An Error in the King James Version
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лют 2025
- Of course, there are errors and there are errors.
🎁 Help me end Bible translation tribalism, one plow boy at a time:
✅ / mlward
✅ buymeacoffee.c...
📖 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:
• 150 False Friends in t...
👏 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 am so over this translation rabbit hole. I am a software engineer. I do NOT accel at language translation. I DO however accel at reading. I will read many translations, note any meaningful differences, defer to those that are more knowledgeable than I (my pastor and other more 'versed' Christians) and then pray on it. God will show me the way. God bless & good luck to all.
KEYWORD here = MEANINGFUL. I have read so many articles and watched SO many videos on MEANINGLESS differences I want to SCREAM! Please stop (not you Mark Ward, and most others ... but far too many looking for 'clicks'!)
This Is good humility and diligence.
With respect, can a code be written accurately, execute, and still produce results different than desired? The question is whether the code with no errors detected is the correct code
Thank you! Reading multiple translations is often the best way to derive the essence of a passage.
You’ll be in heaven soon God will show the King James Authorized 1611 Version is His Word, have a nice day. If it wasn’t perfect I’d stop believing in God Genesis 24:22, :30 and :47 and I’m a new Christian
A career attacking the KJV with a smile, meekness, friendliness. I would love to see what's hiding under the skin.
And I'll tell you: what's hiding there is a desire to understand God's word and to heal bitter, unnecessary divisions in Christ's body. I do NOT attack the KJV. This is the only error I've pointed to in it, and to point to an error in it is to do no less than what the KJV translators themselves did in their preface, which I beg you to read.
@Jlde2024 thanks for your opinion, could you point to what part of the Bible says that other people's opinions should make you write hate comments into an "on line" comment section under a moving photograph?
ua-cam.com/video/RL1px3GRfo4/v-deo.html
Even if we assume that Ward is wrong about the KJV, and that it is actually inspired by God, I don't see any reason to assume that there is something sinister hiding underneath his "smile, meekness, friendliness." I think his manner of debating the issue is a great example of how believers who disagree should approach each other. It can be very hard to determine the truth on these issues (especially if you were raised to defend a particular side) but it is easy to know whether God prefers a meek spirit to an argumentative one with regard to differences of opinion between Truth seekers.
Mark, perhaps there is a homonym/idiom here with Job 30:9-10 "And now am I their song, yea, I am their byword. They abhor me, they flee far from me, and spare not to spit in my face." Notice how in Job 30:9-10 he has become "their song," and they spare not to "spit in ...[his] face." The KJV text of Job 17:6 does not say I "used to be" a tambourine, but I was "as" a timbrel. The timbrel was an instrument that was struck. While תֹּפֶת is an act of spitting, it is very close to the word תָּפַף ( which means to strike or to beat [especially a timbrel]). It could be that Job is saying I have become a byword and am one who was beaten (enter imagery of tabret) and spit upon (the two Hebrew words are very close in sound).
By noticing this connection one may also see Job as a type of Christ. Notice how Christ, like Job, was treated with contempt as they "spat in his face" and "struck" Him while making Him a byword.
Matthew 26:67 Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands,
Matthew 27:30 And they spit upon him, and took the reed, and smote him on the head.
Mark 10:34 And they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise again.
Mark 14:65 And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands.
Mark 15:19 And they smote him on the head with a reed, and did spit upon him, and bowing their knees worshipped him.
Furthermore, notice also that there may be a connection with the place Tophet תֹּפֶת (also known as the valley of Hinnom) which sounds very similar to תֹּפֶת. Isaiah 30:31-33 states "For through the voice of the LORD shall the Assyrian be beaten down, which smote with a rod. And in every place where the grounded staff shall pass, which the LORD shall lay upon him, it shall be with tabrets and harps: and in battles of shaking will he fight with it. For Tophet is ordained of old; yea, for the king it is prepared; he hath made it deep and large: the pile thereof is fire and much wood; the breath of the LORD, like a stream of brimstone, doth kindle it.
Just thought I might add to the discussion. I am no Hebrew scholar and don't claim to be, just a sincere Christian who loves God's perfect word (Ps. 19:7; 18:30; 111:7; Deu 32:4; Rom 12:2;
Jas 1:17).
Also I don't think the KJV translators confused tophet with toph, rather I think they recognized other places such as Isaiah 30:32 where בְּתֻפִּים the plural of תֹּף is used. Spit would not work in this context.
That's a fascinating thought! And this is why I say there can't be a "perfect" translation. Not even necessarily because of errors but because it's not always possible to put certain things, like a play on words, into a receptor language.
@@4jgarner to say God can't do what he said he would is blasphemy
@@alcabins2722 it absolutely is! A hearty Amen on my part.
ua-cam.com/video/RL1px3GRfo4/v-deo.html
The main thing people fail to understand is that language is a moving target, its regional and to some extent individual. Its a little more complex than most would care to admit. The message is pure holy and inspired.
Agreed!
Byword doesn't mean people were talking negatively about him.
By-word means a proverbial saying, one that personifies a type, one that is noteworthy or notorious, frequently used word or pharse.
Tabret is a small drum with or without cymbals.
Job made a hyperbole statement about himself similiar to "death is as a drum".
It is literally that simple and I am certian that the KJV translators figured that out considering they took certian words through 14 different test to figure out what was correct. What you brought up about looking for neighboring words and repeated words being only one of them.
They admitted the are human and prone to error, yes. Yet, the KJB itself hasn't ever actually and genuinely been updated either.
It was revised in 1611 due to an error in Ruth 3:15 that referred to Ruth as "He".
And it still has an error in Dut 21:22 to this day. ("If he be to be put to death" should be "if he be put to death")
Also Rev 22:19 should say "tree of life" and not "book of life" (as the KJV have it), because NO Greek manuscript says "book".
It came from a copy error in the Latin Volgate where 2 letters in a 5 letter word weren't clear and the scribe thought "book" (libro) made more sense than "tree" (ligno).
And since the man compiling the Greek fragments in the 1500s didn't have any Greek fragments for the last 6 verses of Revelation, he translated from the Latin Volgate to complete the 1st TR (that was used for the KJV)
It has errors my friend. (As in things that are incorrect)
I do not see an error in this verse.
Please interact with the arguments made in the video.
No worries! Here are other verses in the KJV with errors!
Genesis 2:18
Genesis 12:6
Exodus 4:16
Exodus 15:14
Exodus 20:5
Exodus 34:14
Leviticus 1:3
Leviticus 6:10
Leviticus 6:16
Leviticus 11:20
Leviticus 13:14
Numbers 14:2
Numbers 15:15
Numbers 23:22
Numbers 24:8
Deuteronomy 4:24
Deuteronomy 5:9
Deuteronomy 6:15
Deuteronomy 12:22
Deuteronomy 14:4
Deuteronomy 14:6
Deuteronomy 14:9
Deuteronomy 14:11
Deuteronomy 23:17
Joshua 24:19
Ruth 4:4
1 Samuel 17:6
1 Samuel 17:45
2 Kings 2:23-24
2 Kings 23:7
Job 39:9-10
Job 39:13
Job 39:20
Psalms 22:21
Psalms 23:1
Psalms 29:6
Psalms 45:6
Psalms 65:1
Psalms 75:6
Psalms 78:49
Psalms 92:10
Isaiah 13:21
Isaiah 14:29
Isaiah 14:31
Isaiah 34:7
Isaiah 34:14
Isaiah 48:16
Joel 2:18
Joel 3:4
Nahum 1:2
Zechariah 1:14
Matthew 2:11
Matthew 8:2
Matthew 9:18
Matthew 14:33
Matthew 15:25
Matthew 18:26
Matthew 20:20
Matthew 27:29
Matthew 27:44
Matthew 28:9
Matthew 28:17
Mark 5:6
Mark 15:19
John 1:3
John 1:17
Acts 1:1
Acts 2:12
Acts 4:4
Acts 4:16
Acts 4:27
Acts 7:34
Acts 12:4
Acts 12:7
Acts 17:29
Romans 11:36
1 Corinthians 8:6
Galatians 5:12
Philippians 3:20
Colossians 1:16
1 Thessalonians 5:22
1 Timothy 3:16
1 Timothy 6:10
Hebrews 1:2
Hebrews 2:10
Hebrews 4:9
Hebrews 9:28
Jude 1
Jude 5
Jude 15
Revelation 14:1
Revelation 18:20
@khankorpofficial Those aren't errors. They were intentionally designed to derive the Greek and Hebrew language. Also, You can't do a interlinear direct interpretation. This style of writing is what gave the KJV a bad reputation in the first place. Going from "an help meet" to "a help meet." Even looking at the hebrew would not clarify the difference between gen 2 18 and gen 2 20. It's unclear to someone unscholarly in the minor details. But even without these details the writings can still be understood.
@@khankorpofficial
❤❤😂 Ty
@khankorpofficial Yes, the word "meet" in the Bible's Genesis 2:18 means "suitable" and is used in the phrase "help meet":
Genesis 2:18
"It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him".
Meaning
In this context, "meet" is an adjective that means "suitable" or "fit". The phrase "help meet" has evolved into the word "helpmeet", which is sometimes used as a synonym for "helpmate" or "companion".
The phrase "help meet" comes from two Hebrew words, ezer and kenegdo. Ezer means "help" and describes someone with the ability to help, protect, or aid. In the Old Testament, ezer is used to describe God offering help to rescue humankind.
I dont see the issue.
Mark says we have an inerrant Bible, but that the KJV has an error in it. I’m confused. If the KJV is the Bible, and the Bible is inerrant, then how can there be an error? Unless you don’t believe the ‘Bible’ is an actual Book.
I am a firm biblical inerrantist. Therefore I stand with Scripture and the King James translators against your view of the perfection of the King James. Let me quote from the KJV preface:
“[There is] no cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current [that is, circulated], notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For [we ask:] whatever was perfect under the sun, where Apostles or apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?”
Summarized (and shortened) in contemporary English:
“There is no reason why the word of God stops being the word of God when it’s translated, simply because some imperfections and blemishes occur in that translation. Was there ever anything perfect in this world aside from those things that were done by apostles?”
The KJV translators go on to argue that we still call a man handsome even if he has some warts on his hand. They say that we judge things-and ought to judge things-by their predominant character, not their exceptions. This means that other translations can be good besides the KJV, and it means that the KJV translators did not regard their work as perfect.
Now, this is talking about *translations,* not originals. The original Hebrew and Greek were perfect, inspired by God. But translations require human judgment-as the KJV translators knew all too well.
The KJV translators were not KJV-Only. They believed their work was good, but they admitted that there were some Hebrew words they weren’t sure of the meaning of. When you call the KJV perfect, you stand against Scripture and the KJV translators.
@ Your statement is that the Bible is inerrant, but that we don’t have an inerrant Bible in a book called the Bible today. The only inerrant Bible was the original autographs that nobody living has seen or read or handled, and were never complied in a single Book called the Bible. Your position is that there is no inerrant Bible available today, but you believe “the Bible” is inerrant. Confusing.
Appears to be borrowed from a Geneva edition like 1587? "Hee hath also made mee a byword of the people, and I am as a Tabret before them."
Yeah, there’s almost always a source for these odd renderings, a precedent. I don’t usually trace them out, because they can get obscure quickly.
@@wardonwords Yeah, I always read the KJV in parallel with predecessor English Bibles plus Luther, Wycliffe, and the Clementine Vulgate; mainly looking for Germanic cognates and Latin influence. Otherwise, to the moderns!
BTW, have you produced a KJV video addressing Heb 10:23's "faith" rendering vs. "hope"?
A tabret, like you said is like what we call a tambourine...and it is used generally in happy, joyful music, like songs of rejoicing, and which provoke dancing.
The phrase "aforetime I was as a tabret" describes how Job remembered his life before his affliction came upon him, in contrast with how he was feeling at the time he spoke those words.
This is one of multiple confident expectations I've been given in this comment thread, I must say. And I'm afraid it doesn't have any bearing on the arguments I made from the Hebrew.
ua-cam.com/video/RL1px3GRfo4/v-deo.html
Jerome's attempt was "They have made me like a common proverb, and I am an example before their face."
bro 😂😂 6:28 my man said “pointy headed scholars who eat old paper to survive” 😂😂
That’s my dream job.
The irony is that the King James translators did not translate that verse. They copied it directly from the 1560 Geneva bible. A pre existing error.
Interesting. And they rejected the dynamic reading in the Bishop's Bible in favor of "tabret."
@@wardonwords Thats because the Bishops Bible was created after the 1560 Geneva bible, in reaction to it.
Oh, were you there? You were sitting at the table when they did it. 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
Complete heresy, no they didn't copy from the Geneva Bible LMAO
Sadly, you can't even argue with KJV Onlyist. I personally don't see any problem with reading the KJV, but going out and burning Bibles and scoffing at literally any good fruit the new translations produce is foolishness.
I’ve seen quite a number of these brothers that can be argued with - who can have a conversation. But then there are many who are like you describe.
Amen.
Burning the excellent modern more accurate translations. That is the vile and rotten fruit of the KJV only cult.
Perhaps you need to do a video on this:
Mistranslations in the KJV:
1. Leviticus 14:10 "meat" should be "grain"
since flour is not a meat product.
2. Jeremiah 20:7 "deceived" should be
"persuaded" since God does not de
deceive His prophets.
3. Matthew 27:9-10 "Jeremy" (Jeremiah)
should be "Zechariah" (Jeremiah
never made such a prophecy
although Zechariah did (Zech.
11:12-13).
4. Acts 12:4 "Easter" should be "Passover"
(as it is translated 28 other times in
the New Testament) otherwise a
pagan word, unknown in the 1st
century is used.
5. Acts 22:9 "heard" should be "under-
stood" otherwise the verse would
contradict Acts 9:7.
6. Romans 8:16, 26 "itself" should be "Him-
self" otherwise the personality of
the Holy Spirit is denied.
7. Acts 17:28 "offspring" should "be "crea-
tion" otherwise the verse would
contradict John 1:12.
8. John 20:17 "touch" should be "cling to"
ortherwise it would contradict Luke
24:39.
9. Romans 5:9 - "God blessed for ever" should
be "the eternally blessed God" other-
wise the deity of Jesus is not correct-
ly stated.
10. John 14:14 "ask anything" should be "ask
ME anything" otherwise it is not clear
we can pray to Jesus, denying His deity.
11. Numbers 23:22 "unicorn" should be "rhino-
ceros" since unicorns do not exist.
12. Exodus 22:28 "revile the gods" should be
"revile the judges" since non-existent
"gods" cannot be reviled.
13. Joel 3:4 "Palestine" should be "Philistia"
since the region was not known as "Pal-
estine until after 129 A.D.
14. Matthew 10:4 "Canaanite" should be "Zeal-
ot" since all of Jesus apostles were
Jews and Canaanites are not Jews.
15. Romans 9:5 "who is over all" should be
"who is God over all" otherwise the
deity of Jesus is not clearly presented.
16. Zechariah 9:8 "any more" should be "at this
time" otherwise it would be a false
prophecy considering 70 AD.
17. Isaiah 5:25 "torn" should be "refuse" to re-
flect the word in the Hebrew text.
He has covered many of these in his videos -- false friends.
@S.L. The 1611 King James Version was translated by the same translators who did the Old and New Testaments and was published that way. If you're going to use the King James Version only, you must include the Apocrypha, as the King James scholars translated it.
@S.L. The King James translators were never forced. Whenever they were threatened with force, e.g. using earlier English translations, they refused. No one forced them to use the Apocrypha. That's fake history. It never happened. That was made that up by those who wanted to advance their heretical agenda.
@S.L. I don't know who's been "educating" you, but they don't know real history. "There are none so blind as those who cannot see."
Romans 9:5 is correct though
Job 17:6
"He has made me a byword of the people(God made him a instrument of suffering to the people), and before I was as a tambourine(a instrument of praise to the people).
Job 2:10
"Shall we accept good(praise) from God, and not accept adversity(suffering)?"
He has made me a instrument of suffering to the people, and before I was as a instrument of praise to them.
Shall we accept praise from God, and not accept suffering? No, we should accept both.
Job 30:9 - and now am I their song, yea I am their byword.
Tabret means mocking job by singing song, with music instrument.
An excellent guess, and a possible parallel. But he doesn’t say, “I used to be a song,” he says, “I used to be a tambourine.” That seems like a further stretch. I’m just not seeing it, I’m afraid!
While I concede that the person to whom you are replying is missing the use of the tabret phrase, I must point out your carelessness in all this.
Brother check your quote again. Job never said that he was a tabret. He instead said,...AS a tabret. BIG difference.
You would do well to notice and mark “similitudes” in scripture, identified by the words “as & like”.
I’m afraid you are way too careless with YOUR words to be correcting God’s
Brother, I know this will be unsatisfying to you-I myself dislike it when people won't admit a simple and clear error. But I said what I said quite self-consciously. There is not a bright and clear line between simile and metaphor. Similes are just a kind of metaphor. "I used to be a tambourine" and "I used to be like a tambourine" are not very different, if they differ at all. Maybe the latter is softer?
I totally get the “self conscious” thing, and it’s understandable.
But Mark, this isn’t about simile & metaphor (I said similitude BTW).
Nevertheless, this is about totally destroying the God-given method of biblical interpretation by replacing a word that should never be removed.
This is not a small thing! You destroy the criss-references which enlighten the reader as to the spiritual and prophetic application of Job.
The key in all this is in the same verse. The word “byword”. Any “plowboy” can use a concordance and see that the words byword and tabret are connected with blessings and curses upon Israel.
The ONLY exception is in Job. Job is shown via type (aka spiritual application) to picture Israel in the Tribulation (aka time of Jacob’s Trouble).
How many months in the Tribulation? Hint - how many chapters in Job?
Please don’t simply dismiss this as Ruckmanism without honest consideration that you could learn much in this area.
Also, the KJV translators knew when to translate the words for “spit in my face” ( see Job 30:9-10)
There is a huge difference between a simile and a metaphor. In Revelation 4:1 it could be the difference between the pretrib rapture and the posttrib-prewath rapture, consider the word "trumpet:" After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter. If this verse said the voice was (=) trumpet someone might think this verse is the rapture, but like a trumpet (not =trumpet) not so much.
The blessing we have now is that most reference editions of KJV's will have the side note on that verse and many others for either correction or literal rendering.
I am glad for such editions. I have little conception, however, for how many KJV readers are using them. Do you?
@@wardonwords , true sadly they don't take advantage of the side notes. The beauty of even the NKJV that has most of the textual variant readings that defer from TR in the side notes and how we need to utilize them more. I'm an ESV guy but been actually really appreciating the scholarship in the NIV (2011). I'll still use the KJV once in awhile. Thank you for your videos, very informative and encouraging. Soli deo gloria!
@@jonk9041 Error found in the textual critics: ua-cam.com/video/AU6y-Glj0wQ/v-deo.html
I have never learned to read the Bible using KJV but from what I’ve heard the pros would be: better poetry, heard memorizing is easier, and pronouns make it easier to tell who text is talking to. I was trying to find a reason for me to pick it up especially since I go to a traditional church and know some of the old terms as even NKJV isn’t difficult to read imo. I don’t think there is a good reason still not that it’s bad Bible or anything.
The same word for or related to "spitting" cannot be found in Num 12:14, Deut 25:9, 1 Sam 21:13, Isa 50:6, Lev 15:8. Also, why the difference between ESV and NIV on this point?
I'm gonna try to answer your question, but I'm not 100% sure of what you're asking.
If your meaning "how do we get that same phrase in these verses without translating from the same Hebrew word?"
The answer is simple. There can be many words in a source language that translate the same in the destination language.
For example, Jesus asked Peter "do you love me?" 3 times. But the Greek, Jesus asked him with 2 different words that were translated as "love".
As for the difference in Job 17:6 in the ESV and NIV.
It's unclear of which saying ("they spit in my face" / "I am who they spit on"), is the intended saying.
But the intended meaning is the same overall. (They show the ultimate disgust and contempt for Job publicly)
In short and simplified, both translations give a correct and full sense *to the reader*, but it's unknown which was the chosen words of the author.
Something I've realized recently about absolutism vs confidence.
God preserved his word in the exact same manner he preserved his own name. We don't know exactly how to spell or pronounce his name, but we 100% know the meaning.
In the same way that we don't know the exact wording of the bible (or translations of it), but we 100% know the meaning.
This is really good. Won’t be persuasive to the committed, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true! Excellent.
HOW TO BE SAVED (How to KNOW you are saved and not just hope you are)
THE BAD NEWS
All men have sinned and are in need of a Savior (Rom 3:23 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" ; Rev 21:8 "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all LIARS, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
No man can come to God by his own good works and righteousness. (Isaiah 64:6 "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags;" THE GOOD NEWS
1 Timothy 1:15 tells us "This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners."
How does Jesus save a sinner?
From the beginning of the bible to the end, God has only forgiven sins through a BLOOD SACRIFICE, because he is a Holy God he can't forgive sins any other way, Heb 9:22 tells us, "...without shedding of blood is no remission." when Adam sinned, God had to kill a lamb in Adam's place as a substitue, In the Law of Moses, a Blood Sacrifice was demanded for the forgiviness of sins.
Jesus came to die for the sins of the whole world, he came to be OUR Blood Sacrifice, OUR substittue, he came to bear OUR sins on the cross, in OUR place. John 1:29 "...Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world."
What must you do to be saved?
YOU MUST REPENT; You must change from unbelief to belief.
admit you are guilty, that you cannot do anything to save or help save yourself, and that you need Jesus Christ as your savior.
Titus 3:5 "Not by works of righteousness which we have done. but according to his mercy he saved us,"
Romans 3:28 "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."
Romans 4:5 "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."
YOU MUST TRUST; placing your complete faith in what Jesus Christ already did to save you;
John 1:12 "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:."
Salvation comes by believing in WHAT Jesus did for you, 1 Cor. 15:1-4 tells us "Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the GOSPEL which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are SAVED, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, HOW that Christ died for OUR SINS according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:"
All you have to do to be saved, and on your way to heaven is place your TRUST in the shed Blood of Jesus Christ and nothing else, as sufficient for your salvation, (Rom 3:25 "Whom God hath set forth to be a PROPITIATION through FAITH IN HIS BLOOD, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;")
(Propitiation means the act of appeasing wrath, Jesus took your place on the cross.)
Will you accept Jesus Christ as your savior by simple faith, simply trusting in his shed Blood for sufficient to save your soul from hell?
The last sentence is all you must do to be saved, and that is FAITH, not works, TRUSTING in what someone else did for you is the only thing that is not a work.
Please watch Robert Breaker's video titled "HOW TO GET SAVED"
If you have received Jesus Christ, by faith in his Blood, you now have eternal life and on your way to heaven!
I John 5:11 "And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son."
John 10:27-28 "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand."
If you received Jesus Christ by faith as your Savior because of this message please let me know! You can copy and send this message to others!
Important verses.
This doesn’t hold water.
The 1611 translators knew the words:
SPIT, SPITTING and SPITTLE. (That’s all forms)
They’re all rendered in the KJB. In fact, see Job 30:10. Here it seems the “expression of contempt” is rendered which they have allegedly missed.
Curious to know if you've ever tried to point out the Jesus/Joshua confusion to KJVOs? For example:
"For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day."
Hebrews 4:8 KJV
"Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;"
Acts 7:45 KJV
When I'm trying to disprove the notion that the KJV is perfect, these have been my go to texts. It's hard to find an obvious error that doesn't require knowledge of Hebrew/Greek. Obviously it's understandable why they translated Ιησούς as Jesus, but in these two texts it's clearly referring to Joshua, which even English readers can see by looking at the context.
If you've already made a video somewhere on this please remind me, I'm just curious to see how people respond to it. Your channel seems to get every possible objection. Lol
Excellent, excellent! This is not one I’ve covered. I don’t prefer to spend time on KJV errors, of course, because that’s all KJV-Onlyists will hear.
@@wardonwords Anyone who watches your channel honestly can see that you have respect for the KJV and it's not your mission to bash it. But I do find it helpful to point out a few clear, problematic texts that get people thinking. Before I learned any of the Biblical languages, I thought the KJV was preserved etc. That every word of it was exactly what the original said, just in English. Then a friend in college pointed out to me something I'd never thought about before. When the NT quotes the OT, it's not always word-for-word identical. He showed me where Jesus quoted Isaiah and there were differences. Nothing major, but enough to disprove my thought that it was perfectly preserved. And that realization led me to approach the whole subject of translation with a much more open mind. I'm sure some people would see a video like this as "bashing the KJV," but I'm also sure that others will have their assumptions challenged by it. Anyway, keep up the good work, I have no doubt these videos will open the eyes of many for years to come. Your gracious spirit is always convicting to me. Something I need to work on...
Thank you, David. These are very helpful thoughts.
this is intentional. just a way to make the reader understand that Joshua and Jesus are the same name. Joshua led the israelites over the river of judgment (jordan) into the promised land. Just like Jesus will lead us into heaven, not getting the judgement we deserve.
From Strong’s Concordance:
Hebrew: תּפת
Transliteration: tôpheth
Pronunciation: to'-feth
Definition: From the base of H8608; a {smiting} that {is} (figuratively) contempt: - tabret.
KJV Usage: spit
Sounds like to me they were describing how the spit hit him in the face like a percussion instrument. I wouldn’t call that an error.
Friend, please interact with the arguments made in the video.
No, he reached for anything to make is sound reasonable.
But he didn't make it actually work.
Either the word meant to spit, or a tabret. He used an interpretation that has the single word meaning both things. (Which the Hebrew didn't mean tabret at all)
@@wardonwords Says the guy who is completely ignoring my argument... LOL
@@milk2meatKJV Your argument is an appeal to the authority of Strong's concordance. I believe I dealt with that argument in the video.
@@wardonwords Nooo... Your argument is "I don't like the way it sounds, therefore it's an error." And that's not even a straw man...
Read 2 Kings 8:26 & 2 Chronicles 22:2. Was King Ahaziah 22 years old or 42 years old when he began to reign over Israel as King for one year?
I laughed about this because many a woman will lie about their age. Maybe King Ahaziah was sensitive about his age.
It looks like the translators translated the numbers 22 & 42 correctly. From a bible believer, Patty
"...and aforetime I was a tabret" Yes, I'm sure many Christians will lose a lot of sleep over this mistake. Read other versions of the Bible, don't just read the KJV because that's shutting out God's Word for many people.
I tend to agree.
@@wardonwords so does satan
Are you saved?
Not a mistake. What do you do with a tabret? You strike or hit it to get a sound. He was metaphorically saying he gets "beat up" by everyone.
This is one of the four leading interpretations that KJV-Onlyists have given me. It does make sense. But it doesn’t reckon at all with what the Hebrew says.
What proves its imperfection to me is the word Easter used. Easter is just one day whereas Passover (unleavened bread) is 7 thus proving its imperfection. Easter is a derivative of Ishtar which is very pagan and God wouldn’t used a pagan derivative to describe one of His Holy Feast days.
Yes, I believe that is another error. I'm less confident of that one, however, because I feel like I can't find a way to explain what they did.
Everything I’ve read on the topic of “Easter in the Bible” has me convinced that Easter is the correct translation. By the way, Passover is just one day. The Feast of Unleavened bread is right after Passover, and is a week.
@@jmcollison10According to scripture Passover is a feast of seven days. Easter one of the many mistranslations in the KJV.
@@henrylaurel1188 Leviticus 23:5-6
In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD'S passover. [6] And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread.
Not to mention, taking one word, hell to cover four words in the earlier Greek and Hebrew scriptures, sheol, hades, Gehenna and Tartarus, is like me telling you that all the directions on the compas are East.
Maybe being shaken around like a tambourine is like being mocked/spit at
Maybe?
I always feel that if people actually really read the translators to the readers in the KJV, we wouldn’t have these types of debates and sometimes falling out between brothers and sisters. As a person that reads many different translations I am finding a harmony in them all. Not one of top 5 translations belittle God or defame his name, awesome power. Every one of these bibles you could use to share the gospel with someone. it would be interesting to know if people who don’t speak English have such debates around translations in there own language. Although I suspect it’s a very western spoilt position as we have so many to choose from. To be honest I wish we were so passionate to making sure that others around the world have a complete copy of the bible like we do. I personally have decided to put my money where my mouth is and I now support that.
Fully agreed. It’s so unbearably grievous to me that we’re even having a debate over Bible translations.
CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THEY ARE TAKEN FROM THE "OTHER TREE" IN THE MIDST OF THE GARDEN, THATS A SCARY STATEMENT YOU MADE. ALSO THE MANDATE OF THE ANTI CHRIST BIBLES IS THEY GIVE THEMSELVES UP TO THE BEAST. THEY MAKE JESUS A LIAR ETC.
You are suppose to study the bible not read it .. then only you would notice
@@francesrude3007 quote scriptures not your thoughts
@@ernestbailey6617 your in FOLLY. I don't/wont answer that. It's an information highway out there. Thank you for showing yourself, and what manner of spirit you are of.
When you read out Job 17:6, I would have figured that Job was making an analogy where he had been beaten upon as one beats on a drum or tambourine. That means that if I had been translating the KJV in 1611, I would have put some effort into explaining the analogy. But they did not. Apparently, that wasn't in their goals. But of course, further study illuminates what was actually said.
Another excellent video. Thanks for this series, Mark!
My pleasure! Thanks for watching! This particular example proved to be pretty complex. My Ugaritic wan’t quite equal to the challenge; I had to rely on authorities.
In 2 Kings 13:1 it states that in the 23rd year of Joash King of Judah, Jehoahaz became king over Israel and reigned for seventeen years. This would put the end of Jehoahaz's reign in the 40th year of Joash's reign, since twenty three and seventeen equal forty.. Yet we read in 2 Kings 13:9-10 that Jehoahaz slept with his fathers, and they buried him in Samaria, and Jehoash his son reigned in his place in the THIRTY SEVENTH year of the reign of Joash king of Judah. This would leave only fourteen years for the reign of Jehoahaz, not seventeen years as stated in verse one of this chapter.
There is no way you can juggle the numbers and make this come out right. This simply shreds the doctrine of inerrancy, which is the belief that God has perfectly preserved the Bible through the ages down to the present day with no errors in it at all even to the very letter. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
There were mistakes made by some scribes centuries ago, however for me it doesn't shake my faith in the slightest. I don't depend in some false doctrine of inerrancy, particularly because of the shipwreck that it has made out of once solid Bible believers like Bart Ehrman, but I do believe in the infallibility of the original manuscripts. I also believe in the overall, overwhelming totality of the testimony of the Law, the Prophets and the Apostles as sufficient for my faith. I believe in all areas of theology, morality, prophecy (fulfilled and yet to be fulfilled), the historical account of God's creation of the world and of the world wide Flood of Noah and the story of the early Patriarchs, the history of the Jewish nation, the virgin birth, sinless life, death burial and resurrection of our Lord Jesus the Messiah, and in science the Bible is accurate.
KJV Matthew 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye *all of it;*
Not - drink all of it. Instead, it should read: "Drink from it, all of you,"
Peace be with you, brother in Christ.
I am not attempting to defend the inerrancy of the KJV's usage of "tabret" over and above that of "spit", but wouldn't the intended meaning of "I was as a tabret" be to express being beaten down or slapped around by others? This to me conveys essentially the same meaning, although the imagery is different, to that of being spat upon. For in both cases, Job expresses that he has suffered abuse from others, making him also a "byword".
That is not to say that "spit" is not a superior and more literal translation choice. But perhaps to be treated like a percussion instrument, to be pummeled upon, does fairly capture Job's meaning here of having suffered abuse. It could be viewed as a dynamic translation.
People seem to be mocking Job thinking God has rejected him. At one time Job was someone they listened too.
People listen to the beat of the drum!
I think, if I remember, right, that this is the fourth confident interpretation of this phrase by KJV defenders that I have received.
I am glad i listened to this talk which is helpful for me to better understand difference between the verbal plenary inspiration teaching and verbal plenary preservation.which is a favorite KJV only topic.
Right! That's an all-important distinction!
Seems like a good place to deploy this: KJV Onlyist, are you saying that not a single Christian anywhere in the world had true faith until A.D.1611, because they did not have the Perfect Word Of God in English to read? Even Christians who spoke other languages? Or the illiterate majority?
In my experience, these questions get answered different ways in different portions of KJV-Onlyism.
@@wardonwords - Actually, in my experience as well.
They usually begin to talk about how the Alexandrian texts were corrupted, but aside from 2 places, the differences aren’t all that significant. The two places are not adding St. Matthew’s ending to St. Mark’s gospel, and the Alexandrian text not including the section of Matthew where St. Peter is given the keys to Heaven. Since Catholics are most often accused of corrupting the texts, it’s humorous to think they corrupted it by removing the verse seemingly most in support of Papal supremacy, infallibility, and indefectibility.
That's why there are different dispensations of God's Grace for people through out time. Today we live by faith in Jesus Christ through God's perfect written word.
Not at all, just that God knew that the global language in the end times would be English 😊 He prepared us well.
So you conclude the Authorised Version is wrong based on a word that you don't know the meaning of?
Why not use the Hebrew word toph to work out what the Hebrew word tophet means?
God knows our prideful tendencies, so he uses imperfection to humble us and to drive us to seek His truth. So many papyri, so many codices, so many languages, so many variants, so many dictionaries, so many lexicons, so many translations! That's right! So, prayerfully dig and search among all of that material instead of wasting time. "For now, we see in a mirror dimly." Thank you for your insights!🙋🏼♂️📖😊
Yes!
4:20 Consider that a tabret, timbrel or tambourine as we might call it today is played by repeated striking with a palm. So in the context of the passage the KJV translation of the verse makes sense, in that Job is being literally or figuratively smitten.
The cognate languages are interesting to think about, but nothing about the evidence you have presented would definitively conclude that there is an error in the KJV, just that similar languages may or may not have a different meaning than the biblical Hebrew
There are other translations as well such as the Geneva bible which also use tabret, and so there is other evidence that this could be a valid choice of words.
"Job 17:6 Hee hath also made mee a byword of the people, and I am as a Tabret before them." Geneva
Or that the Geneva Bible translators made the same error-probably by relying on the same authorities. But you're the only defender of the KJV wording in these comments (that I can remember!) that even mentioned the cognate languages argument, so kudos to you!
@@wardonwords Perhaps, that's the interesting thing about all of this, like with all historical/observational sciences you have to place things on a scale of confidence, it's difficult to definitively prove or disprove anything conclusively.
Ill be honest with you I am trying to figure this out for myself right now. I appreciate your video here it presents good ideas and I am trying to honestly look at the issues from both sides and see if I can come to a conclusion that is satisfactory to my own heart, even if I can't convince others, I am less interested in that at this point and just want to know.
One other informational point I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on, I heard the KJV translators were given the rule to be guided by the "Bishop's Bible" translation. Being careful not to unnecessarily change conclusions in that translation if the original texts did not demand it, and for this verse it says "17:6 He hath made me a byworde of the people, where as afore I was their ioy" (joy in ye olde english) It may be that the Bishops bible guided the translation to tabret as a figure of speech for joy, kinda like you mentioned in your video, in your speculative analysis of it. But it kind of makes sense reading it there, before Job's affliction he was a joy to the people around him... then it opens up the rabbit trail of what is the origin of the bishop's bible, and can I identify conclusive inaccuracies in that bible. All interesting things to think about and discover.
I see no problem with Job 17:6 in the KJV. Job didn't say " I used to be a tambourine", but "I was as a tabret". St. Paul in 1 Cor 13 compared himself to a tinkling cymbal or sounding brass if he spoke with the tongues of men or angels yet without love. Job may have simply been using an analogy, maybe saying that his speech was entertaining, or that he was the life of the party, a good and entertaining host. I don't personally use the KJV, just as a disclaimer.
It is not a major point or the underlying reasoning by those who recognise the KJB's perfection that because the KJB has been long time used it is right. In fact, the view of the KJB's perfection is a doctrinal argument based on scripture itself that recognises the Providences and particularities of the KJB as fulfilling that role of being the perfect Bible. That hundreds of years of existence of the KJB is at best a secondary point.
bibleprotector, no one is in charge of KJV-Onlyism, and there are multiple strains within it. I believe I am representing the mainstream, IFB KJV-Onlyism I know best. They are more responsible and careful than Ruckmanism on the point you mention. And I repeatedly hear from them that the way we know what 1) text and 2) what translation is right is God's use of it.
@@wardonwords God's long time using of the KJB is *an* argument but not "mainstream IFB KJBOs'" primary argument. Their primary argument is a list of scripture references (i.e. an interpretation and a doctrine) about how God's very words should exist today, be knowable, etc. It is a strawman to make out as if the age/venerableness of the KJB is their primary foundation.
As for your implication that KJBO is fissiparous, the use of verses in regard to the KJB (e.g. Matthew 4:4) is common to Ruckmanites, IFB KJBOs, TROs (e.g. Donald Waite, David Cloud, etc.), certain Calvinists (e.g. Ian Paisley, Edward Hills, etc.), Andersonites, Riplingerites and someone like me. I concede of course there are doctrinal differences among Christians but the point stands that all these differing proponents primarily relied on giving a list of scripture proofs for the KJB.
I'll engage you a little further because you are engaging constructively. You are right that mainstream KJV-Onlyists appeal to many Scriptures. But to bridge the gap between "the Bible says that we have to have every word from the mouth of God" and "the KJV is that Word" they appeal to God's use of the KJV and its text.
@@wardonwords That seems like your bias or blinkers ("oh these are just lovers of tradition and what they know"), because if you start from the Scriptures saying there is a perfect Bible, then you would only then use as one of the points that the KJB has been around for a long time, but that is only a secondary point after having established from the Scripture a doctrine that there should be a perfect Bible present first.
The idea that a translation's historical usage gives it any claim to perfection is self-refuting. We could then just as easily blame the King James Version for the evils of British imperialism by that reasoning. Surely the atrocities of colonialism committed from 1611 to 1881 shouldn't be placed on the shoulders of the venerable translators of the Authorized Version, but if the translation is to be validated by all of the Christian progress during those centuries, then it would just as soon be denigrated by the cruelties committed by English Christendom during the same period.
And even then, if any translation has a special claim due to length of usage, it would surely be the Vulgate, so the only English translations worthy of consideration would have to be those based on the Latin. Thankfully, even Roman Catholics have recognized how weak that argument is and have shifted to modern translations based on Hebrew and Greek.
This is an interesting text, and the translations earlier than the KJV (other than the Geneva Bible, which follows a similar tact) seem to have followed something more like our modern translations, making the KJV an outlier on the latter part of this verse.
The Great Bible and Bishop's Bible are similar to each other, translating something along the lines of "He has made me as it were a byword of the people: whereas before, I was their joy," which appears to indicate that these translators also thought it referred to what Job was "before" his downfall.
Mr Wycliffe speaks of being made a "saumple" of, which is a early form of "example," so Job was made an example of to the common people, presumably as a warning to others to not act like him, or else experience divine punishment.
Coverdale says, "He hath made me as it were a byword of the common people, I am his jesting stock among them," which seems to carry with it a similar tone of being subjected to mockery.
The only way I can think of "tabret" being an appropriate translation for Job's current state in this verse would be if it were to indicate that he'd been so beaten that he had no melody left, but that seems like a stretch (if you'll excuse the pun).
My (Scottish) Gaelic Bible, first published in the early 1800s, uses a combination of two words, one meaning "article/limb/object" or "member" (also a word for a particular part of male anatomy), and the other meaning "derision" or "ridicule," so Job says, "I am as an object of ridicule among them."
The same Gaelic term appears at the end of Job 12:4, where my preferred English translation has "laughingstock."
Tabret is one who plays the tabor not the tabor itself
Hmm. This is possible. The OED does give that as a sense, the second-and it has far fewer citations, the last one in 1634, suggesting that it’s uncommon. Got any evidence for why you’d take the second sense rather than the first? I can’t think of anything, I’m afraid… I *can* read it that way, but it requires effort.
Need more on textual absolutism vs textual confidence
It’s coming-big time!
I'm beyond 100% convinced with the perfect word in English. Today's modern KJV is. If God can not present his perfect word to the world after he has created all the languages, then the devil wins. God gets his word into the hands of the right people and leads and guides them into all truth. Of course, the devil made sure to create many counterfeit bibles to confuse everyone.
You are absolutely right. “Christians” treat the KJV EXACTLY I mean it’s scary identical to how the world treats Christianity. For example. You see Christianity mocked by everyone on every platform in some way at some point. No other religion is even mentioned ( on occasion someone will drop a joke about Islam or something) but nothing on a mass scale and on a unified very public level. Reason being is that the Devil attacks what he knows is real. And he will deceive the hearts and minds of anyone who will allow him to, just so that light is dimmed. Or at least he’ll try. The crazy thing is, that same spirit is going against KJV AND KJV users in almost a persecution type way. People HATE the KJV. Why? Because the KJV was a direct task that was placed on the hearts of the scholars he chose to translate it in English.
Why does God's Word need to be perfect in all languages? Why can't he preserve the original language, and the Word still be perfect?
@@juqeboxmedia People don't really attack the KJV or dislike it apart from the KJO movement. It is the reason for the so-called "persecution". The KJO movement creates that problem, among others. It creates fear and confusion in people and causes division amongst Christians. I dislike it.
I just checked my BLB app, checking the interlinear for Job 17:6....and they don't even reference the tabret as a translation for Hebrew 'topet'. Something about that is just funny.
Strong's Concordance brings clarity for Job 17:6. The usage of aforetime and tabret have, somewhat, unique meanings for Job 17:6 vs other usages of these 2 words in other passages.
Ruckman said the errors in the kjv are revelations. Wonder what this error reveals about anything 😅
And that's a neat summary of Ruckman's unorthodox bibliology!
Gentlemen. Before you scoff at such a notion, you would be wise to at least consider the truth of what Dr. Ruckman meant by that statement.
I can easily show exactly why the word “tablet” must be left in the text. Changing it definitely destroys the prophetic application.
I’ll stop with that, but if you wanna know what it is, I’ll gladly show you. Y’all are missing something here.
Oops! Meant to write “tabret”
@@kirbytabb3177 please add to your comment. I'm curious...
I don’t think Dr Ruckman ever said that.
Where is this Letter to reader from Translators? You don't put it in the film itselfe.
I have a video on that on my channel. Can’t send the link at the moment. But search for it!
@@wardonwords Can you please told me name of this films on your channel? I very respect sources.
@@BeniaminZaboj I'm not totally sure what you're asking, but here's the link to the video I mentioned: ua-cam.com/video/ipfJGU5YYXM/v-deo.html
@ Mark Ward Thank you for this video. I found this very interesting and informative. I would love to see a video explaining Revelation 22:14 and the reason for the difference between the KJV and the modern versions. This really threw me for a loop when I discovered it.
Great suggestion!
Why did you quickly pass over the word "Byword" here? Going to Job 30, Byword meaning "their song" (see verse 9).
Byword is mentioned 6 times in total and it is always used negatively, as an infamous parable, "among the nations and or people." (see first mention at duet 28:37 and at 1 Ki 9:7) and something akin to a saying.
It is also linked with "Taunting." You can also see heading up to verse 31 a parallel to wind, instrument like actions and "attacks" but then finally at verse 31 at the end of the chapter it seals the meaning with instruments, harp and organ. A word you can isolate here is "Harp," every time the word "Tabret" is mentioned, which would be 9 times in total, is interestingly always accompanied with harps save three places where either a general conjoining word is used such "instruments of musick" in 1 Sam 18:6--
In this specific figure of speech, so not a literal individual accounting for the instrument (see the virgin of Israel in Jer 31)-- And here in Ezk 28:13 where it is speaking about Satan's instruments that he created, the pipe and the Tabret, so that would be an account of an event.
Also Timbrel, Harp and Organ is used just after, at chapter 21 as well, and again Organ and Harp is used at 31. But anyways, no doubt Tabret at the very most isn't an error.
Please interact with the arguments used in the video. And don’t call me Shirley.
@@wardonwords I am. Please interact with what I just said, the word "Byword" is literally defined here, it proves Tabret CAN be used here.
@@wardonwords Also not to mention the figure in the verse "I was AS a tabret" making it out as if the verse said "I was a tabret" you are sneaky
@@wardonwords It's been a full month and yet not a single reply or refutation and this video is still up even after having read my comment.
@@Isaiah_Cochran I'll let you try again-without name-calling, and (ideally) without the claim of a doctorate you clearly don't possess. =( I find it exhausting to try to read through your prose. I literally can't do it. I don't understand what you're saying-except the derisive name-calling; I got that part. =( Truly: try again. Get someone who can write clear English sentences to go over your prose with you so that I have the possibility of understanding it, and I will listen and engage.
Reminds me of " a clanging symbol"... a noise some people do not want to hear. Tabret is a one sided drum. This reminds me of friends I talk with who talk and never stop. I cannot get a word in edgewise. A one sided conversation.
Could be!
With respect, this two-word response is the most succinct, yet troubling, summary of your entire presentation, Mark.
How to look at Timothy Bird's research & am I spelling his name correctly?Anyone, please reply. Thank you
Timothy Berg; kjbhistory.com. Excellent stuff. He’s done hard work for the church.
Bible translation from manuscripts is more of an art than a science, so I've heard. It is very hard to do!
It is indeed difficult!
My only real question about the accuracy of the KJV (and the TR and BYZ) is Mark 16:19. Can believers drink deadly things and live?
It’s talking on a spiritual level, not a literal one.
@Nick-wn1xwconsidering it’s more of an account of history in Acts, I believe it was a real snake.
Very good video. The craziness in the comments section is the attack on Mark and others who are bringing light to the fact that the KJV does have human errors. The reason it is so hard to accept is because you have listened to the teaching for years and trusted in humans that the KJV is the only infallible word of God. The original word of God is infallible but the copying and rewriting is not. There are literally dozens of errors in the KJV and instead of humbling yourselves and seeing facts for what it is you blindly ignore it and continue believing and trusting in man. Most everyone pointing out and agreeing with these errors are true born again believers. Brothers and sisters in Christ who only seek truth in order to better understand our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
I never realized before how much of Job's response sounds iike knowledge of Christ's trial. I do know that Job's trial is the labor of one in whom the Word is fully formed. He will be brought to a state of repeating what God says. The portion of faith called "the good part." We know this as יענה or John--the beginning of the response of Jah. As the doves call to one another with cooing, we speak the words of God with faith. It is fair to called these word "inspired" because they come into our ears as the audible breath of the Most High God. The lord our God is One. The book of Job explains how lightning comes from the snow clouds. When translated to thunder animals understand. Are we all called to seek the face of God, his holy presence? The last step requires taking on the role of the lowest servant. Some of us need a lot of help to do it. Job will become "a son of God" and experience that quickening which allows him to understand the language of light. That isn't all, of course.
There is, of course, perhaps the most famous error in the KJV: “Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.” (Matt 23:24) The translation 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 be “strain 𝘰𝘶𝘵 a gnat,” i.e., straining out gnats by pouring water through a cloth, not straining at (staring intently) at them. But a simple printing error was perpetuated down through the centuries and remains today in modern editions of the King James Bible.
Right-I could do a series of videos. But not a super long one, I think. I don’t really keep track of KJV errors. There’s not a lot of reason to do so.
@@christopheryetzer Interesting explanation, but both the Bishop’s Bible and the Geneva say “strain *out* a gnat”. So if the KJV translators were simply using a rendering that had already gained currency, what version were they emulating? Since the KJV alone seems to use this rendering, wouldn’t it make much more sense that it was an oversight?
@@christopheryetzer I was intrigued by your response so I gave you the benefit of the doubt and went over on original bibles.com to look at a facsimile of the Bishop’s Bible from 1568 (they didn’t have any from 1583, 1594, or 1602) since I don’t actually own a paper copy myself. Well, it also said “strain *out*” just like the digitized copy I saw before. Perhaps Dr. Norton is suggesting that they used “strain out” in early editions, briefly changed it in 1583 and 1594, and then, changed it back in 1602 (since you said the 1602 edition also reads “strained *out*”). That sound about right?
I’m not trying to labor a point here, but your argument makes no sense. You’re insisting that the reading was found in earlier English Bibles, but the evidence I’m seeing just doesn’t back that up. Even Tyndale translated it “strained out.” So if it was intentional, then the KJV translators are literally alone in rendering it “strained at.” Personally, I believe the KJV translators were a lot smarter than intentionally giving us such a bizarre phrase.
I have been going through the TBS tract on differences between the KJV and NASB. I’ll admit, most of them are not controversial to me, but some of them surely raise my eyebrows.
Matthew 1:25
5:47
20:22-23
26:28
27:34-35
Mark 2:17
9:29
9:42
10:24
14:24
16:20
Luke 2:33
24:36
John 1:18
4:42
6:47
6:69
9:4
9:35
14:15
Another mistake in the King James is that it frequently translates "aiwnos" as "world" instead of "age."
Not sure I'd call this a mistake. The standard Greek-English lexicon still gives "world" as an appropriate gloss/sense for αιων.
When Moses wrote “her desire will be for her husband” he meant woman will try to rule over man. Basically happy wife happy life or the age old “she carries your balls in her purse?” It was describing a feminist movement where women wanted to make their own decisions and desired their husbands position.
I've been meaning to really dig into that verse.
That is incorrect.
Genesis 3:16 KJV
"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."
If it was meaning to say "she will try to rule him" there would be a "but" instead of an "and" after "to thy husband".
God was establishing a natural law that exists today, even with all the feminists and feminism, that when women go opposite of it, they are "unhappy and mentally unstable" on the inside. They might be appear to be happy, but they will never have peace and will express anger and bitterness over it.
Happy wife happy life is NOT a feminist statement. "Her desire...": This was a less-than-ideal situation that resulted from the act of sinfully getting knowledge. I always thought this meant that the woman will be subservient spiritually to the man.
in the passage of Job 17:6...... I believe what we are being told by Job.. is that before this time... He was talked about... but before what time...?.. before the time of his wealth?...destitution? calamity?
in other words what specific time is Job referring to as before this?.. before his destruction.. people talked about him how wealthy he was.?. they admired him? ..they were jealous of his prosperity?.. or before this point in time
once we determine for certainty.. what aforetime situation Job is referring to as being talked about...a tabret may be translated as an obsolete abhorring instrument .or as spit as you have found.. according to the Hebrew... hmmm an abhorring instrument ... and I found that this was an instrument often played by women...
could this passage possible mean... that once Job was looked upon as someone such as E.F. Hutton...?.. when he talked everybody listened... yet now he sees himself as someone that No one wishes to listen to?..
Job went from being important to being a nuisance.. is how Job saw himself in regards to his countrymen...
Thanks for being real. I'm so tired of "I'm right and everyone else is working for the devil". I love the KJV. I've used it all my adult life. But I also love other version....I love God's word!!! Thanks again; great teaching/explanation.
My only question is how do we know that Job is older that Genesis? How do we know and what are the sources? Seriously asking!
Very helpful…thank you! Recommend highlighting “how” a church leader can change course without sounding heretical. I think this is the challenge. Very scary when your livelihood may be at stake.
I have something on this. Will try to find.
Job Dutch Bible translated to English 17: 6 beating the drum before everyone.
Marginal notes17 That is, a common pastime and matter of taunts and ridicule.
Which Dutch Bible?
@@wardonwords Taken from The State Translation "Staten Bijbel" 1636 - 1637 is a direct translation from Greek Aramaic and Hebrew. The New Dutch translations are not good there is one called "The Book" used a lot but a bad translation worst than the N.I.V.
I appreciate your work sir. Thank you.
My pleasure!
My pleasure!
Very nice presentation Mark. I love it, especially the spirit of graciousness.
Thank you kindly, sir!
Hey Mark, in one of your other videos you point out two verses from different books, that disagree on someone’s age or year of reign… I can’t find those two passages. Ring a bell?
1 Sam 13:1, I believe.
2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2
@@omarkamal5017 yes that’s the discrepancy I believe but where is the video in which he addressed it? It’s his argument that I’m searching for.
@@joey_outdoorsI’ve never seen the video just familiar with the discrepancy. It’s a scribal error. I showed it to a KJV onlier once and he almost lost his mind. Ended up just reverting to insulting me
@@omarkamal5017 You know what, I just found the video I've been looking for and realize I mistakenly thought it was from Mark Ward. Anyway, this was the video I was trying to find per memory-the argument is solid!
ua-cam.com/video/3kXbhBU9XHA/v-deo.html
I remember reading this verse in Hebrew for the first time. I thought job was saying he was tofeth, as in the valley of topheth in Jeremiah
That doesn’t make great sense in context, either, of course, or perhaps commentators would suggest it. I didn’t do an exhaustive search of the commentators, but I don’t see anyone opting for that meaning.
@@wardonwords I didn’t make sense. I was so confused. I can easily see how translators make mistakes
@Ian Don't force people read KJV only!!
@Ian Then show me in KJV Bible where God or Jesus said: "Read KJV only or go to hell."
@Ian DONT WORRY, KEEP LOOKING AT JESUS. I READ KJV ALSO AND I KNOW, IT IS JESUS HIMSELF. IN REVELATION HE TELLS US THAT HE HAD A NEW NAME WRITTEN, THAT NO MAN KNOWS, BUT HE HIMSELF..........AND HE HAD A VESTURE DIPPED IN BLOOD, AND HIS NAME IS CALLED THE WORD OF GOD." HIS WORD IS ALIVE, BECAUSE HE IS ALIVE. SORRY ABOUT THE CAPITALS, I HAVE TROUBLE WITH HANDS. I STARTED MAKING MY OWN VIDS . GOD BLESS YOU.
I know true seekers of truth want confidence in the word of God they read, but I think we need to be careful, lest we strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.
Matthew 23:24
I’d say that most if not all kjv only folks are cessationists(at least the ones I’ve met). I now have friends that are not. It’s challenged my thinking, wondering if tounges and the gifts are for today. I’ve been taught that, when that which is perfect has come that, that which is in part will be done away… being the Bible and kjv to be exact. Where do you stand on this teaching?
I'm a cessationist. I believe "the perfect" has not yet come (because when it does, I will know as I am known, and I don't think that has happened yet), but I still believe the gifts have ceased. I appeal to standard lines of cessationist reasoning. See the four views book on this topic.
@@wardonwords thank you for your time
I read KJV, and am not a cessationist
Wolcott and Hort are men that should be studied.
My friend, I wish to ask you very straightforwardly: have you ever read anything either of them has written? I mean in books they wrote, not as quoted by someone else.
Seriously, who and how do you receive $ ? Do you get paid for trying to cause people to doubt God's word? Would you say that you're born again? And if so how do you know? To God alone be the Glory!!!!
I am a firm biblical inerrantist. Therefore I stand with Scripture and the King James translators against your view of the perfection of the King James. Let me quote from the KJV preface:
“[There is] no cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current [that is, circulated], notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For [we ask:] whatever was perfect under the sun, where Apostles or apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?”
Summarized (and shortened) in contemporary English:
“There is no reason why the word of God stops being the word of God when it’s translated, simply because some imperfections and blemishes occur in that translation. Was there ever anything perfect in this world aside from those things that were done by apostles?”
The KJV translators go on to argue that we still call a man handsome even if he has some warts on his hand. They say that we judge things-and ought to judge things-by their predominant character, not their exceptions. This means that other translations can be good besides the KJV, and it means that the KJV translators did not regard their work as perfect.
Now, this is talking about *translations,* not originals. The original Hebrew and Greek were perfect, inspired by God. But translations require human judgment-as the KJV translators knew all too well.
The KJV translators were not KJV-Only. They believed their work was good, but they admitted that there were some Hebrew words they weren’t sure of the meaning of. When you call the KJV perfect, you stand against Scripture and the KJV translators.
You may want to check the New Jewish Publication Society translation. They, too, translate this correctly, as does the KJV.
Good call!
Gods word is infallible. I believe every word in the kjv. The more doubt you have the deeper you get from truth. In job he’s saying he’s being used as an instrument.if you don’t have the Holy Ghost you won’t know the Bible. It won’t make sense. There are no mistakes
My friend, that's the fourth explanation for the meaning of this verse that I've received from my KJV-Only brothers. Which one is correct, and how do you know?
1611 King James Authorised the first Edition is the perfect word of God. There are 9 fruits of the Spirit. 1+6+1+1=9 don't cast doubts! Upon the believers who need the truth. To be a true witness, Get the spoken word of God. 1611 King James Authorised. Which produces more fruit than any other versions.
🤣🤣🤣
@@debbyantoine You do realize no 1611 KJV’s are being printed today right? The KJV has undergone 100,000 changes since 1611. Which edition was correct? Was it in 1612, 1613, 1616, 1629, 1638, or 1769? The KJV was edited a bit in each of those years. Is the 1769 edition perfect? The version you read today is likely the Cambridge edition first published in 1900. Was King James around then to authorize that one? Was he around in 1769? In fact do your own comparison between the Oxford and Cambridge editions. Which edition is right? Which edition was “authorized”? Example:
Compare Jeremiah 34:16.
Modern versions of the KJV (the Oxford edition and the Cambridge edition) vary on this matter. The Oxford ed. says “…whom ye had set at liberty…” while the Cambridge ed. says “…whom he had set at liberty…”
Which is correct? Is it Ye or He? That is more than just a spelling or printing change, those are content changes, and that is just one example. Another example is 2 Timothy 2:2 “heard from me” vs. “heard of me”. Which is it?
Look I am not bashing the KJV, it is a good translation, but lets be real, your modern KJV was not authorized by King James, he died in the 1600’s way before 1769 or 1900. At some point you are going to have to realize the King James is only a translation. I ran into one KJV onlyist who insisted the king in Ecclesiastes 8:4 was King James despite the fact that Ecclesiastes was written approx. 2,500 years ago and the king in that passage was in fact King Solomon. This is how ridiculous KJV onlyists are becoming.
I do not frustrate the grace of God for if righteousness came by the law THEN CHRIST IS DEAD (current tense) in vain. In other words Christ has not risen from the dead. If this was pointed out to the KJV translators they would admit this contradiction. Furthermore the KJV translators declared that it was not their intention to make a new translation but to make a good translation better. Speaking of the eight English translations prior to theirs the KJV translators declared that all the other previous translations were honourable and that even the meanest translation containeth the word of God yea is the word of God.
Arrogance and ignorance is not bliss no matter how much you think otherwise.
@Mark Ward can you tell me where I can find those kjv translations quotes?
In the preface: en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(King_James)/Preface
Is that what you're talking about?
@@wardonwords yes thank you so much God bless you always and forever
Well done Mark, I always appreciate your scholarship presented with a lot of grace.
Thank you, Jon.
Scholarship?????
@@MrShain1611 and grace
I believe the so-called errors in the KJV were meant to move us toward research. The advent of biblical scholarship such as that we have today is no accident. I think where we go wrong is placing our pride in the translation rather than the need to research for learning. In a sense, these so-called errors aren't really errors at all.
My friend, could you interact with specific arguments in the video?
The translation is not perfect, however I do love the poetic beauty of it. It's absolutely beautiful
Agreed!
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄 yes it is perfect, and what you like doesn’t matter. It’s not about you. Can we get back to what matters to God🙄🙄🙄🙄
@Proverbspsalms , wrong the original manuscripts are perfect, not the KJV, or any other translation. However, the doctrine in the other translations as well as the KJV is perfect. You can keep your KJV only ism to yourself. As a Christian, I am at liberty to read the KJV, New KJV, ESV etc...thanks
@@kennethsimpson5539 well I’m at liberty to listen to the Holy Ghost. Which you clearly or not. Just like millions of others who have a problem with kjv Bibles. It worked 400 years ago and 50 years ago. And even 10 years ago. You are damning your own soul. You can read what you want to read. Honestly, nobody cares. But when you start saying God’s word is not perfect then you’re walking on some dangerous ground. The Bible that you don’t like. I promise you that it was here and working before you were born. And it will continue to do so when the worms are eating your rotted body. I don’t know why do people keep playing God, thinking that his word is going to change because you don’t like it. Somebody needs to tell you that you are not important. Neither is your damnable opinion- Anyway, keep playing God and hell will be your home.
@Proverbspsalms , you didn't get your message from the Holy Spirit. I can assure you of that. It's obvious that you understand don't what I have written. I am not going to continue to argue with you... KJV idolater. God's Word is perfect. The KJV Translation, while an excellent translation, has flaws because it is a translation....not the original. Did Paul the Apostle read the KJV? What about the rest of the early church? What about my Chinese brethern who's facing serious persecution from the Chinese government over their faith. You sound like a fool. Repent of your idolatry and turn to Christ
Thank you for your research Mark. I attended an Independent Fundamental Baptist Church when I was in the Army. It was an excellent church that used only the KJV. I didn't necessarily agree with them. But I used my KJV while attending this church and didn't argue about it. A few years later I moved to another duty station and found another church that was KJV only. They were extremely controlling pushed the KJV issue too far.
Lots of great folks in these IFB KJVO churches. But they are allowing a false doctrine to separate them from other believers. It’s a grief to me.
@@wardonwords yes. I can see it being a grief when you have family and friends in the church. Such elaborate schemes that Satan concocks.
Pushed the word of God too far? Satan questioned the word of God, and so did Eve. It is a huge issue! Do you have the pure words of God?
@markwardonwords what are you calling false doctrine?
Mark, aren't you actually advocating for Biblical *infallibility* rather than *inerrancy?* Textual discrepancies and translation issues do qualify as errors. It's acceptable to acknowledge that the Bible, particularly the versions most people refer to, contains mistakes due to the human elements of writing and transcribing, even if the original text is divinely inspired in various ways other than verbal (eyewitness testimony, Holy Spirit carried along prophecy, visions, God-given wisdom). You've consistently shown that we don't have micro-level inerrancy, as required by Verbal Plenary inspiration, but rather a "macro stability," as you and your peers have determined. This viewpoint doesn't lessen the Bible's unique status or its effectiveness, just as flawed pastors don't diminish the power of the Word when they convey it through their limited human comprehension.
I'm afraid I see your position (if I'm understanding you correctly from a few comments) as committing the same mistake as the KJV-Onlyists and TR defenders who tend to see imperfect preservation and imperfect translation as impossible to reconcile with perfect, verbal inspiration. I don't think micro-level inerrancy *of translations* or *of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts* is required by verbal plenary inspiration.
@@wardonwords Thanks, Mark. I love your videos and your mission. I even listened to the 7 video marathon (wonderful) with 3 others. I understand your point, but I though VPI required micro-level, jot and tittle inspiration. I liked the idea you and your colleagues have proffered as "macro stability" which is sufficient for the mission of the Bible and makes my faith in the process stronger. For me VPI (on the micro level) is very fragile. God bless!
In my Othrodox Study Bible (St. Athanasius Academy Septuagint): Job 17:6 is ""But You made me a byword among the people, and I have become an object of laughter to them."
It's interesting that there seems to be two variations in this verse, because this make me wonder where my translation of this verse has originated from. I think this could be from Andrew Rahlf's Greek OT, which the book states is a source of the text. As in Rahlf's text the word γέλως (laughter) is used.
This topic one one I find interesting, but too much of it I find distracts us from the word.
Yeah, the relationship of the MT (Masoretic Text) to the LXX (Septuagint) is a fascinating study, but it can get obscure!
I imagine even the Hellenistic Jews weren’t sure if Job was a tambourine or a face to be spat on.
Frankly, you should have gone with Revelation 16:5.
But my channel is not dedicated to textual issue but translational ones. I talk about text only under some duress!
The view of the perpetual fallenness of all men necessarily would keep Christians from having and knowing a perfect text and translation. The view of the promise of God's granting interventionary knowledge would necessarily lead Christians to recognising His provision of a perfect text and translation.
This is all reasonable-it absolutely makes sense. God could have done it this way.
But he didn't say that he did.
@@wardonwords Actually, you say He didn't, as do the many like you. But then there are others who interpret Scriptures indicating He did.
Philosophically also I think you couldn't accept that God did say it because your interpretation method or schema doesn't allow that God would be talking about English and a perfect translation, because primarily you interpret Scripture as belonging to its historical times with perhaps some references (e.g. eschatology) to future times. This would mean not accepting matters relating to prophecy or intervention or perfection to say Reformation or present times.
Jeremiah 36:22 King Zedekiah burned the originals .... the originals never existed for some of these chapters
The Authorized King James Bible has its own built-in dictionary and I've already found it's true biblical definition. It is not an error. Well, keep searching friend.
Please interact with the arguments made in the video.
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
Thanks for the recommendation.
Yes the bible absolutely does promise us a perfect copy of God's word in Psalms 12:6-7 KJV. To say otherwise is both blasphemous and ignorant of what God wrote. Your whole viewpoint stems from calling God a liar and claiming that he can not use fallible men to preserve his word. To believe otherwise is foolish because you will remember that God also used finite men to write the bible in the first place. Paul does not even attribute his epistles the status of infallible scripture because he did not know what words the Lord gave him would be preserved. To claim the KJV is not perfect just because the translators said so is also illogical because once again they were not the ones preserving the word, God was and is. As for your "error" you literally were able to extrapolate the exact meaning of the passage with out anything other than the definition of what a tabret is. The passage in the KJV also makes perfect sense contextually as if you read Job 29-30 in the KJV it lays out the exact scenario described in 17:6. To claim that it is somehow unintelligible and needs to be updated is a satanic doctrine. God's word is perfect (Proverbs 30:5-6 KJV) and if it is not perfect than it is not God's word.
Mat 24:35 KJV
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
Mark 13:31 KJV
Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
Luke 21:33 KJV
Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
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
@@wardonwords The KJV is not at all that archaic and of the few words that have fallen out of use you can simply look them up in an 1828 English dictionary. Many of the new versions alter the meaning and doctrine of verses and so it is irrelevant how much "easier" it is to read because you are no longer reading the same text. You mention in your video how textual criticism is not ideal but it is what the Lord gave us to work with so we must make the best of it. That is a rather strange stance to take since it is far more ideal and takes less effort to simply look up the definition of older words than to try and rewrite the entire bible using erroneous Greek manuscripts that are known widely for being a joke in scholastic circles for their blatant inaccuracies like the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus used in modern translation.
@@WellFedSheep How are KJV readers supposed to look up words they don't realize they're misunderstanding? That's what a false friend is.
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.
@@wardonwords The NKJV still pulls from the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts. In John 14:22-26 KJV we are told that the Holy Spirit will teach us and that is how you learn and read from the bible by patient and diligent prayer and study. Furthermore in 1 Corinthians 2:10-16 KJV we are told that those without the Holy Spirit are unable to understand the spiritual matters in God's word. This is why so many people find the KJV confusing because sadly the majority of people who claim to be Christians have never called on the Lord to save them from sin. Many people attend a church or make a childhood confession (like I once did) and think that that means they are now saved when it does not. I was a lost man for over 20 years and believed with all my heart that I was saved as a young boy. It was not until last year that the Lord got to me and humbled me in my sin and I asked him to save me from that sin. From that point on my life has changed dramatically, and one of the biggest changes is the revelation of the whole King James only movement which I had never heard of before. I can personally attest however that when you get saved and have patient prayer and study the Lord will show you the truth from his word. I now have more understanding of doctrine from a mere 7 months of studying the KJV with the Lord's help than I did from 20 years of reading the NIV. If you absolutely can not understand the KJV after trying diligently to study with prayer then I would recommend you examine your heart and see if there is something in your life that you have been holding on to as I was and sincerely ask the Lord to save you from it. If you do it will change you and you will not believe some of the things the Lord will do to improve your life.
CttC: 3:17
Although this might not be the most doctrinally important verse in Job 17:6 to me after looking at the counter argument and evidence for the KJB reading its the perfect example of why we should always stick with the KJV as final authority since the other readings completely invert the sense and destroy the contrast. If trusting the modern lexicons and scholarship can do this, it’s no wonder why the cults have such power to attack the fundamentals of the Christian faith on the important verses. This is not an error in translation its just your opinion, this video would more accurately be called “why I like the way modern versions translate Job 17:6”.
Friend, where does the Bible say that a particular translation in any language should be the final authority on what the Hebrew or Greek means?
Please do a video on 1 Corinthians 13. Although it's widely known as the "love chapter," the KJV uses the word "charity" instead of love. Is this an error, or did the original Greek mean something more specific than love?
I should do this. My friend Tim Berg has already written some good stuff, though:
kjbhistory.com/loves-labor-lost-charity-banished-by-tyndale/
kjbhistory.com/loves-labor-lost-in-kjb/
NO, IT'S NOT AN ERROR. CHARITY IS JESUS. IF YOU READ THE BEGINNING OF THE NEXT CHAPTER, IT SAYS,"FOLLOW AFTER CHARITY..." SINCE WE FOLLOW JESUS, THATS THE CHARITY. IT ISN'T CARNAL, IT'S SPIRITUAL.
@@TIMMY12181 But not all love is charity, and the Greek word more closely translates to love.
CHARITY MEANS LOVE
The word "Charity" is an "agape form of love". The word "love" doesn't suffice because it is generic and the world "has" it. Charity is the correct and perfect word because it shows and describes a perfect kind of love not found in this world. That is the simplest I can put it.
I so appreciate your work. Have you done a video on the KJV’s unfortunate rendering of JESUS for JOSHUA in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8?
No. Good tip. I tossed it in my files.
They are two separate historical characters.
Their names in English are not the same.
King James version cited the wrong historical character.
@@wardonwordsMight want to read Joshua 5:13-15 and ask yourself who the man was that Joshua, who had just taken over from Moses, was bowing himself to before answering further...
KJV Ps 119:89 "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." God had the perfect Bible in heaven before it was ever penned on this earth
Notice how the KJV removes his name
The only error is saying that there is errors in the perfect word of God.
The KJV is trash and not the word of God
I believe he is saying there is an error in the Authorised Version translation of the holy scriptures, not an error in the Word of God, which is perfect and infallible
There a thousands of errors in the kjv.
I definitely do not believe this to be the case.
@@wardonwords just in John 14:17 there are 6 and maybe more
Well done, Mark!
I admit, I do not know the original languages of the Scripture, but I have confidence in its trustworthiness. I just cannot believe that if one word is obscure, then all is wrong.
I love and use the KJV, but not exclusively. I do not
understand how or why, this should throw my KJVO friends into a tizzy. Have they NO REAL FAITH IN GOD? That is how it seems to me.
Who do you work for?
Please interact with the arguments made in the video.
You know who. It's pretty obvious.
Who? Tell us? Tell me? It is not obvious to me. Seriously. Please tell who he works for.
@@jms4evr Anyone trying to discredit the KJV is working for Satan.
Why should he say that?
If he worked full time as a pastor, or teacher, or some publisher, would that negate the information presented?
Like believing the KJV translators were under the direction of a known homosexual king, change your view the validity of their work?
(I've only heard that last claim about King James as a rumor and haven't verified, nor do I care to)
Petty straw man attempts only show that your knowledge of your position is weak.
This is most likely why he only replied with "please address the points made on the video."
There is no error:
My KJV+ electronic Bible shows the Strong number and subsequent word associated with that number. It say - Strong H8611 is from the base of H8608, a smiting, that is, (figuratively), contempt.
Therefore, Job was saying,
He hath made me also a byword of the people and aforetime I was as the subject of smiting and contempt.
The King James translators knew what they were doing.
If you want to see a REAL error, check out my next post called, "Are You Saved?"
My friend, can you read Hebrew?