attributes. In fact, therefore, the saints are the gods whom the people worship, whom they trust, and who are the objects of the religious affections."
I’m making a similar argument about KJV-Onlyism’s treatment of the KJV. The homage they give to it-the ascription of all the attributes of perfection-is proper only to a document that is itself inspired.
If you want to reach KJVOs, you might not want to start your video saying that KJVOism is a "great evil" lol! I would say "It is unhelpful", "it is not taught in the Bible", "is not what God had in mind", etc. Thanks for the videos! God bless!
King James Only is cultic and leads to other misunderstandings with regard to scripture, tradition, history and practice.
@salvadaXgracia I believe that I understand where you are coming from your statement.
However honesty is the best policy for a reason. I think that some may find Dr. Ward's directness refreshing. Dr. Ward states directly what his position on KJOism is. To soften his statement could appear as deceitful when the audience eventually realizes that he is diametrically opposed to KJVO.
@@normchristopherson5799 I don't disagree.
@@wepreachchrist6685Oh don't worry ANY questioning of the KJV by anyone will automatically be taken as an attack and the questioner will be called anti-Bible or some such thing by most KJVOers lol. No one would be surprised to learn that someone who said "the KJVO is unhelpful" is against KJVOism lol.
@@salvadaXgracia That's because to KJVOs, "the Bible" and "the KJV" are considered equivalent, so attacking one is seen as attacking the other.
Mark, I know we have had this discussion before, but my issues with the message are not about over simplified English, rather they are about the many places where the Message adds meaning not found in the text or omits meaning that is clearly in the text. I know of one project that attempted to create an computerized interlinear for multiple versions. They had intended to include the Message but had to abandon it because there were to many places where it simply did not follow the Hebrew/Greek texts.
Let's consider your "false friends" argument i.e. we would both agree that most of the KJV words are understandable today but because there is a frequent occurrence of words that are misunderstood, there are good reasons to favor modern translations that avoid these misunderstandings. I know you have asked about what percentage of misunderstood words is enough that people on the KJVO side would agree that the KJV should be updated to modern vocabulary and grammar. We have a similar situation with the Message, however, the issue is not with misunderstood words but with significantly mistranslated texts. While most verses offer reasonable translations of the original language sources, there is a significant percentage of verses which are clear mistranslations of the text. So my question to you is what percentage of mistranslation is enough for you to consider the Message a bad translation that should be avoided? Is that 1%, 5%, 10%, etc... Would that percentage change if the percentage of mistranslations was higher when certain theological topics were addressed?
And I think we're back at the same impasse: you saw a relative's church view The Message as a translation; I think that viewing it as a paraphrase covers its multitude of sins. But the point I'm making in this video is that The Message isn't all slang or informal.
Makes me wonder if Luke wrote all three books?
Me too.
"I prefer interested viewers there." 😅
A 400 year old bible was meant for 400 year old people.
LOL! Good one!
Read the message then
@@an4yb7ack I have over 20 different bible translations. I use as many as it takes until myself and the Holy Spirit are completely satisfied that I fully and deeply understand exactly what each verse means.
@@theextreme7134yep. That’s part of the fun
@@an4yb7ackok.
But...but...I'm not an enemy. Honest😂
Ha! Good! I don't need any more of them!
I would like to challenge the idea that "difficult to translate" is equivalent to "difficult to read/understand" I know in Spanish there is a lot more variety and flexibility in word order that even to most uneducated Mexican can still speak and understand. Americans can get confused by it, but it is not difficult for native speakers. I suspect other languages might demonstrate this even more.
All this would mean that we aren't really in a position to evaluate the difficulty of the Greek in the NT.
Are there any other ways to evaluate an ancient language for difficulty?
This is a good point. What I find difficult may not be what other readers find difficult.
When can we expect the Thomas Ross versus Mark Ward debate?
I do not believe it will ever happen. To be clear, that is my choice and not his.
Greek is like Polish which has 7 cases. Word order is not important as case endings will tell you what is the subject, object, indirect object, imperative, etc. So, knowing the language eliminates that type of difficulty. I will point out that languages are not inspired, i.e. "inspired Greek of the New Testament." The object of inspiration is "all Scripture." In whatever language you find the Scriptures they will by definition be given by inspiration of God (2Timothy 3:15-17). One language is not more inspired than another language, i.e. Hebrew, Greek, Latin, English, etc. Scriptures are not limited to one language or the other. English onlyism, Latin onlyism, Greek onlyism, and Hebrew onlyism is an error.
Mark, I love what you're doing. Thank you for taking the time to do this, it is not unappreciated!
A couple of points:
1) I saw James White's debate with Thomas Ross, and then watched Thomas's follow up series. I think Thomas won the debate, but it wasn't a kjv only-ism debate and I think James forgot the ultimate premise of the debate.
2I am something of an admirer of Ross and White both, for separate reasons. Both of them are very intense and highly intelligent men.
3) The SVO rule is obviously total BS, just like "I before E except after C" (I'm still bitter about that :D ), but I can't explain why. There are twenty four permutations of "Jim hit the ball", and many of them are gibberish, and some of them would mean "the ball hit Jim". But for some reason, there are permutations of word order that are still perfectly intelligible (albeit unusual to the modern ear) that are not SVO. I don't know why.
4) IncrediNASB's LSV sucks to read. I read about half of Ezekiel in it... it's not fun. I'm sure it will come in handy someday.
What does SVO mean?
@@anthonykeve8894 Subject-verb-object. It's the "word order" thing that Mark mentioned when he compared Greek word order to English word order.
@@anthonykeve8894 The word-order-defines-case grammar rule is rather over-simplified, but is what you learn in a classroom. But read a Poem by Milton or Cowpens and you will see the "word order" is not important in English either. There is a conventional word order used in contemporary vulgar English, but it is more used by "convention" then necessity. What is intuitively obvious to the English speaker is more "what order NOT to use", and such an order is instinctively avoided.
I can't believe the arrogance of the KJVO crowd in insisting that only one translation is the right one (and it is interesting that all the KJVO crowd that English is their primary language.... I have never met a person that has another primary language other than English that was KJVO.......folks that insist on the TR ......that is NOT the KJV....... and they can't tell you which TR is the perfect one). IF the KJV was perfect there would be NO differences (not one) in any of the other English translations that came before it...............
I imagine the KJV only crowed sit around in their smoking jackets looking down from their mansions making fun of us commoners. I truly believe the KJV crew is much concerned about looking like they are sophisticated or super holy than they are about the “accuracy” of the KJV.
Jerome > erasmus
English is not my primary language. I always have problems with KJV and NASAB when I was a teen. I always consider KJV Only Fans language snobs. The whole argument of using source material is not that important. The older popular Chinese bible , the Chinese Union Version (1919), was translated from the English Revised Bible by missionaries. Newer translation like Today's Chinese Version (1979) uses Novum Testamentum Graece (The New Testament in Greek) and Biblia Hebraica (Kittel).
Lost me at "Holy GHOST"
Thomas Ross isn’t a “KJV-Onlyist” in the sense of believing that the KJV is reinspired.
I am KJVO, and I am not a reinspirationalist, nor is anyone I have ever communicated with.
Understood. But if you are still steering people away from every version but the KJV the end result is the same.
@@carolbarlow8896 When verses have conflict between versions, which version (or group of scholars) to you trust?
Carol is right.
@@casey1167 In such cases, I don't default to trusting anyone. I read the academic literature on the topic and consider the strengths of each option. Admittedly, that's a time-consuming method, and I understand why it would be tempting to say, "I'm just going to trust that this committee always got it right." But how often does the easiest solution to a difficult problem hold up to scrutiny?
There are so many problems with KJV-only. But they all boil down to this: they are telling God what He can or cannot inspire. Somehow, God was able to perfectly inspire an English translation 400 years ago, but did not or could not do so since. Do they think God is so feeble that He can't control His own Word?
This is true.
I use this argument with unbelievers, too, when they claim the Bible was written by men. If you believe God exists, and He is in control of His creation, He is certainly able to control His communication with us.
I think calling the KJV Only view a great evil is perhaps overstated. I do think it is an error but in this fallen world there are many great evils. Thinking KJV is the only good translation is incorrect but hardly evil.
The Lord hates those who sow discord among brothers. That’s my answer. There are many, many worse evils. But I’m hard-pressed to think of a false teaching that has trapped more otherwise good and faithful Christians.
@@markwardonwords fair enough. I’m not trying to pick a fight - I guess my point is that lots of good Christians are KJV and I want to include them. Even today I spoke with a coworker who reads the KJV only and encouraged her with an NIV to use as a companion for understanding.
@@stormythelowcountrykitty7147I don’t disagree! Not at all! Well put.
@stormythelowcountrykitty7147
Please explain to me in a way I’ll understand that it is NOT evil IF:
telling someone, if they use any translation in addition to or instead of the KJ TRANSLATION, when they die they will go straight to hell.
Lies are evil; the above is a lie
i would like to add that to further complicate Greek, it could be written left to right or right to left and a "document" might have both formats. Now, who said that the average man would be reading the complicated Greek? They're not carrying their own copy as they go to meeting. The manuscripts are being stored at the meeting place and read by professional readers (if they continue in the custom of the Jews). The reader could parse the super-log sentence by pausing, and when paused asked if everyone understood - again, Jewish worship custom.
Greek was not commonly written right to left. There's a special technical name for manuscripts that are written that way, but I've only seen them in textbooks and I forget the name! It's Hebrew that goes right to left.
Dr. Ross loses the debate on merits of voice intonation alone. Man he is rough to listen to, God bless him.
Some people feel that way about me, of course!
@@markwardonwords You have a golden throat in comparison. 😂Though it's not his native abilities that undersell him so much as his choice of delivery. There's a palpable “ministry of condemnation” air about men like him and Dr. Jeff Riddle when they get to talking about this subject. “They bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne” and I think deep down inside they know it.
While Christians argue over which version of the Bible is the best translation, millions of individuals are “deconstructing“ from Christianity every year.
Finally it’ll get down to a dozen or two Christians shrieking at each other over which version is the best, while 8 Billion non-Believers go about their lives.🤪
So what should be done?
Thank you for this video and I will try to point out some of the flows in your presentation. At 18:18 you state "now archaic English" at this point I would make sure that I am not saying this word can not be used but can to express how people of the past spoke. At 20:45 you are pointing to the singular sentence structure of Matthew 17:19 and state examples of the term 'came' in a sentence based on the danger within the sentence. This English form is not a hard and fast rule it is how we tend to write in this age. Because it is not a set in stone rule the translators used but a form that they where accustomed to. If one just reads the very next verse one will Jesus claim in the KJV "Because of your unbelief" that is what I would contend is the danger that is just not in the sentence before it. So, the question why do we build rules written in stone like the 10 commandments in which not one of us are capable of following 100% of the time. This is the reason as to why there was a carefully ordered offering of clean animals for sins that were done.
We only need one Bible. One good one.
True.
Just because we only need one doesn't mean that we have nothing to gain from having more than one. Some languages do indeed have only one, and it serves their current needs; such languages tend to belong to non-Christian cultures that have only recently been evangelized. This is generally not the case for languages spoken in countries that have been historically Christian for centuries, as that cultural history tends to justify the existence of more options for comparison. There are a number of French translations, German translations, Spanish translations, and so on. (Admittedly, they seem to keep it from getting as out of hand as it is in English.)
@@MAMoreno nope..... one agreed to text..... and the commentaries your heart desires.
@@casey1167 Commentaries are not likely to clarify anything for a person who needs a translation at a middle school reading level. It's practical to have a standard translation for reference (and, in fact, we do: the NRSVue), but a standard translation is not optimal for the unchurched and the underliterate. The main issue with the glut of English translations is that we have too many doing the same basic job when we'd be perfectly fine with about three to four. (We may need a translation that lands in the mediating range of the CSB, NET, NIV, and NABRE, but do we really need all five?)
@@MAMoreno According the ChristianBookstore the NIV was the top seller and the KJV the second best seller in 2023, given I don't think the number for Local Church Bible Publishers, Church Bible Publishers and other smaller publishing companies are counted in the total, my bet it the KJV is a very close second to the NIV. When it comes to actually reading the Bible, the KJV was more than all other versions combined in 2014. Now there might have been a huge shift in the last ten years, but I really doubt it.
One thing the KJV has going for it is it is promoted. When presented with the choice between "This is the Holy Bible" and "Pick any one of these versions, they are mostly all right with some confidence level" the KJV will come out on top every time.
The idea of reading level has always been an issue. When my dad started using the KJV at 12 years old, well, he was 12 year old. Having to look up words has no impact on reading for the majority. How many books have you read in the last year you had to look up words in? I can't barely read an article on the WEB and not have to look up something.
But is it very telling to me when some says they read multiple version with no issue.
I mean simple example of Exodus 24:4
KJV - And blue, and purple, and scarlet
CSB - blue, purple, and scarlet yarn
ESV - blue and purple and scarlet yarns
NLT - blue, purple, and scarlet thread
NASB - violet, purple, and scarlet material
I am sorry, but anyone who does not ask the question "which is right" is not really studying their Bible. And there is no way there is any "standard bible" outside the KJV at this point.
Your use of the NRSVue I understand, but you must realize their next revision is not going to be better, 1 Cor 6:9 should tell you the direction they are going. I think next revision of the NRSV and you will be like all the NASB1995 guys jumping ship.
Mark, at least the KJV is a translation of God' Word to us.
I am in agreement with you that God's Word should be readable and understood by the reader.
What pains my soul is that learned? men use the bastardized (Jehovah) as though this is actually God's Name.
It is not.
God is zealous for His Name.
Learned scholars do your due diligence, study how this abomination came about and when.
Because this was incorporated into the KJV proves, that though the translators had good intent
and worked hard to do the best job they could with what was available, they were not especially inspired.
יהוה is the Name or signet of the entire Godhead, which rendered into English is YHWH or YHVH.
Without the addition of vowels from the word adonai.
Jesus is the Name of the Son, the only Name by which is salvation.
Evaluating a translation is not about how many places it gets right. It's about how often it gets it wrong. Does The Message word things well in some places? Yes, it certainly does. But it butchers the meaning in far more.
Would you accept assurances from an engineer who told you this bridge is excellent *_in places_* , when you can see for yourself many places where it is rotten and falling through?
There are too many TRUSTWORTHY translations available to us to spend any time on something as rotted and decaying as The Message.
Mark Ward doesn't think that It's a "bridge," though. The Message only fails as a bridge when you mistake it for a bridge. Taken for what it is . . . well, I still think it's pretty awful even for a paraphrase, but Mark's whole point is that it shouldn't be judged as a true translation when that's not what it's intending to be.
@@MAMoreno But many people don't know the difference between a translation and a paraphrase.
My question is, why? Why mess with something that is so bad, when there are so many excellent alternatives available?
Why eat at the garbage dump when there is a nice smorgasbord available?
@@Packhorse-bh8qn A good paraphrase can make the reader feel connected to the meaning of the text by setting aside the form of the text. (One of the best examples is the New Testament paraphrase by J.B. Phillips.) The problem with The Message in particular is that it not only rephrases the text, but it expands upon the text in ways that can make distinguishing Peterson's own thoughts from the original authors' thoughts (or even Peterson's basic interpretation of their thoughts) difficult unless you consult a translation alongside it.
For comparison, look at Matthew 5.3 in Today's English Version, The New Testament in Modern English (Phillips), and The Message.
TEV: Happy are those who know they are spiritually poor; the Kingdom of heaven belongs to them!
NTME: How happy are the humble-minded, for the kingdom of Heaven is theirs!
MSG: You’re blessed when you’re at the end of your rope. With less of you there is more of God and his rule.
The TEV (aka the Good News Bible) is already very, very dynamic as far as popular versions go, but it's not drastically different here than what you would find in a more formal version. The NTME trades the literal idiom ("poor in spirit") for one that Phillips considered to be equivalent ("humble-minded"), but it's still an honest attempt to communicate the meaning of the Greek text without further comment. Contrast that with Peterson, who might get a pass for the first half of the verse but not for the second. He threw out not only the form of "for theirs is the kingdom of heaven," but also the meaning!
@@MAMoreno Come on man, you are conflating commentaries as Bibles. Call them commentaries, and we have no issue.
@@MAMoreno "A good paraphrase can make the reader feel connected to the meaning of the text"
1. There are no good paraphrases. None.
2. The reader does not need to "feel connected" to the text, he needs to understand what the author intended to say. This feel-good garbage about "felling connected" is one of the things that is terribly wrong with the church today.
The good thing about the KJV is that you can use it to correct the greek. So convenient
Which edition of the KJV can correct the Greek? All of them?
@@hayfieldhermit9657 its a joke
@@TheIcanntspel Ok. I thought you might be, but I wasn't sure. So, just for fun, should we say all KJV editions can correct the Greek?
@@hayfieldhermit9657 Only the scofield study Bible
Mark confesses that he does not have the perfect written word of God; therefore, Mark admits he is not a Christian.
Hold on brother, let's not judge any one's salvation. It's okay to support the King James Version but let's do it in a positive way with charity and facts.
@@murrydixon5221 1 Peter 1:23 *Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.*
24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
25 But the *word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.*
Higher textual criticism teaches that the bible is just like every other historical document; it has errors and can be translated over and over. The truth is the Bible is perfect and Christians understand this. Mark is a historian not a Christian because he is denying God's word is infallible. It's wrong and the view of the *LOST* to deny God's word by definition.
@1611savedmatthew Amen, brother. I agree with almost everything you said here.There is a limit to what can be accomplished with textual criticism and I believe that any of the TRs or Byzantine Manuscripts are the perfect preserved Word of God. God has promised to preserve His Word in all generations.
I do believe that Mark as well as James White are Christian brothers and they are doing what they feel is right. Even though I do not agree with them, I am praying for them and I hope that you are doing the same.
@@murrydixon5221 warning confused people is of greater value than praying for a deceiver
@@1611savedmatthew Say and do what you feel that you need to, brother. Just remember that the most important thing is to keep in prayer.
There you go again. At about 7 minutes in you used the phrase "inspired Greek" bringing almost as big a chuckle as when someone says the "original Greek."
I find it interesting that you would term a copy of a copy of a copy etc, etc of a Greek manuscript inspired when you would also reject that the 7th line of English version might be inspired.
Be very careful of your words. I'm dreading the time when some of my words might show up on my life's slide show while I'm seating in front of the Judgement Seat of Christ.
The view you’re chuckling at is the view of the vast, vast majority of Christian theologians and pastors, especially those who can read Greek and/or Hebrew. If this is our disagreement, then you are on the outside of my target audience. You hold a fringe view rejected by mainstream KJV-Onlyism.
@@markwardonwords perhaps you misunderstood. I do believe that whichever reading the folks in each time period found favorable was a result of inspiration by God. I just don't understand the argument made by many scholars the KJV could not be inspired (claiming double inspiration) when they do feel the manuscripts are, or at least that's what I understand when one says "the inspired Hebrew and Greek." Perhaps you mean some were inspired and some not. If so, I'm sure the good readers here would be interested to know which you might consider "the" inspired.
Simply put there are 2 classes of manuscripts, some from Alexandria and some from Antioch. Are you saying one group was inspired but not the other group?
In one video you give the percentage of sales for various versions which do have interesting differences. People really don't change much when viewed as a large statistical sample.
When the oldest manuscripts are discovered in very good condition, it indicates to me they are the ones rejected by the masses with the favored readings, through use, needing more continuous remakes.
I do doubt that by the 13th or 14th centuries every copy floating around had the reading preferred by God. So today that still leaves us making judgments of versions on a popular use basis, short of a lighting bolt from Heaven of course. 😉
Generally, personally I don't make version decisions by comparing the reading of one version to another, I make my personal decisions based on the reading within a version.
For instance at Heb 3:16 some versions say no one who followed Moses from Egypt made it to the promised land, then contradict themselves in other places.
Or at one place a version might say Jesus caused division while in another place the same version says one who causes divisions is a heretic.
Again I do question a blanket statement concerning all copies of copies of copies..........
@@olegig5166 You said, "Simply put there are 2 classes of manuscripts, some from Alexandria and some from Antioch."
However, it's more complicated than that. There are at least three classes: Alexandrian, Byzantine, and Western. (There's also a hypothetical fourth one that's disputed by New Testament scholars: Caesarean.) The major Greek manuscripts that follow the Western text-type, such as Codex Bezae, tend to agree with the old Latin manuscripts that predate the Vulgate. Codex Bezae agrees sometimes with the Alexandrian text-type, other times with the Byzantine text-type, and oftentimes with neither of them.
The reason why it's worth acknowledging the Western text-type is that the Textus Receptus will sometimes agree with the Western against the Byzantine (or, as you call it, the Antioch), and the Nestle-Aland will sometimes agree with the Western against the Alexandrian. It's the wild card that breaks up the "two streams" narrative for both sides. (It gets even more complicated when you throw in the Vulgate, which isn't purely Alexandrian, Western, or Byzantine, either.)
With such a vast array of (slightly) conflicting witnesses, the best we can do is choose a methodology that we think best determines the inspired text while showing a little humility that we might be wrong. And in all honesty, the "right" answer might be more of a historical curiosity than a pressing matter, anyway. History has shown that God has used all of the major variant streams-- including other ancient versions such as the Peshitta (which is predominantly Byzantine) or the Coptic (which is predominantly Alexandrian)-- to bring people to the faith and to guide the church for the last twenty centuries.
The best way to lay this argument to rest, would be to make (yet) another new complete translation into modern English from the same sources that were used for the KJV. The Textus Receptus and Byzantine texts and those from Antioch; rather than the so called Critical Texts, from the Alexandrian texts.
The real heart of the problem for myself and most others that prefer the KJV is the fact that the Sinatucus and Alexandrian texts, even though they are identical to the Textus Receptus in 98% of cases, there's small, but to some, significant, deviations and deletions of some passages; and while most of them don't impact the meaning of the scriptures -- some of them do. At least for those who believe that the Bible, the Word of God should be handled with great care respect, and reverence.
Admittedly, as with everything touching the very essence of the scriptures, there are some who take it too far. Who stretch it to the point of considering the KJV to be perfect, and even better than the original language texts. While they might have a point as regards readability for the average English language reader; it's still just a translation. An excellent translation to be sure, but it's JUST a translation.
To me, it comes down to this: I can trust the KJV, it's not hard to read, but in some places, particularly in the Old Testament, it can be a little hard to understand. That's the point where I'll break out a few of the newer translations, and do some comparison. However, for the actual trusting of the text, for general reading, study, and memorization; I stick with the KJV.
Other than that, I don't like going into a church service, and when the pastor gives us chapter and verse, turning to it, and having the passage say something different than what my Bible says.
So even though it might make the above situation even worse, I'd love to have a modern translation along the lines of the NIV or ESV based on the Received Text, rather than the supposedly older (though that's never been proven so far as I am aware), and possibly corrupted texts that were discarded by the monks and tossed in a trash bin to use for starting the fireplace because THEY considered those texts to be worthless for anything else. And that's the best argument for the Textus Receptus that I'm aware of. I, and many others find that all the authors of the modern translations wanting to use possibly corrupted texts to be a bit suspicious. Paranoid? Maybe so, but the devil never sleeps, and he's been after us since the Garden; it's not paranoia if they ARE out to get you!
🙏✝️👑✝️🙏
So, basically what you want to do is for someone to download the KJV in Word, along with the Trinitarian Bible Society's "Bible Word List" and do a "find/replace" for every word the Trinitarian Bible Society lists.
For example: Search "abase" replace with "humble", search "besom" replace with "broom", etc.
An added step would be to make sure the verse still flows.
About a day's work really.
Am I off?
(and you can get it searching for "A Bible Word List Trinitarian Bible Society" should be the first hit.)
My friend, the New King James Version and the Modern English Version both use the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts as the King James. And they translate those texts into fully intelligible contemporary English, which means they meet the principle of 1 Corinthians 14, edification requires intelligibility. I recommend the NKJV and MEV to you.
A number of translations do this, most notably the NKJV. However, if you're wanting nothing more than a quick word update, the Simplified KJV from Barbour is pretty decent.
My KJVO response:
"I pray I can persuade you that KJV-Onlyism is a great evil, precisely because it has won over so many people who are themselves not evil."
I am KJVO, and I rationally embrace it with full understanding of it's ramifications. Thus if KJV-Onlyism is a great evil, and I have embraced (been won over by it) with knowledge, I have become evil. You simple can bifurcate embraced sin from the sinner.
-- Okay, so what is KJV-Onlyism at it's core? What do KJVO people actually believe that is different than critical text people?
At the core KJVO people (myself) believe we have a Bible which is a correct translation of the providentially preserved originally inspired Word of God. People that are not KJVO don't believe we have a providentially preserved Bible, and that all Bibles have errors and underlying manuscript support that is subjective.
I had a conversation with a pastor in Everett WA a short time ago, and asked him is the Greek underlying John 3:16 in his Bible was correct. Not the translation, but just the underlying manuscript support. He could not as a critical text pastor tell me he knew the Greek was correct, though he had a confidence level it most likely was. His doctrine was based on the hope really that scholarship had made correct selection of errant copies of errant copies of errant copies of some original text. This is not a foundation to a belief system I can accept.
The KJVO position has nothing to do with some "re-inspiration" ideology, the "Ruckmanites" of the world are few and far between in KJVO circles. The KJVO position is we actually have a Bible.
The rational, and logical conclusion of Dr. Ward's ideology does not allow for any passage of scripture to be considered inerrant, and significant portions correct translation can not be stated as the "experts" do not have consensus.
If believing I have a correct translation of the providently preserved Word of God makes me Evil, than I am Evil. I accept this label. But it should be clear to any KJVO person we are not like faith and practice with non-KJVO people.
It is not necessarily evil to believe something that is evil.
@@markwardonwords I would say based on Romans 1, God gives those over to a reprobate mind to those who willing choose evil. Hosea 4:6 would be another passage.
It would be evil to believe and act on something that is evil if you had knowledge.
@@casey1167I agree completely. That’s the key: if you have knowledge.
What in Heaven’s name does “bifurcate” mean?😂
@@anthonykeve8894 to divide something in half or to separate an issue.
Why are you so concerned about people who only trust the KJV?
Because they don’t understand it as well as they think they do (because of language change), and because they violently divide from other Christians over their false beliefs.
@@markwardonwords And how do you feel about all the ones who put down the KJV? Is that ok with you? Don't put everyone who only trusts the KJV in the same boat.
@@bobbyadkins6983 I'm sure that people "who put down the KJV" are not all in the same boat, either. For some, it's purely a pastoral concern: they don't want their congregants to feel that there's a veil of Elizabethan English dividing them from the divine message of the Bible.
Others take issue with the scholarship of the KJV, regarding it as good for its time but outdated beyond the point of usefulness (except perhaps in a literature class, where questions of its technical accuracy are essentially irrelevant).
And a third group would take issue with its theological biases, seeing it as the product of a church that was too Protestant for most Catholics and too Catholic for most Protestants. It's possible that someone might fall into all three of these groups, but they reflect distinct issues with the KJV that are not necessarily shared by everyone.
@@MAMoreno I'll just stick with the KJV unless God ever leads to me to do otherwise.
Did you know that those so called "archaic" words in the KJB exist in the present? I see those few people who put out material weekly against the perfection of the KJB attempt to detach the KJB from the present and try to relegate it to the past. But the KJB is being used and understood in the present, which means that its words and its message are not "archaic". Of course, a person who has an agenda to make out as if the KJB is not speaking clearly to today will go out of their way to scrabble up evidence of people misunderstanding some words or turn of phrase somewhere.
There are various errors or wrong steps made by various King James Bible only people. But instead of correcting them to better stand for the propriety of the KJB, which would be highly commendable, we find instead another video from Mark Ward designed to solicit people away from relying on the KJB as the authoritative English translation of the Scripture.
Did you know that those words called "archaic" are actually needful in English to communicate exactly the meaning and message of the originals? If those words are replaced or updated, the meaning of the new word will not be as precise, and often is more likely resulting in deficiency of faith and dropping the intelligence level of people using them.
Again, I know full well that there are King James Bible only people who have misguided interpretations of Scripture. Just because someone uses the so called "archiac" (i.e. accurate) KJB doesn't mean their own doctrine will be accurate. Interpretation is like what Ken Ham refers to as his "bias glasses".
But it is better to trust the English than to be talking about the Greek, in which none of us can actually ultimately trust. The implication is that we should trust what people tells us about the Greek, which is again a ploy designed to usurp the authority of that allegedly "archaic" Bible in English. In conclusion, so called "archaic" English we can understand trumps Greek we cannot be certain about.
I see that you haven't read Mark's book or watched a single one of his false friends series. Which demonstrate way beyond reasonable doubt that the KJB uses dozens of words across hundreds of verses to mean things that nobody speaking English today would ever think they meant.
@@stephengray1344hog wash
Another post arguing for continued use of archaic words.....
1 Corinthians 13 still doesn't say "charity" almost 2k years and counting. See Tyndale, charity debunked 500 years ago.
@@hayfieldhermit9657 a modern day prophet ! 🤡
I came across you on McDowell's channel. Whereas you state that yours is a battle against KJV only-ism, it would seem like yours has now devolved into KJV none-ism. I am by no means a KJV only-ist, but placing the KJV in the list of the worst translations? Really?! Usage of old English is but an excuse, if people can still study arcane English in this day and age, some which is less accessible than KJV English, then KJV still has a place.
Second, what is with the contempt & the passive aggressive attitude towards those with whom you don't agree? You should lay down your points & leave whoever is watching to make their conclusions. Belittling their knowledge (or the lack thereof) doesn't do you any favours.
Would it surprise you to know that I preached from the KJV this very day? You may be right on some critiques, but I still see a place for the KJV and for those who want to learn to read it.
Why don't you give it a break ? Let go of the pot stirring regarding the KJV or KJV onlyists .....
Its a wonderful translation as well as the NKJV .
Just try and find the you tube time if you must on something productive that encourages n edifies.
If you can't think of anything try spending as much time in eschatology n the rapture as you do in KJV pot stirring
I suggest that you give watching Mark a break because many of us are still benefitting from these KJV videos. By the way, Mark has already stated that he is gradually winding down. Either way, with respect, it’s his channel. You are free to choose to view something else.
Hello friend!
Hello! =)