Nearly 60 years ago (yes, I’m old), I gained relationship with Christ through the (gasp!) J.B. Phillips paraphrase, not the KJV which had been the only version I knew. The search for the “perfect” translation is never-ending and not win-able. The Holy Spirit will guide us into Truth (Jn. 16:13), and He will use what He will. Thank you, again. I deeply appreciate the freedom to learn that you extend!
I like how you quoted from the ESV to say that people like Ruckman and Riplinger were ignorant of what they were talking about. Also, it's sad to see her in a video with Kent Hovind. I watched a lot of Kent Hovind's old age of the earth videos back during my undergrad which helped me immensely in the few science courses I had to take at a secular university. As a History/English student, I didn't have to take many, though.
Ruckman knew a lot. He hid his knowledge under a rough, even vile, exterior. But he wasn't a dummy. Riplinger, on the other hand, is best described as "wild-eyed." She can make up "facts" that scare and persuade people. I can hardly get through a page of her writing without wanting to retch. =( It's such a sorrow to me that her work even exists.
@@markwardonwords you can't write a book like New Age Bible versions without a tremendous amount of knowledge about the subject and her references in the end of the book show extensive research. Every book I looked up that she referenced was right on so why is it you "retch" when you read it? Because of your own willing ignorance? Oh well, I guess you will stay that way unless the Lord Jesus opens your eyes. You must feel proud of yourself standing up for texts that agree with the Roman Catholic bible against the KJV. 😒
@@Pilgrim-funj Of course the KJV translated from later manuscripts compiled by Erasmus a Catholic monk. That he dedicated to the Pope. Also the baby sprinkling Anglicans who translated the KJV also used the Catholic Latin Vulgate. So Latin words like Lucifer from the Vulgate that should not be in any English translation. Strange that you defend a Catholic translation like the KJV. Also you defend heretic and false teacher and KJV idolater Gail Riplinger
Hi Mark. This is the first video I watched from you, and I really appreciate how you kept this both cordial and knowledge packed. I have read through many of the comments, and have found some good discussion below. In my life, I have frequently brushed up against KJVO adherents. The ones I have come across have mostly been on the overly abrasive/arrogant end of the spectrum, so you have handled this with at least a touch more grace than I could have mustered. One of the questions I have adopted is asking them is if they think that someone needs to learn English or hear English through a translator in order to be saved. I have never heard a satisfactory answer to this, and the conversation normally gets shifted. Or in worse case scenarios have answered yes, which I find horrifying! Have you ever used this question? And what do you think about this approach? It usually helps get to the point if we'll be able to find any common ground. I grew up reading the KJV mostly (we were not KJVO, but attended a more traditional church that used it primarily) . I certainly don't have an axe to grind, but I can say that especially in my teen years, using the KJV not only impeded my understanding of scripture, but caused me to misinterpret certain words and passages. And this is coming from someone who was an astute child who studied, and adapted to the old English style (some of which I still use in my speech, unlike most of my peers) . Many preachers (respectfully older ones especially) don't understand that most of the younger generations do not understand much of what thy are reading. I'm an older millennial (34 now) and the language gap already existing between myself and those of Gen Z is remarkable (of whom I struggle understand sometimes) . So I can only imagine this issue is getting exponentially worse. In my own studies over the years and researching translations, I have found the 1995 NASB to be the best choice for me when it comes to general narrative reading. But realizing no translation is perfect, I frequently cross reference with others. I have never studied Greek or Hebrew language in depth, but even reading the Interlinear in it's jumbled English structure sometimes helps pin down the intent of the verse/passage. I have found that even when I can't get the clarity I'm looking for, these methods help me eliminate what it's NOT saying. I find that people who confine themselves to one translation frequently don't have a dynamic understanding of scripture themselves, and heavy rely on traditions and interpretations that have been passed down. I'm rambling a bit now, but I think it's an important issue. In trying to be kind, I explain it this way. KJVO has a built in doctrinal arrogance. It doesn't mean that every person who holds this position is trying to be arrogant, unkind or abrasive. Sometimes it's just misplaced zeal from a place of true care (I'm sure we've all had misplaced zeal as we grow in Christ, I myself am guilty) . On the other hand, people who teach this view tend to be much more on the legalistic side. Some of the staunch KJVO churches I've come across breed some incredibly cold hearted, prideful congregations. So pardon my language, but I won't apologize in saying I'm convinced it's poison. I never studied the history extensively on the KJVO perspective, so it makes sense when you pointed out that it was a movement to stave off modernism. Good intentions, bad outcome. It reminded me of another historic parallel. The Pharisees leading up to the days of Jesus were so concerned about the rapid Hellenization of the Jews, that they added more laws to the Torah. In adding to the Words of God, they made them void. They butchered God's Words so bad, that by the time Jesus arrived, He found most of them so full of pride that they were described as whitewashed tombs. Sadly, I see this pattern commonly fleshed out wherever KJVO takes root. As you so eloquently pointed out with more grace than I, be careful that a translation itself doesn't become your idol. I will be sure to check out some of your other content, to see what I can learn. :) Regards, Jonathan
I *really* like that question about English. I am going to look for an opportunity to use that. I do find that KJVOs have very, very rarely given any thought to how their view plays out for people in other countries who don't speak English. They are almost always monolingual themselves (which isn't a criticism; most American Christians are, and it's not a sin!). But it means they are ill-equipped to discuss other languages in any way. Good thoughts! Thanks for dropping by!
@@markwardonwords Yes, being monolingual myself and relatively sheltered, I've really had to challenge my own views on some topics. Attempting to think through the lens of people from other cultures and languages has helped refine my views over the years, especially by studying pre-Christ Jewish customs. I do have one humorous conundrum on western blind spots. I had scarcely though about the topic of polygamy for decades as a young, American born Christian. Then I found out some dumbfounded missionaries had to deal with people coming to Christ, and asking them what they should do with their wives, not knowing if they should stay married to all of them, or which ones they should divorce. I loved how this question threw a wrench in my sometimes overly concrete mind. I never thought I'd see the day when I would surmise under the new covenant it's very possible that the most biblical answer would be to stay married to them all, and just refrain from marrying any more. Westerners just don't think about these things. Anyhow, if you get to use the English language question I proposed on some of your more scholarly minded KJVO folks, I would love to hear the results!
I like these presentations. Having come away from KJV-only-ism, and having devoured everything Ruckman ever produced, I did find that Ruckman’s perspective wasn’t represented with high fidelity here. Their perspective on the KJV translators preface could be better represented. Ruckman was more nuanced than many of his “followers.” While Ruckmanism is presented as the fringe of KJVO, there was actually a fringe within Ruckmanism that took things further and in a less nuanced way than he did.
I appreciate this. I did my work on Ruckman’s views 20 years ago, and I have come to believe that, indeed, I lacked (and still lack) a fully accurate understanding of the man’s views. In my defense, 1) I now believe that Ruckman was inconsistent in his statements about inspiration of the KJV, though I confess I’m not prepared to back that up with full evidence at the moment. 2) My target in this video truly was Ruckman-ism-the view associated with him by his mainstream KJV-Only opponents. That view is-as you can see in the quote I made from Doug Levesque-definitely “double inspiration.” But thank you for the kind word, and I’m open to hearing any particulars-how could I have said it better? You’ve read more Ruckman than I have, clearly. Again, I’m open.
@@markwardonwords He was inconsistent look here: “I have in my King James Bible the Holy Scriptures in English. God has used that book more than he ever did any “original manuscript” in the history of Israel or the Church. I believe it is “given by inspiration“; certainly not as the “originals“ were, but “given by inspiration,“ nonetheless. I believe I have the very words in that book God wants me to have in English.” (Peter S. Ruckman, The Book of Daniel (Pensacola: BB Bookstore, 2016) 309-310.) “So our position is this: The King James Bible may not claim for itself the original inspiration of God, breathing through the men who spoke when they were copied down by a writer at the time they spoke. However, it can claim to be preserved without proven error in the universal language of the world” (Peter S. Ruckman, Theological Studies Volume 2 (Pensacola: BB Bookstore, 1998) 781.) “People like R. L. Hymers, Bobbie Sumner, Curtis Hutson, Bob Jones III, and James White are always complaining about “Ruckmanism” and “King James Onlyism.” I have never taught that the King James Version is the only Scripture that “is given by inspiration.” I recognize what God did with Luther in German, Valera in Spanish, Diodati in Italian, Olivetan in French, etc. I’m not “King James Only” when it comes to that sort of thing. But I do believe that King James Bible is the Holy Scriptures in English, with the very words God wants you to have in English, and that “ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God.” What these apostates can’t stand is that I have the Scriptures and they don’t because they believe the only Scriptures that were “given by inspiration” were the “original autographs.” Their authority is a lost pile of papers that no one has ever seen or read for the last 1,900 years, while mine is the Book I hold in my hand.” (Peter S. Ruckman, The Book of Luke (Pensacola: BB Bookstore, 2013) 4).
Your observation is why I think this video becomes noise. If you want to refute your opponent effectively, you have to represent their views accurately. For example, pointing out that Ruckman was divorced doesn’t address his views. Similarly, criticizing Gail Riplinger’s pronunciation of French doesn’t address her views either, in fact, it resembles the ad hominem attacks the author accuses Ruckman of. Pairing fundamental Baptists with KJVO is an academic mistake that shows a lack of preparation to refute the view. Also I think the author failed to define inspiration and argued from a posteriori instead of the a priori argument of inspiration that KJVO proponents argue from. So there is much opportunity to present straw man arguments instead of debating the merits of the respective positions. For me, this is a disappointing answer to KJVO.
Interesting, gracious, and informative, as always! The length is a plus here, not a concern. I found the quote from Kent Brandenburg in Thou Shalt Keep Them particularly interesting (starting around 27:10 in the video). KJVO arguments seem easily susceptible to running afoul of the great first Sola of the Reformation, Scripture Alone, and Brandenburg's statement here is a good illustration of that. Of course, more of his words could clarify this, but as the quote stands, it appears that he is turning to the authority of the "obedient" church to ratify the text of Scripture. I have heard many KJVO sermons in which the preacher rails against the "traditions of man" and points instead to the "Word of God." But to point to an asserted agreement among the "obedient" churches as evidence that the TR or KJV is the true "Word of God" is to rely on a tradition or judgment of man. This line of thought, in my experience fairly common in KJVO arguments, is either good evidence for those who would deny the doctrine of Scripture Alone or evidence that the KJVO interlocutor (who I assume holds strongly to Scripture Alone) has not fully embraced it. Regardless of how extreme or mild one's Sola claim here is, to assert that the TR or KJV is the correct text because the churches agreed on it is to necessarily place the authority of what Roman Catholics would conceive of as Tradition or the Magisterium (albeit not the correct ones, to their view) over the authority of Scripture. Whatever Sola Scriptura is to someone, it can't be that and still be Sola Scriptura. Your conclusion was spot on. I believe most thoughtful Catholics would quibble with Charles Hodges's characterization of their view of the communion of saints as the "people [being] told to seek [God's blessings] at the hands of creatures." All I've encountered would insist that Hodges is in fact correct to declare that God alone can do these things, and that they do not and must not ask the saints to do them in his place. Whether the average Catholic in the pew correctly distinguishes what is going on is of course another question. But the analogy of the KJVO position to Hodges's characterization is perfect. God has ordained a world in which we necessarily see some things as through a glass, darkly, until all things are made perfect in Christ. Our view of the words written in the autographs is one of those things. We don't have the autographs. The copies we have don't perfectly agree. Decisions must be made. To essentially deny that this obvious fact is true is to, as you said, refuse the gifts God has given us in favor of demanding on/e he has not seen fit to provide. There is much that remains mystery to us. Even Scripture itself urges us to embrace the deep mysteries of God, whose ways are unsearchable, who exists as three persons but is one, whose Son was born of a virgin, whose Church is the bride of the Son, and so many other things. We are right to wonder, with Mary, "How can this be?" when our senses fail to encompass the totality of God. We are not right to demand, with Zechariah, "by what sign shall I know this?" when God forbears to expand on the Word he has given us.
Thank you for the kind and wise words, Robby! Yes-after I made the video, it suddenly hit me that Brandenburg was saying basically the same thing as Ruckman: English is the language we should look to for the perfect set of jots and tittles.
Thanks for another great video Mark. As someone who grew up in a KJV only church which was opposed to Peter Ruckman but which also, unknowingly taught some of his erroneous kjv opinions, I once again appreciate your grace and handling of this topic. For me, it wasn’t until I attended one of the Bible colleges you mentioned that I realized I had essentially learned dual inspiration from a pastor (a good man) who also taught us that Peter Ruckman was bad news. I think most kjv only church attendees are in similar situations; they have good, well meaning pastors who push ruckmanism off as fringe but then unknowingly teach things which can be traced back to him. Sadly, I didn’t realize how ignorant I was until I after had been part of a group of students who made a stink about a professor advocating for the NKJV in class…little did I know that one day I’d be using it myself.
this is quickly becoming one of my favorite channels. i agree with you on most topics I've had the chance to listen to and really do appreciate the hard work you have put into serving the body of Christ.
At 28' 17" into the video, there are 10 TR versions displayed on the screen. I'm wondering if there is a chart or poster of those. A comment was made about "if you have logos or Bible works...," and I do, but where in Logos is it?
Ah, I see! I don't have a chart, I'm afraid. But I do have links in the video description to all of those TR editions (the word is "editions," not "versions"-"versions" means "translations"; that's why I was confused by your question). In Logos: you can compare Stephen's TR to Scrivener's TR. Just make sure you own both: www.logos.com/product/1802/stephens-textus-receptus www.logos.com/product/4643/the-new-testament-in-greek Then you can use the Text Comparison tool to look at differences. There aren't tons, but they're there. Or you can let Scrivener, the one who put together in 1881 the TR used by KJV defenders, do this work for you. Just read Appendix E of his book here: kjvparallelbible.org/which-tr-stephanus-vs-beza/
Ruckman, in my opinion, had a personal life that spoke loud and clear about what he practiced. What he preached from the pulpit was just the icing on his very wicked cake. I had not heard of this man until recently as my family moved into a new city and visited a church that advertised being non-denominational. We, after a few weeks, noticed the pastor become more and more caustic, rude, even mocking others in mad rants from the pulpit. Dang, it was scary. We left midway one Sunday. After research into the Doctrine and teaching of the pastor of that church, we discovered he was what he listed in his bio a 'Ruckman'. That led to our discovery of the life and very caustic preacher Peter Ruckman. I think the 2018 death of Peter Ruckman ll by suicide after killing his own two sons by gunshot sealed the conclusion for our family that this man was dangerous in his false teachings and the fruit among his own family and what they suffered by him gives a very evil picture of God's character. Which we know is not Biblical. Beware! Be watchful! The Bible clearly describes false teachers like this man. See 2 Peter ch 2.😊
It was because my best friend started attending a Ruckman Bible Believers church, that I found your work. For that, and just about that only, I am thankful for that church. The extremist KJV only views they hold are very convincing and only when we actually have a healthy textual confidence approach, can you see how dangerous the Ruckmanite doctrines are. Thank you for keeping at this and for all you do to help the church, trust in our modern translations. God bless you brother.
Thank you for this video Mark alot of great points you made , i just found you channel while looking for dr ruckman , subbed! also great looking video , which camera do you use if you don't mind me asking? All the best
I attended a KJV Only church after I got saved and remember reading Gail Riplinger's book and believing it based on what I'd been taught. Fortunately, I came out of all that years ago and realized how ridiculous it all is. I hope your videos help others out of that as well. Keep going!
@@lindsayball5080 God almighty created the universe. Evolution had nothing to do with it. The sun is the center of our solar system but the earth is at the center of all history because this is where Jesus was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, shed his blood on the cross for forgiveness of sins, and rose again on the 3rd day.
Don't feel alone, I did the same thing, and then I fought with other Christians, telling them the KJV was the only Bible and they were all reading the devil's Bibles. I took it one step further, I even started throwing out my NIV Bibles, into the garbage. I'm very bothered by that to this day. I've had to repent for throwing out God's Words into a garbage can! I really believed I was doing what had to be done but I felt convicted about it and I couldn't shake it. I'm thankful I came out of that thought process. Now I use the NASB, NKJV and I use the KJV too. And I have a 1984 NIV. I read them all now.
One of the most serious problems that Ruckmanism creates in the Bible translation debate is that it overshadows the reasonable arguments presented by other believers who hold what can appear to be the same position, but in fact is fundamentally different; like when luddite thugs take advantage of legitimate complaints of a striking labor force, and co-opt their grievances and soil them with their unwanted association. There is a thoughtful argument made by many KJV believers that the KJV is the only Bible that has been universally accepted by the English speaking church, and that to change it or dispute its text is to foment unbelief towards the Scripture as God has given it to us in our language. They do not believe that the KJV is perfect, but that it is without provable error. They also have deep suspicion for modern textual criticism that seems to them to be about finding a "Bible" in the sands of Egypt that 1800 years of believers never had, while rejecting the text (TR) that majority of Christians have read, believed, and trusted for all that time. They see the proliferation of translations as detrimental to faith, not conducive. And they especially dislike the implication, and many times explicit declaration, that one can only truly know what God said by being a Greek and Hebrew expert. They believe that God has spoken perfectly (in the sense of completely) in English and to update, revise, or abandon that is to abandon the faith that God has given the church a sufficient and complete Bible.
That would be an understandable position 140 years ago. But at this point, most Christians recognize that those codices found in the sands of Egypt are more reliable than the ones that were used in subsequent centuries (which were not identical to the TR, by the way). In the English-speaking world, people have moved past the exclusive use of the KJV and embraced the popular modern translations, with the exception of a tiny fraction of English-speaking Christians. It's a shame that not everyone can embrace the same modern translation, but that's because we don't have the British monarchy forcing us to use the same version.
If you don't want to contradict your own pro-KJV argument, Dr. Ward is actually trying to help you. He is really trying hard here to reach out with an olive branch without contradicting what he knows and others might not hear. I always learn stuff and enjoy the lesson.
Yeah sucker, as long as your slacking him, what do you believe about the word of God that Dr. Ward can make fun of. Who knows maybe he can just help you out (of what the Holy Spirit convicted you about this Authorized Version of God's book when you were born again).That is if he can find the time with answering God's call to tear down the lifetime ministry of Peter Ruckman now that he has gone on to be with our Saviour the Lord Jesus Christ, and is covienently not able to defend the King James Bible the way he took on all comers when he was alive. No offence brother, but it's not my habit to thank a viper for not biting me in a place where the poison can't be sucked out and it just sickens me when I run across someone that thin-skinned when you have an inerrant copy of the complete word of God written in the language that you read write and speak along with the promise of the Holy Spirit in your ammo dump while the enemy of God's word has only his own understanding, and a copy of Wescott & Hort.
I don't want you to answer any questions. From my watching 100's of videos, I find Ruckmans preachings on the book accurate. And I have never heard of you.
It is my hope to produce a website. But I've not gotten around to this because of the work involved and because I think it is far more important to teach a man how to fish rather than to give him a fish. But I am producing a book, which I hope to finish soon!
@@markwardonwords amen. I am looking forward to your book. If you’re able to create a website with the work you have done that would be something amazing.
Thank you! I especially like your discussion of point 4 (especially from 34:20 onward), on taking Ruckmanism or crypto-Ruckmanism as a matter of faith. I have encountered this position and my objection was the same. Not only do you articulate the problem so well, but also, you are more gracious than me. If one holds a belief about the world that is not actually supported by the world, that's just a regular error of a kind we all make. But if one holds a religious belief about God that is not actually supported either by God's Word or God's World, this is a more grave category of error, and there are several labels that might apply, all of them quite inflammatory. P.S. Now we also know, Mark Ward has perfect pitch! (Lol, perhaps given the context, we ought to put quibble quotes around the "perfect!")
P.S. I should have listened to the rest before commenting. Wow. 1:01:50. Thanks so much, brother, and praise God! It's a really harsh allegation to make. I have uttered it without due sensitivity and caused strife. That's bad, but, it's helpful to have a mature brother affirm the complaint, even if my delivery was inexcusably poor.
The right to share that Hodge quote was, I hope, earned not only by an hour of argument and direct quotation but by years of (I pray!) love for my KJV-Only brothers! I couldn't have come out saying that on day one. Hodge's quote is savage-but, I think, true. Thankfully, there's a difference between sinning with a high hand and sinning without knowing/understanding/realizing it with clarity. I think that's where most of my KJV-Only brothers and sisters are.
@@markwardonwords amen, brother, You shouldn't have come out saying that on day one, and you didn't. Unlike me! Brother I really thank you and praise the Lord for this work you are doing.
I watched that debate (if we can even call it that) between Nathan and Mitch a while back. I was just dumbfounded at how way off Mitch was in a lot of his argumentation. He talked so much about Baptist history and did a lot of preaching, very little actual defending. The weirdest part was the numerology… or “numerics” as Mitch called it. Relabeling it didn’t help. I didn’t know a whole lot about Ruckman at that time but I know more now, thankfully. Thank you for making this video! Ruckman and others have done so much damage to the church through their wild accusations. And I’ve read enough comments to your videos to know that anytime you discuss this topic - the KJVO side seems to come out of the gates with personal attacks pretty quickly. There isn’t much attempt to legitimately refute you, other than to appeal to the standard talking points.
David w. Daniel's was the one who pulled me deeply into the insanity of kjvo. What helped me to escape was inspiringphilosophy and joel Richardson who debunked the whole Alexander hislope samiramis cultism as parallelmania. This got me to rethink everything chick tracks taught me. Slowly then quickly all the pillars fell for my kjvo insanity, after that was deep sorrow that set in for the harm I caused others by using chick tracts. SDA nonsense also played it's part in harming me too. The amount of people I destroyed my testimony in front of brought me a long deep sadness. I had to go to each one I could reach out too, that had not blocked me and apologized and confronted those that harmed me. I did talk to david I got blocked by him, I confronted him about his endorsements of Alexander hislope. The lord forgave me for all the sins I caused, but now I have to live with the aftermath of my misguided trust. Thank you for this video mark ward, I am glad I apologized to you in your kjv credo video. Now I watch your content a lot, thank you. I certainly wish I could have apologized to more people, and get unblocked from certain groups online oh well.
All we can do when we sin is confess it and accept the forgiveness Christ guarantees and that others may or may not. May all our errors of various kinds lead us to humility about ourselves and confidence in Christ.
I paused the video to check your A against my tuner 😉 I enjoy those little flourishes almost as much as the content itself. Your sixth point addresses a misconception I run across a lot, though in a softer form. The people I know stop short of claiming the KJV is perfectly word-for-word, but seem to assume it to be more so than other translations. (I would describe many of them as KJV-default more than KJV-only). I recently heard the claim that the KJV's word-for-word accuracy brings out the structure of Hebrew poetry better than modern versions. My initial response, of course, was that plenty of modern translations are just as formal as the KJV. If I'd thought of it at the time, I might also have pointed out that in ar least one way modern versions do a better job with poetry-by formatting it as poetry! Since I heard Andrew Case's podcast on it, Lamentations 3:33 (comparing KJV and ESV) has become one of my favorite counterexamples to the KJV-is-more-literal assumption. I also have to wonder if we'd see less of this claim if more people actually spoke more than one language and realized how silly the idea of a strict word-for-word translation is anyway. Maybe not-one of the most rabid KJV-onlyists I know personally is at least quadrilingual-but maybe more reasonable people would get it with more experience moving between languages.
Dr. Ward, have you ever considered updating the KJV preface into contemporary English? Or, at the very least, the relevant sections that would be applicable to the KJV-only debate? I know that is a huge undertaking but I thought I understood the KJV English but a lot of that has to do with growing up in it. I can’t get very far in the preface before I stop and struggle with a certain word or phrase. I understand most but not in a way that I can just pull it up and read a contemporary book. Just curious and thank you for another excellent video.
I have tried to use the KJV Preface when talking to KJV onlyists and to be honest it had very little effect on them. As matter of fact less than two weeks ago one KJV onlyists said he had read the entire Preface and he called it, "the insane ramblings of blathering idiots". The cognitive dissonance was strong with this guy.
Its been nearly a year since i departed from the KJV-Onky group, i've read a plenthora of translations this year, however there is one thing that still remains for me. I still have a large cognitive bias to the NIV, because of the amount if times that geoup spent criticising that translation. I have no issues with the CSB, and other translations, but i feel my issue with the NIV is almost subconscious due to the fact that that translation became a punching bag at that group.
I haven't been King James Only for around 15 years, and I still don't care much for the NIV, so it's possible that the translation will never "click" for you, either. The CSB is a solid alternative, and that's perhaps in part because it had the benefit of seeing where people took issue with decisions in the NIV.
@36:40 Um actually, the Disciples did NOT write with "jots and tiddles". They wrote in Greek and "jots and tiddles" are from Hebrew. (This is just a joke for anyone that wants to "Um Actually" me back. 😉) Mark, you did a great job with this. I had never heard of Ruckmanism, but I have definitely seen it. It is good to see how to sternly, but very graciously, work through it.
Thanks for the kind word! I agree; Jesus was referring to Hebrew. But Jesus’ promise in Matt 5:18 is commonly used to refer to the preservation of all of Scripture.
Is there even possibly some irony here? Doesn't the text actually say not an iota or a stroke? Isn't that a more literal translation than "not one jot or one tittle"? The ESV and the Vulgate both convey that accurately but the KJV gives the false impression Jesus was referring to writing in the Hebrew language. Side note, it's interesting that "not an iota" became English idiom. How did that happen?
@@russell13904 I my understanding is that it originates in the Arian controversy, where a compromise position said that Christ is of "Similar Substance" homoousia instead of the proper "Same Substance" homoiousia. Hence the difference between heresy and orthodoxy was one of one iota
Just saw a Tweet that stating something along the lines of the trustworthiness of Scripture - forget exact words but impression left was decent message, decent tone, innocuous. There was a picture of an old Bible, turned to the page displaying the last page of the OT on the left and the preface of the NT on the right. It was old enough that New was spelled Newe. What was displayed on the left was the last section of the book of 2 Maccabees.
Three comments: First, I think you yourself observed in another video that Ruckmanism is the only truly consistent form of KJV-onlyism. Any position that doesn't hold that the KJV (leaving aside the question of which KJV) is verbally (re)inspired by God must accept that it's the work of fallible men, translating the work of other fallible men (the TR (again, "which TR?")), and therefore must be open to at least the possibility of errors. And if you accept the *possibility* of errors, then you have to defend the text and the translation on evidence-based grounds, which is (by observation) anathema to KJVO. Second, have none of these people spent any time with *any* foreign language? I studied German at the high school level, more years ago than I'd care to admit. I wouldn't have considered myself a scholar of the language then (except in the archaic sense of "scholar" as "student"), and I certainly wouldn't today. But even then, it was perfectly obvious that a "perfect" or "exact" translation of any non-trivial document from one language into another is simply impossible. Different languages have different verb tenses (and/or use them differently), different cases, different sentence structures, and different vocabularies--it's famously said that Eskimos have 50 words for "snow." Or in German, they don't distinguish between monkeys and apes (they use Affe for both). Or for a biblical example (which I guess would be more relevant), distinguish among agape, phileo, eros, and storge. Even if you're committed to being as strictly literal as possible, all of these differences mean that interpretation must be done as part of the translation, and where there's interpretation there's room for differences of interpretation. Third, and I know I've said this before, it's striking how circular the KJVO position is. Even granting their understanding of preservation, why can't it be shown to have happened for over 1500 years after the last autograph was completed? When, they say, God promises to preserve his word through all generations (Ps. 12:6-7, kind of), why did he fail to do so between ~95 AD and 1611 AD? Because there are readings in the KJV that don't exist in any extant ms. Thanks for your work on this.
I am a defender of the KJV and other Bible translations. But after doing research on the Ruckman Bible and I found that Ruckman imposes his view on Scripture that does not support his view based on historical and cultural background. Ruckman has taken Scripture out of context. Many of his notes are racist. The insane part is that many people find him to be %100 correct. Gail Riplinger's book is a book I almost bought and bought into, thank God I did not.
👏 good for you! ❤ I had the unfortunate experience of growing up in his “church”. I went to all the Blowouts, Sunday mornings and nights, Wednesday prayer meetings, summer kids camps, ad nauseam. One of the songs we always sang in Sunday school was about the KJV being THE authorized version with most of the simplistic lyrics: “The King James Authorized Version. The B-I-B-L-E. (Repeat) God wrote it just for me. I read it everyday, I study and I pray (Repeat).” So as very small children with no concept of anything outside your little world, you’re being force fed (this is what cults do, and I firmly believe that Ruckmans church, “Bible Baptist Church of Pensacola” as well as his school, “Pensacola Bible Institute” or, PBI was most definitely a cult. If you Google “cults” you can tick off all the boxes save for child SA, thankfully, but CA was strongly encouraged. Going to that place for my formative years of 4-14 years old really put me in a bad mental state and at 42 years old there’s still some things I struggle with. Mostly the terrors of The Apocalypse and the Rapture screamed from the pulpit nearly every Sunday. A young child should not be subjected to that. He also taught about “the age of accountability” which, once you know the difference between right and wrong, at around 3 years old, you will go to hell if you died at that age. So you have to get saved at that time. 🤦♀️ the humans that walked the earth prior to Christianity and hearing the word of god also went to hell. 🤷♀️
Thank God you came out of that. I too had to come out of the KJV mindset. I can remember I was in Mississippi during Katrina when I got my first NIV Bible. I read it and I loved it. I also got my NIV Thompson Chain Bible in NIV which I had gotten. Thank God I was delivered from that.
@@charlesratcliff2016 thank god! And Katrina too??!!! Man, you’ve been through it and back! The church was also extremely r*cist and hateful of Catholics and LGBTQ. I remember Ruckman even saying that black folks were not welcome in due to (his fear of) race mixing. We can win their souls but they have to worship somewhere else (of course that church had to have Ruckmans approval but it’s a nonexistent thing in his head) I’m so glad I got out of there. I had friends of different backgrounds and ethnicities who I wasn’t willing to separate from. Why separate yourself from good, loving people just because they’re not the same color/gender/sex/religion as you? Surround yourself with love. It’s sad because you really miss out on life when you limit yourself in hate.
Only about halfway through this. As someone who was raised Lutheran and taught about the Catholic churchs hold on scripture in the form of the vulgate, many of the things that I'm hearing out of Ruckmanism ring a bell.
Be careful what you admire - Romans 16:18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
@@joshmccartney777 Mark does not appear to have much of a belly. But more seriously, he also does not match the "they" whose referent and definition is in the prior verse, Romans 16:17.
@@kawika3737 you don’t need a big belly to serve it, and I think he fits in just fine. So by your logic, a good preacher, let’s say Jesus, John the Baptist & Paul, DOES use fair speeches?
@@joshmccartney777 The belly related sentence was a joke, as I actually made pretty explicit in my prior comment. You may have missed both the humor of the first sentence and the logic of the second sentence. The logic of the second sentence was that Mark does not match "those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned."
First off, thank you for the extremely well put together video and I truly appreciate all the time and effort you put into these. You are always on my watchlist. I also greatly appreciate your distinction between the fringe KJV only and the more mainstream individuals who, like me, simply have strong preference towards KJV (and TR) as their primary Bible of choice. I do have one critique though. I think you make the umbrella of “Ruckmanism” a tad bit too big. Maybe it’s just me, but when I think of “Ruckmanism,” I don’t just think of someone who is staunchly KJV only, but also someone who is being quite a nasty person, using bad tactics, in a fairly ugly way. I picture someone who seeks to besmirch anyone who thinks differently than them. In this video you seem to imply that all people who believe the KJV is ‘the word of God’ are on par with Ruckman. I think that misses that there are plenty of well meaning, lovely people who simply believe that the KJV is special and unique and was shepherded into creation by God at a special time in history. While I personally don’t consider myself someone who believes the TR and KJV were a ‘second inspiration’ of God and I personally use NKJV often, I do know many people who likely would openly make that claim, but they would make that claim without any of the malice or anger or finger pointing that I think would be needed to qualify as “Ruckmanism.” To summarize, I greatly appreciate the point you are making, I agree with much, if not most of your ideas and the distinction you are describing. I just think you MAY be painting with a bit of a broad brush with equating so many people 'non-nasty' people to Ruckman. That being said, I do appreciate that you are pointing out the very real distinction that exists with mainstream and the fringe.
If I have implied that all KJV/TR defenders are like Ruckman in tone and style, I repent in dust and ashes! I sincerely did not intend to do this! I *know* this is not true, from very personal experience! And I think I said so, right? I said at the beginning that the mainstream wishes to remain distinct from the fringe, and one of the reasons is Ruckman's hatefulness. I, too, believe that there are plenty of well-meaning, lovely Christians who simply believe that the KJV is special and unique and was shepherded into creation by God at a special time in history. I myself am one such person-though I'd probably define "special" and "unique" differently than most KJV defenders! Thank you for your measured response, brother! You are not the problem, my friend. Clearly. Your other comments have shown the same.
@@markwardonwords I feel like I have seen enough of your videos and heard enough of your views to know your heart is in a good place on these topics. I know you catch a lot of anger and vitriol, it is assuredly unwarranted and unjust. My critique is a small one, at least to me. Others may (lets be honest, some will) feel more strongly than I. A large pain I deal with often is distancing myself from the "Ruckmans" while also defending my stances on the TR and CT and the various Bible translations. This video is truly a great one (not just for the various shooting locations either). I do think though that you got pretty close to lumping together the belief in KJV 'perfection' or "God's inspiration" and the tactics and unchristian demeanor of a person like Ruckman. I mean no condemnation to your video, just voicing what I believe is a slight critique. Keep doing good work, I will keep watching.
@@ChancyCI don't think he did that. I think his complaints about the character and actions of Ruckman and some others were side points. I think the overall thrust of the video is that, whilst many KJVOists distance themselves in all aspects from Ruckman, they end up nevertheless subscribing to his view of double inspiration. And that view is wrong because it's wrong, not because the man who championed it had all these other flaws. Ad hominem is a poor argument strategy, but, these complaints are not entirely irrelevant. One of the ways we judge the reliability of what anyone says - considering most of us are non-experts - is on their reliability as a person.
@@russell13904 As I said to Mark Ward in other comments, I do not think my critique undermines the overall thrust of this video. I do however think there is a fairly important distinction between those who believe in double inspiration and those who believe in double inspiration AND THEN demonize and insult and overall treat horribly anyone who disagrees with them. If we lump all who believe in double inspiration (whether you or I think it’s incorrect or not) into the same group and then name that group after the most vile individual who happens to ascribe to that view, we are just acting in a new kind of ‘Ruckman..esk’ kind of way, demonizing people for their views on the Bible. So my critique was to simply say ‘Ruckmanism’ as a term should really only be used for those individuals who actually engage in vile treatment of people who disagree with them, not a term for all KJVO people who happen to believe in second inspiration or whatever makes them KJVO.
A bit of providence. I have prayed for information on this because a close family member is KJV Only and sounds a bit like Ruckman. Thank you, Brother!
@@markwardonwords You are wrong. There were Bible believers *BEFORE* Peter Ruckman and there are still Bible believers after he has died. You don't throw the Bible out because Ruckman was off. Do you reject Jesus Christ because the Catholic cult teaches about Jesus Christ? No. You should just reject Catholicism. You don't stray from the word of God (King James Bible) because Peter Ruckman had some weird beliefs. You just keep believing the word of God. The problem with the "Westcott & Hort onlyism" is that when you expose yourself to the corrupted English translations you also begin to accept the weak dogmas of the modern English versions that will indeed lead you back to Rome.
False connection. I am against Ruckman and I am a Bible believer. Yes, I believe the King James Bible is the ONLY pure preserved English Bible for this generation. I can show you *MANY* doctrinal changes in the modern versions. They weaken Christians and set them up for the one world church.... Beware of [people that attack the King James Bible. They are subtil like their daddy that showed up in Genesis 3:1.
@@ColonelEmpire 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. Those texts have had nothing to do with Westcott and Hort. And they translate those texts into fully intelligible contemporary English, which means they meet the principle of 1 Corinthians 14, edification requires intelligibility. I recommend the NKJV and MEV to you.
@@markwardonwords Nice spin. The "Yeah hath God said" oozes off of every comment.... The NKJV has numerous errors and I'll have to look into the errors of the MEV... Most likely the MEV is as corrupt as all modern English translations. I will stick with the words of God (King James Bible). Thank you for your concern... My concern for you is that you are in a dangerous position deceiving people away from the King James Bible! God warns us away from corrupted bibles... Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. There are numerous errors in every modern English translation.... There are no errors in the King James Bible. I hope that helps!
Mark, I am always so impressed by the framing of your shots, the lead lines are so good in this video man. Also the content is fantastic but I can tell you’re a fan of well crafted videos and I deeply appreciate that. Thanks for all your hard work brother.
Thank you! I wish I could do better. It's hard as a one-man crew; today my camera fell off my tripod and I almost had a heart attack. It was a short distance, and it got only a scratch, but I was so scared!
@@markwardonwords I totally agree about the composition. One minor helpful criticism would be to do a test shot and check the lighting on yourself. The first shot while beautifully framed is hindered by you being in shadow, because of the position of the sun. It really is quite noticeable because everything else is so bright. Hard to do with a one man setup but worth it if you can find a way to be lit well.
@@FlyFoxPro I'm planning to build a home studio, though I love filming outside when I can. I learn from every mistake I make, which is many! I don't think I had my ND filter on for this shot… One of these years I'm hoping that internal electronic ND makes it down to the TH-camr camera level, so I can afford it. I just don't see myself spending the money for the FX6.
I come from a small KJV church. I use it mostly because I am familiar with it. I have heard so many people put down other translations, but I use multiple ones in my studies. I have my own brain, and learned to smile and nod, and go on about my business coming up. I have enjoyed your videos so much. Thank you.
Another argument against 'English correcting the Hebrew' : the poetry of the Hebrew Bible is metrical. METRICAL! (I'm a comparative musicologist of biblical recitation and am part of SBL's Masoretic Studies unit. This is a breaking discovery, so it's not one that you'll hear about anywhere else, (except for Jerome's introduction to the Book of Job, in which he described the Hebrew Bible's metre), until well after I publish next year with Yale and Cambridge who've invited me to write papers.) I, however, grew up in a KJV-only church.
I have heard this. Have you thought about any ways the meter could be brought out to people who don't know Hebrew? It would be such a blessing for many, for God's glory. (Learning Hebrew is on my to-do list but I'm not getting any younger!)
Wow! Yes, an excellent argument! I totally get this. How can any translation improve upon the literary devices that are present in the Hebrew and Greek and either untranslatable or very difficult to translate. Even our most dedicated translator of Hebrew literary devices into English, Robert Alter, admitted that it's impossible to bring it all across.
@@markwardonwords Yes, when I want to make an English adaptation of a Biblical Hebrew song, I always check with Alter to scope out options for capturing some or hopefully most of the brevity and beat of the original. But I have to switch words around, order wise, to respect the prosody of the Hebrew. But even then, it's almost always a lost cause to recoger the Rhyming and Assonance of the Hebrew. "Yōbad yōwm iwāled bō, we ha lāyla amār hōra djabār." -Job 3, opening line to his lament
@@markwardonwords Will do. I believe this to be a crucial and historically significant endeavor for the sake of the Gospel. People must be able to understand God's Word in their own tongue.
well Ruckman is ok... but have you ever heard the saying "don't throw the baby out with the bath water"?.. same is true here.. you can toss Ruckman if you'd like.. just cuz Ruckman is a little off doesn't mean the KJV is Not sound... but Ruckman is No more off than those like Mark Ward.. in videos like these..
Unfortunately, my first exposure to KJBOs was to the Ruckmanite fringe, with whom I debated for far too many hours and with no fruit produced. I was never derided and called more hurtful and judgmental things as a fellow believer than by these people. In my 40 years as a believer I never realized that I was a “Bible doubter” and “Alexandrian Cultist.” It’s still difficult not to view them with animosity.
I am in a similar situation however I still attend that particular Church and they will talk about you "behind your back" rite in front of you (if that makes sense) by making comments on people that use other translations and just other translations themselves in general knowing that I am one of "those people", lol
@SEL-sg8rl your words from about 5 months back... "Unfortunately, my first exposure to KJBOs was to the Ruckmanite fringe, with whom I debated for far too many hours and with no fruit produced. I was never derided and called more hurtful and judgmental things as a fellow believer than by these people. In my 40 years as a believer I never realized that I was a “Bible doubter” and “Alexandrian Cultist.” It’s still difficult not to view them with animosity." did you ever wonder if maybe they had a reason for calling you a "bible doubter"?.. I would never call a fellow Christian names such as this.. even if they didn't contain curse words.. cuz I realize words can be hurtful.... but from my own experience with the KJV translation.. excluding Ruckman and all others... I have grown leaps and bounds in the Faith.. and my walk with God has increased 10 fold thru using the KJV... other translations such as the ESV NASB NKJV.. NIV.. just don't get me to love or appreciate God as much.. I am sorry your experience is Not the same.. God bless...
@@jeffcarlson3269 I appreciate that, but this all quite subjective. I became a believer in the early 80's and used the NIV exclusively for over 20 years. I too, grew "leaps and bounds" over the years, especially early on. I poured over the scriptures (NIV), studied, memorized dozens of verses and even whole books, meditated etc. My love for the Lord was and is because He first loved me. I didn't even realize there was controversy surrounding Bible translations until the late 90's when the internet became a thing and I discovered other Christians were out there fighting over this. The internet made those pockets of Christian camps infinitely more visible and accessible. At any rate, my love for God will never be determined by the use of a particular Bible translation. I read through many different ones (ESV, NKJV, NASB, CSB, NLT, LSB). The ESV is my primary nowadays. I have an aversion to the KJV now, and it's because of the sour association it brings from having wrestled so fruitlessly with certain Christian camps who treat it like a fourth member of the Trinity, and who've treated me so Pharisaically like a second rate Christian. How ironic that they've actually pushed me further away from ever wanting to read the KJV.
So this brings a question, is the sentence structure and word order of the kjv identically twinned by those of the greek and/or Hebrew? What is the EXACT word order the languges of them?
In Hebrew, it's usually verb subject object I believe. Like, "In the beginning, created He God the heavens and the earth." Also, if you literally translated it, you would have a lot more "he's" "and's" and "the's" because of how Hebrew is written. To get everything to agree, you add prefixes and suffixes that would make the English really clunky.
I'm currently looking at Ruckman's booklet "About the New King James Version." Its arguments don't seem to get any deeper than, "Hey, the NKJV uses the same word that the RSV used here, and the RSV is made by evil liberals from the Alexandrian cult, so the NKJV is Alexandrian!" Never mind that the things he complains about aren't the result of readings from the Alexandrian text-type. His first example is Job 1.1. The NKJV replaces the KJV's "perfect" with "blameless," just as the RSV did. He doesn't explain why "blameless" is a bad translation, but he lets you know that the National Council of Churches is the source of this, uh, corruption. (He proceeds to accuse the NCC of being Communists at random intervals throughout his list.) Another example is Job 3.8, where he insists that "Leviathan" (the NKJV's reading against the KJV's "their mourning") "is not found in any edition of the AV," which just tells me that he didn't bother to check the KJV's original marginal notes. It goes on and on like this, never making an actual point (except for insisting that the NKJV's change from "formed the crooked serpent" to "pierced the fleeing serpent" in Job 26.13 somehow means that the translators didn't think that God created Satan). He then goes on to say that the NKJV "also contains scores of Westcott and Hort Alexandrian readings," and he gives quotes from Proverbs--not from the New Testament--as evidence! He does eventually get to the New Testament, where he suggests that the NKJV has followed the Alexandrian text in saying "means of gain" instead of "gain," but the Greek texts do not differ at that spot in the verse. It's all a mess.
1. Dr. Ward, I'm a-thankin' you kindly for your lengthy and most informative video that involved a great deal of time and preparation. Truly as shown, you are a man for all seasons. 2. Anecdote: Many years ago, in fact over four decades ago, a young Baptist fellow told me the story of a seasoned churchgoer who, upon hearing about all of the new translations of the Inspired Word of God, exclaimed "Well, if the King James Bible was good enough for St. Paul, then it's good enough for me." 3. I have a question regarding your point #5 at 37:23-31 where you make this request of the King James Version Only brethren, "Publicly acknowledge an error in the KJV, or at least a place where you would have translated differently." My request of you is regarding the conjunction of the sentence's first clause in St. Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians, Chapter 11, Verse 27. In the English translation examples below, the sentence's first clause conjunction is capitalized: A. Wycliffe's Bible, c. 1382-95: "Therfor who euere etith the breed, OR drynkith the cuppe of the Lord vnworthili, he schal be gilti of the bodi and of the blood of the Lord." B. 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." 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." C. The Great Bible, 1539 (first authorized edition of the Bible in English, authorized by King Henry VIII and prepared by Miles Coverdale): "Wherfore, whosoeuer, shall eate of this bread, OR dryncke of the cup of the Lorde vnworthely, shalbe gyltye of the body and bloud of the Lorde." D. The Geneva Bible, 1560: "Wherefore, whosoeuer shall eate this bread, AND drinke the cup of the Lord vnworthily, shall be guiltie of the body and blood of the Lord." E. 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." F. The New King James Bible (NKJV), 1982 :"Therefore whoever eats this bread OR drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." 4. On Bible Hub's Greek text analysis page is the following pertaining to the conjunction in the sentence's first clause of 1 Corinthians 11:27: Strong's = 2228E; Greek = ἢ (ē); English = 'OR'; Morphology = Conj. 5. On the Bible Hub's page of parallel Greek New Testament versions for 1 Corinthians 11:27 that include, chronologically, (A) Stephanus Textus Receptus of 1550; (B) Beza Greek New Testament of 1598; (C) Tischendorf 8th edition of 1872; (D) Westcott and Hort of 1881; (E) Scrivenor's Textus Receptus of 1894; (F) Nestle Greek New Testament of 1904; (G) Greek Orthodox Church of 1904; (H) RP Byzantine Majority Text of 2005; (I) SBL Greek New Testament of 2010; and (J) Berean Greek New Testament of 2016, of these ten Greek versions, all ten have ἢ (ē), translated into English as 'OR' as the conjunction in the sentence's first clause of this verse. 6. Therefore I humbly beseech thee, Doctor Ward: - Since - A. Of the six English versions of 1 Corinthians 11:27 listed chronologically in Nos. 3 A-F above, only two have the conjunction 'AND' in the sentence's first clause of the verse, that of (D) the 1560 Geneva Bible and (E) the 1611 King James Version, - and - B. Of the ten Greek texts for 1 Corinthians 11:27 listed on Bible Hub in Nos. 5 A-J above, all have ἢ (ē), translated into English as 'OR' as the conjunction in the sentence's first clause of the verse, - then - C. Are there any ancient Greek manuscripts of 1 Corinthians 11:27 known in existence that have καὶ (kai) translated as 'AND' as the conjunction in the sentence's first clause of this verse? 7. If, Dr. Ward, in any manner of this inquiry, I have offended thy sacred Bob Jones University majesty or perchance that of anyone in the most gracious KJV Only or KJV Preferred community, then may God, in His great mercy and goodness, grant me recourse to Job 42:6 (KJV): "Wherefore, I abhor myself and repent in dust and ashes."
Boy, this has some potential. But… there are two other places (Mark 6:11 and 1 Pet 1:18) where the KJV renders ἢ with "and." And there are four places where the ESV does this (Mk 3:33; Ro 4:13; 2 Co 1:13; Col 2:16)-and ten (that I won't list) where the NIV does it. I really do think that we're probably dealing with the demands of natural English style. I like this, though, because it complicates the narrative in which the KJV is perfectly literal. It isn't. No good translation is. Excellent homework!
1. Dr. Ward, I'm a thankin' you for your gracious response with all that good information you provided. 2. However, what's really tickling my innards is whether or not there are any ancient Greek manuscripts that support the use of 'kai' (YES in English) specifically as the conjunction in the first clause of 1 Corinthians 11:27. 3. I recently exchanged comments with a pastor who several months ago was relieved of his duties because his church elders did not consider him sufficiently KJV Only. He has now become KJV Preferred and, in effect, has unofficially joined in your greater cause for biblical translation openness. When I asked this question of him, he could not discover anywhere in the ancient manuscripts that he gleaned through the use of 'kai' (YES) as the conjunction for the first clause in 1 Corinthians 11:27. 4. Therefore, it was then that I decided to ask of you this question due to your (A) academic pedigree, (B) concern about the KJV issue and (C) search for the truth as the bottom line. 5. Please don't feel under any pressure to further respond, but I can only ask myself, "Where in tarnation did the 1560 Geneva translators and the 1611 King James translators come up with substituting 'AND' for 'OR" as the conjunction in the first clause of 1 Corinthians 11:27?" Miles Coverdale worked on both (A) the 1539 Great Bible authorized by King Henry VIII that has "OR" for the first clause conjunction and (B) the 1560 Geneva Bible translated under the authority of John Calvin that has "AND" as the first clause conjunction. So I'm a-wonderin', after all those miles he covered travelin' from England to Geneva, was Miles Coverdale tryin' to cover his tail or what? 6. I reckon this question may well remain a mystery, but since I aspire to join the company of the first clause of 1 Corinthians 4:10, then if being one of the "fools for Christ's sake" (KJV) was good enough for St. Paul, then that's good enough for me. 7. As they say in the south country, "God go with you."
@@annakimborahpa I totally forgot to answer that all-important question. I *did* look in the NA28, and I see no evidence that any manuscripts have και (kai; "and") there. You have a unique comment style. ;) I hope I answered all your questions! The thing is, we probably can't achieve certainty on whether the KJV committed an error here. I'm leaning strongly toward no. I think the answer is probably not recoverable. It would require knowing the internal mental state(s) of whoever did that work.
1. "I did look in the NA28, and I see no evidence that any manuscripts have και (kai; "and") there." Response: I'm a-offerin' you my grateful thanks for yer research into this matter. Please accept my apologies for not responding sooner because 'Ol' Blackie', my 1998 Oldsmobile Cutlass, was givin' me some trouble today and the old girl needed some lovin' attention. 2. "You have a unique comment style." Response: Well, there's a sayin' where I come from that goes like this: "We like to put vinegar on our greens 'cause it gives 'em flayvor. 3. - Since - A. It appears to be 99.9% 'definito' that there are no ancient Greek manuscripts with και as the conjunction in the first clause of 1 Corinthians 11:27, - and - B. Miles Coverdale worked on both (1) the 1539 Great Bible with 'OR' as the first clause and (2) the 1560 Geneva Bible with 'AND' as the first clause conjunction, - then - C. I figure them Geneva fellers under Johnny Calvin, followed by 'all the king's men' some sixty years later under James I, knew exactly what they were a-doin': (1) 'Cause when yer livin' in a Genevan theocracy ruled by Calvin, then yer gonna get the whole cow, tongue included. The Geneva Bible WAS the dominant English bible in the last half of the 16th century and even influenced that crypto-Catholic Birdman of Avon, Billy-boy Shakespeare. (2) But, and that's a big but, in the early 17th century, Jamey-boy #1 put his foot down and got rid of all them republican-minded commentaries and footnotes accompanying the sacred text, because after sniffin' out and smellin' 'em, his royal bulldog instincts knew dead on that they were gonna undermine his monarchy and his mitred boys' episcopacy. And sure 'nuf, two times later in the 17th century, dead Johnny Calvin's English Puritans would rev up their revolutions against the monarchy. But there's somethin' about them British folk that just cain't give up on King nor Queeny, God bless 'em. 4. If you like, I could go further into a probable rationale for why the conjunction 'AND' was used in the first clause of the Geneva's and the KJV's 1 Corinthians 11:27. It would involve exegesis and/or eisogesis, but hopefully not any witchcraft of hexagesis or the violence of ISIS-gesis. But only upon your request. 5. Filet-mignon on with the Lord, you ol' philologist, 'cause it's suppertime.
Thanks Mark. You mentioned Mitch Canup. I don't recall hearing his name since the late 70's when we first met. He was an acquaintance of a friend of mine. The few minutes we talked, all I heard was about Peter Ruckman. I'd never heard of Ruckman until then. This was in North Carolina. I think I remember him saying that he attended New Testament Independent Baptist Church. 🤔
Kind of sad, Dr Ruckman has some great observations and commentary, but man there's just so much on the opposite end too. I love this video, I love the KJV, it is clearly beautiful. But so are others. Your channel has helped me a lot, i study with three bibles typically, LSB (or NASB95, KJV and CSB (thanks to Frisch Perspective, before him it was NLT). A pastor once told me bible translations are like a mechanic's toolbox, each one has a purpose. NLT or CSB for outreach to unschooled unchurched people, or even relaxed reading. My first trip through the OT was the CSB, made it so much easier! Have you checked out the LSB?
i use the Reina Valera 1960 and the 1995 translation its from Beza but we get an update every so often oraund every 40 years in 1569 when casiodoro de reina transelated it first then cipriano de valera in 1602 revised it then there was another update in 1862 after that in 1909 we got another revision after that we have the 1995 there was an update in 2000 and there is another update in 2020 so there is no archaic language and i use the niv the esv the nkjvthe hcsb and i have 20 plus translations on my tablet so i am on booth camps thank you Mark
@@yahrescues8993 well it is in spanish and its like it was another language i can harly understand it its similar to the kjv a lot of dead words and false friends good thing we do mot have reina valera onlyest if we did no one would understand the bible
I would like to know how you came to the conclusion that the original autographs were inspired? Also, I would like to know if the word "scripture" in the Bible refers to the original autographs only, or it applies equally to copies and even translations. Thank you.
I'm a Christian; I believe that God inspired the books of the Bible. I don't think the word "Scripture" refers to the original autographs only; it applies to all good copies and to all good translations. What I oppose is proclaiming that God has anointed one and only one translation as perfect and inspired.
@@markwardonwords Thank you for answering my question. If I may follow up your answer with some questions to clarify, what do you consider good copies and good translations? Is God involved in the process of producing good translations? Who determines what a good translation is? Has God delegated that role to someone? If you have your list of good translations, then why do you have a problem with other Christians having their list? The KJVO argument is exactly that, their list consists of only one translation. Who is the judge?
@@PerSon-b8e As in many areas of life that Scripture does not directly and explicitly address, we are left to our scripturally informed consciences and our observations of the way God's world works. As in many areas of our life that Scripture does not directly and explicitly address, we tend to develop traditions and institutions that, working together, pool trustworthy knowledge and therefore authority. As I like to say, this is the way God made the world: if you can't read Greek or Hebrew, you have to trust someone else to translate them for you. God is the ultimate judge, but he has not chosen to communicate to us which translations are good and which are bad. He hasn't given us ecclesiastical authorities beyond the local church level to make this determination. One of the few explicit things God has said regarding this issue is that edification requires intelligibility, 1 Cor 14. So I've worked hard to apply the truth of that passage to the KJV debate.
@@markwardonwords Thank you for answering my questions and clarifying your position. Based on your answer, is it fair to say that the issue of which Bible(s) is an issue of faith? Since we don't have the originals and since there's not only one copy (manuscript) of the scriptures, and the resulting Greek texts do have differences, than, one is left to exercise faith on what to do? Some choose to trust their language abilities or others to do it for them, others choose to trust that God is involved in the process of preservation. It appears that you choose to take the former position, which is fine, you have the liberty to do that, but I think what you must acknowledge that your position is weaker than those who choose to trust that it is not unbecoming of God or His character to preserve His words in a word-perfect translation. The argument of intelligibility is presumptuous and very subpar to the main issue. Yes, it stands as an argument from a practical standpoint given the decline of the education system in America, but if that is your strongest objection to KJVO, then you are left with a very weak argument against the other side's argument of final authority and God's role in the process of preserving His words for us.
This is the explanatory note on Luke 10:18 from my Ruckman Reference Bible: Notice two coincidences about "Satan" in this verse. First, there are thirteen words in verse eighteen, which number is six times three (see Rev. 13:18; App. 37). Second, "Satan" is connected with "lightning," and "lightning" is a form of electricity (see App. 89). Electricity operates as an electro-magnetic forcefield, and Satan is "the God of forces" (Dan. 11:38). So the "god" of modern science is the Devil. 🤣🤣🤣
Thank you for another informative video. You should write a book “ why the NASB,NIV,CSB and the ESV are not satans bible. I am glad you started the “ false freinds” you have been a big inspiration after I left my KJV only group. Thank you for inspiring me still to study the “WORD” and grow in knowledge of Christ!!
I disagree in many ways with James White, but I have given away several copies of his "King James Only Controversy" book. It is thoughtful, gracious yet truthful, patient, and thorough. Though it was written in 95, before CSB or ESV were published, it is still worth reading, and fairly illustrates many sides of this debate.
The NIV had 2 open and self professed sodomites on the translation committee. Virginia Mollencott & Martin Woudstra. The NIV is one of Satan's master pieces....
My, question has nothing to do with this video. I am wondering when you did your 6 videos on The Best Bible Translation; why you did not go further and review the: ASV, RSV, NRSV, CEB, MEV, NAB and the Douay-Rhiems translations ? It seems that you focused on translations used most often by Evangelical Churches and did not look at translations used by Mainline Churches. Was there a reason for this? I and hopefully others would be very interested in getting your take on these other translations.
I’m an evangelical. I’ve read evangelical translations for the last 20 years. I’ve briefly checked mainline ones on a number of occasions (especially the CEB, I’d say), but I haven’t taken an adequate sample size: I can’t render a fair judgment. The NLT and NET, however, are on my list to do videos for! I’ve read a fair bit of the ASV, sort of, in Bibliotheca, too. And checked Catholic translations at specific spots.
@@markwardonwords, thank you for your reply. I look forward to more of your reviews on Bible translations. Myself being a recent convert to Orthodox Christianity from Mormonism have been at times overwhelmed by the number of different translations and formats available. I am learning the extreme value in reading the various translations in a study Bible format. It is wonderful to learn that all Christian’s really share so much in common. It is really to bad that small differences in thought seem to keep us all so separated. But as I have been told division is one of the Devils greatest tools. Anyhow good luck with your work and a Happy New Year to you and yours. May God bless and protect you.
I agree: division is a great tool of Satan. That's why it's one of the things the Lord hates (Prov 6:16ff.) and one of the works of the flesh (Gal 5:19ff.). But then the Bible calls for "division"-separation, rather-over false doctrine (Gal 1:8; 2 Thess 3:6, 14). So I'm looking to obey both. But I do definitely feel that division over Bible translations is particularly unfortunate, because it is almost always-almost by necessity-perpetrated by people who don't know Greek and Hebrew well among people who know these languages not at all. =( It seems so easy to destroy people's trust in a good thing, so hard to build it up. Almost I'm persuaded to stick with the KJV for that reason! Here's what I expect from mainline and orthodox translations: the occasional, minor rendering that I could probably see a little denominational/theological bias in-just like evangelical translations. It's just that I am an evangelical, so I think the bias is correct. =) But, overall, I think a Martian coming from outside our disputes wouldn't be able to connect any given major mainline or evangelical translation to any particular theology. I expect, overall, that all major translations are done responsibly. Even the NRSVue, which I have criticized on this channel, is almost certainly mostly excellent.
@@markwardonwords, Thank you for your response. I understand the Bible passages you quoted about division over false teachings and doctrines. However, if I may point out the Gospels and Epistles also emphasize the need for unity and forgiveness towards one another in far to many places to list here. I honestly feel if we begin to focus more on what we share in common and less on what divides us; we will make far greater strides towards church unity. We are all bothers and sisters in Christ. We may not always agree on what that exactly means. However, we have to look towards that common belief in Christ as the way forward. Someday maybe we can all learn to set aside our own needs that work to keep us divided. And than we can work towards a healthier stronger unified Christian Church. May God bless you and yours. Eugene,
Thanks for this video Mark. I don't know any Ruckmanites or KJV only folks currently, but this video definitely will be referenced again if I meet any :-). An old friend of mine believes the KJV to be perfect and inspired, but thankfully he isn't a Ruckmanite. His brother-in-law, he held the same KJV views, was shocked when I shared and agreed with him that the KJV is a great Bible. He thought I was anti-KJV, though I'm not sure what I said that might have given him that idea. I probably said something about the antiquated language of the KJV and it was misconstrued as being totally against it. I do believe they got it wrong when they translated pascha into Easter when in every other case they translated it into Passover. Speaking of Greek. Other than Thayer's can you recommend any reasonably priced Greek dictionaries/lexicons for a believer who is pretty much illiterate regarding Koine Greek? I'd like to find some newer editions that reflect more up to date definitions.
@@markwardonwords I don't necessarily think you Hate the KJV... but I think you should make it plainer.. that just because there are a few crackpots out there who like the KJV... doesn't mean the KJV is Not reliable or sound... adding phrases like "don't throw out the baby with the bath water".. would go a long way in solidifying any anti KJV vibes coming across in your videos... maybe you could make a video explaining the false beliefs of the KJV believers such as Ruckman, Dakes, Scofield Falwell Spurgeon, Calvin, and others and point out how... their false beliefs caused a damning blot on the KJV image...?.. or at least point out these individual's faults.. while still touting the GOOD things they brought forth...that way it would not appear as if you had an axe to grind against these men... I might have an axe to grind against Farstad... myself.. but that is another story.. regarding how I feel about the NKJV..
My opinion about Riplinger's book, is that she works for the red image on the front cover to knowingly dissimulate, distort, confuse and confound the truth of God's word including the NT sources we have come to know and love. I would never have that book in my house which has a depiction of a devil on the front!
Excellent video, Mark! We told you that we’re not afraid of long videos and you listened! 😁 I thoroughly enjoyed listening and the information is super helpful. My heart just broke when Matthew Hanke berated the idea that a child would require a Bible that they can understand. What a horrible thing to say. I can’t imagine how awful any children hearing that would have felt, since they no doubt would be thinking about how much they struggle with the KJV. They’d feel so inadequate and wonder why God would care about their understanding so little. I want my children to understand the Bible so that they can love and obey God! Even if I have to read them a translation that isn’t my preferred daily reader, so be it! I prefer the ESV but I normally read the CSB, NIV, or even the NLT to them (they’re 3 and 2 so words like “behold” are even going to be difficult for them!)
Reading one chapter together at bedtime is how my youngest completed her first complete reading of her own Bible. I used the NLT as a"beginner Bible" for her only to discover I actually realized it was ideal as a Bible to share with seekers and unbelievers. Eventually I got myself a NLT study bible which I finally admitted I love, for it communicates well to me. She now uses her ESV most.
Not if they are accustomed to it from early exposure. And it is so much easier to commit to memory because of the lyrical framing. I learned it early on and still remember the verses learned in my childhood.
Not hard to understand. Give your kids some credit for having brains. If you start them out on it, the language becomes second nature, and it is very easy to memorize because of the poetic structure.
I guess I did not have brains as a kid, or as an adult-and I guess I still do not have them. Because I still learn just about every month archaic KJV words I didn’t realize I was misunderstanding. :(
@@markwardonwords you told me that the KJV was an excellent translation, so I don't understand why you are attempting to undermine it by casting doubt upon it. If you, in all your knowledge, know enough about these archaic words to instruct others ,surely you should be something of an expert. Why write about something that is still a mystery to you? By putting your ideas and your interpretations out there, you may be inhibiting the work of the Holy Spirit. He will reveal the Word to a searching heart on the level of understanding of which it is capable. How can you be sure that you alone have the last word on what the translators of the KJV intended to convey? By dumbing down the scriptures in to more "understandable" words, you could be thwarting the work of the Holy Spirit in working with people on a personal level. I don't have anything against Bible Story books for children, where a story is told in simple form, but it is different to give a child a bible from a possibly corrupt translation just because it is easy to read, and abdicate your responsibility to teach them God's Word and supervise their study of it.
Sir I’d like to ask you 2 questions, and I’d appreciate it greatly if you’d oblige me in answering them: First, did Jesus Christ come in the flesh? And Second, if a man admits he’s a sinner, believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who died on the cross, and whose blood was shed for his sins, and that he rose again, and confesses Jesus Christ is Lord, and trusts only the blood of Jesus for his salvation, and nothing else - is that man saved and going to heaven, or is he going to hell? Thank you.
@@markwardonwords All due respect, those questions were asked to you directly. If Jesus asked you those questions, would you refer him to someone else to get the answers?
You need God called and Holy Spirit filled men of God when translating the Bible. Then you also need the *correct* Manuscripts. The Alexandrian texts are corrupt... The evidence of that are the modern English bibles that weaken major Bible doctrines.
I lived in BJU circles-I still do. Tons of friendships there. I love Bob Jones University. While I was there, especially in undergrad, we were one sliver over from KJV-Onlyism on the spectrum of American evangelicalism. We weren't them, but we had a lot of friendships and historic ties with them. We both came out of the fundamentalist movement of the 20s and then the fundamentalist-evangelical split of the late 50s.
Great job…thank you for the hard work. One additional comment…being in the military my family and I have moved to several different locations. Wanting to give our kids a Christian education has put us in the circles of believers that are KJVO. This is challenging for my wife and I, but mostly for my kids. I really hope and pray your work spreads and helps our brethren, including me, better understand this issue. For example, one teacher suggested they would “kick the NIV across the floor.” This is frustrating.
I totally get this. I have friends in this situation. If I were in that situation, I would prefer worshiping with confused and ignorant believers over nothing. But I really, really feel for those in this situation. =( May God give you wisdom! FWIW, I went to a KJV-Only Christian school and had a very good experience. I heard from one of my old teachers just two days ago. A man I still love and respect.
But @Mark Ward, is it possible to worship with a church but reject their strongly-held position on a topic like this? How can you serve or engage in fellowship with such a conflict looming? (I ask these questions genuinely, and since I'm here under my real name l must point out the teachers in my life are nowhere near as outrageous as to kick a Bible across the floor. I'm praying for 'M' and his family and that church.)
@@russell13904 I can tell you that I left a church because of this issue. I could not in good conscience switch over to using the KJV for my Sunday School lessons when I knew it was in service of a false doctrine. (And to clarify, I don't consider the TR-Only position to be a false teaching unless it dips into conspiracy theories. If absolutely necessary, I can teach from an NKJV with a clear conscience, even if I regard the underlying Greek text as less reliable than the Nestle-Aland text. It's specifically the KJV-Only position that necessitated a break in fellowship.)
@@russell13904 Hi. Just to clarify, this was a statement that a teacher/brother in Christ made at one of the Schools that my children previously attended. He was trying to make a point that other translations like the NIV are not God’s Word. His suggestion/point stuck with me and to be honest, if a translation other than the KJV is not the Word of God why not treat like any other book you may find lying on the ground? I hope it’s obvious that I do not share this reasoning, but what a person thinks about other translations will directly impact their use of it…I think. Apologies if I was not clear.
@@user-pe7uv8pb8q no no, I'm sorry if it seemed like I misunderstood or contradicted you! The written medium is terrible for misunderstanding sometimes. Brother, I thank you for your service and I'll be praying for you all.
The inferred connection of Ruckman to PCC was a little much. Geographic proximity doesn’t necessitate agreement with beliefs. Aside from that I really appreciate your heart in this! As a KJV user I feel the tension you point out.
Oh no-I see why you'd think that. But I did *not* intend to infer a connection. Quite the opposite: I see a clear distinction! I just visited PCC and talked with almost all their Bible faculty. They are NOT Ruckmanites. I can see, however, how the way I put it might have been understood that way. Take this as an affirmation of what I really meant!
I used to have Ruckmans commentary set, the whole set. What a waste of money and commentary. This was when I was a Ruckmanite. I thank the Lord I came out of that garbage of that IFB ilk. Next was flatly leaving the IFB for good and the KJVO position. Now I am thankfully preaching and teaching from the ESV.
Very encouraging, I know so many people who I care about in the Philippines who have been deceived into believing these doctrines. I'm praying they will get out of this cult. It's a shame that we as Americans export such terrible doctrine.
If you are serious about helping the KJVOs, I think you need to also address their legitimate complaints with textual criticism, original languages, and proliferation of translations. They might not be right on these issues, or not entirely right, but they do have strong, reasonable arguments that resonate with people who are not Ruckmanites and never will be. From their perspective, the modern translation side of the debate also commit serious infractions against the authority of Scripture, for instance, using "in the Greek..." or "this unfortunate translation..." to lazily smuggle in an idiosyncratic interpretation that could just as easily been accomplished with an English thesaurus. If KJV believers need to call out the extreme fringe of their camp, textual critics need to be more willing to do the same in their own midst.
Dr. Ruckman has been my Bible teacher since 1995, and I consider him one of the greatest Bible teachers of the 20th century. But I was King James ONLY before I ever heard the name of Peter Ruckman. As far as this silly video goes, anytime you want to debate these topics, with me, just reach out and let me know. I will be happy to throw down with you and your ESV.
I have been told for many years by many, many people who insist on the exclusive use of the KJV that they are NOT Ruckmanites and reject Ruckman’s “double inspiration” view. They insist that there is space between Ruckmanism and the mainstream view (the one I hold) in which you can believe that it’s “the Textus Receptus” that is perfect and can believe that the KJV is merely the best translation of the Textus Receptus. This is the group I’m talking to in this video.
Where do non-English speakers find their perfect Bible translations - or is this a privilege given only to those who speak, read and understand A.D. 1600 era English?
This is a question rarely addressed in any detail by KJV/TR defenders. I cannot think of a place, in fact, where they have done so. Ruckman, to his credit, did list a number of foreign translations he supported. He did not say that people needed to learn English, not to my knowledge. This is the view of most knowledgeable KJV/TR defenders, in my experience: as long as the NT is TR-based, it's good. But a question I've never gotten an answer to: what about the times when the TRs underlying various translations differ? The TR used by the KJV translators does not perfectly match that of any other TR ever used. How could it when it used two major TR editions and several minor ones, as I showed in that quote from Scrivener?
I have occasionally had KJV-Onlyists suggest a foreign language "equivalent" to the KJV, which gives me the opportunity to go through those "equivalants" to reveal to them readings present that they condemn in the modern Bible translations. It's a great "gotcha" the few times it happens.
Has God historically made a point of having His words available in all languages or even in the most common language of the day? On the contrary - Deuteronomy 7:7 (KJV) The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye [were] the fewest of all people:
I have a question. In the 1611 KJV, 1st Jn. 5:12 reads, " He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son hath not life." In the 1769 KJV and all KJV's since then, 1st Jn. 5:12 reads, "He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life." Which is correct according to KJVO proponents?
Only a small subset of KJVOs use the 1611 edition. Most of them think that any KJV that generally follows the 1769 Blayney edition is acceptable and reject any further squabbling over the matter. A group based out of Australia is convinced that they should only trust editions that follow the early 20th century Cambridge text. A smattering of people prefer the text used by Oxford, which reads a little differently than the texts from Cambridge.
I effectively never hear KJV-Onlyists mentioning such differences. M.A. is right: it's only those who are especially interested in picking a specific KJV edition.
I saw a dear pastor friend on Facebook this past week warn people to be careful of using digital KJV Bible apps because some of them have changed Timotheus to Timothy and the word throughly to thoroughly. It was very sad to see the alarm caused by good people who were afraid they’ve been using a “corrupted” Bible. When asked which version should be trusted, one elderly pastor affirmed that only the 1769 revision was the final authority. No support for his claim tho. But people follow these mens advice because they trust they know more.
@@MAMoreno On that thread, I've noticed that Holman is advertising many of its KJVs as being the "Pure Cambridge Text." I've assumed they mean Blayney, but I'm starting to wonder if this is some sort of dog whistle to a particular group. Any idea what they're getting at with that?
Get yourself a 27th edition Nestle-Aland greek text page 45 And I quote .."The text shared by these two editions was adopted by Bible Societies, and the following an agreement between the VATICAN and the UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES it has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision." End quote I'll stick with the KJV not something the VATICAN has say over . No thanks ...I believed in the KJV waaaaaaaay before I ever heard of Peter Ruckman.
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.
@@markwardonwordswhy would you recommend the nkjv? The mev claims to be an update of it? It is crazy after 30 years of the nkjv being out they say it needs to be updated! What a joke!
As an ex-KJVO, I can confidently say from personal experience that almost all KJVO people are Ruckmanite-ish; they're just not very good at Ruckmanism.
I’m doing something very similar to that. If only I can find time to finish it! I have a contract with Lexham Press to write KJV Words You Don’t Know You Don’t Know.
I like to watch sermons and commentaries by people who edify their fellow brothers and sisters and the Word of God and it seems that all your videos are just trying to constantly put other people down and say negative things rather than showing and teaching positive things. I hope you don't take offense to this but you seem to have a good mind and so in love, I offer you this ... God much rather you focus on things of above rather than things of the world and it does not make you look higher to put people lower. God himself says when a man thinks he is something, he is nothing and the way you talk about other people is definitely not showing the love of Christ. I think you could do good for people by teaching them things in the Bible rather than about the bad that you find in the world because you just may be a part of that by doing what you're doing.
Wolves are attacking the sheep, my friend. I've got to do some fighting. But I do want the balance to be positive, and that means showing people the riches we have in all our good English Bible translations. Pray for me! I do not want to sin or to be wrapped up too much in controversy!
I really appreciate Mark's work. I do feel edified and I always feel any 'criticism' he voices is appropriate and measured. Rather than fighting for a particular translation, he seems to be working to end the translation tribalism and thus creating a space so we can 'focus on things above'. Whenever I watch one of Mark Ward's videos I always come away with more reverence and appreciation for God's Word.
Many years ago I thought Ruckman was great to learn from. Having been a transcriptionist by trade, I downloaded a number of his videos and transcribed them. But I ended up getting totally turned off by him because of his foul mouth. I cannot remember now his favorite sayings, but they were like spreading curses CONSTANTLY. I ended up deleting everything I had worked on for probably a couple hundred hours.
Mom and I had an interesting conversation in that she grew up with the KJV, but she got more out of the Good News and Living Bible. While some new free translations may not be word for word, I can see that a lot of the laity getting more out of something like the NLT, NIV, or CSB.
Hey Mark, question for you. Why has a Geneva or Tyndale only movement not materialized? Also the Ruckman UFO quote was very interesting for reasons I could probably write a paper on wew!
The simple answer is that the Geneva Bible largely fell out of use after a century, while the KJV remained in use for nearly three centuries before the arrival of the 1881 RV. No one today has grown up with the GB, nor did their parents, nor did their parents' parents' parents (and so forth for about five centuries). It's hard to be traditional about the GB when there is no long-standing GB tradition already in place. The more complicated answer is that the KJV was the most popular translation in use during the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy that occurred a century ago, and fundamentalists have carried their skepticism of modernism into their perspective on Bible translations. If the ASV had come out in 1801 instead of 1901, it would likely be the one that's deemed "perfect." Some fundamentalists have been willing to adopt the NASB and the NKJV, as those two translations tick the right boxes: theological conservatism and strict literalism. However, the apparent modernist bias of the RSV spooked many of them into rejecting even these two translations, despite them being designed specifically to combat the RSV's biases. (The broader movement of American evangelicalism opted instead for the NIV.)
@@MAMoreno The Geneva Bible is currently being modernized as we speak by Canon Press; the New Testament is finished and the Old is in progress. Unfortunately, the Modernized Geneva Bible (as it's called) has gotten flack from the KJV-Only movement as well, so it's anyone's guess how the completed version thereof will fare.
@@reidmason2551 It is very unlikely that any TR based translation will ever gain any traction. The vast majority of those who prefer the TR are also KJVO, not by default (as @M.A. Moreno implies) but by conviction; and the vast majority of those who are not KJVO, and therefore willing to give a new translation a fair chance, do not like the TR. There is essentially no middle ground, except for the nostalgic Reformed luddites who await JC's (John Calvin) second coming.
It seems to me that the only reason that one could be KJV ONLY is if the translation itself is perfect and inspired; otherwise it makes no sense. The reason these adherents stick their toes into Ruckmanish is because they actually believe it is the only correct word of God. Otherwise, the whole thing just falls apart. I realize that legalists and independent fundamental Baptist churches often don't seem to mind if they look foolish to others, but such illogical WORSHIP of a translation is indeed foolish, looks foolish, and sounds foolish. It is a large part of why others often reject the good that these fellow believers offer.
I agree with you, but I also want to take my brothers at their word when they say there is space between my view and Ruckmanism. They say, “The underlying text is the issue!” And I believe them. I think that if they rigoroussly make the text the issue, they will soon stop being KJV-Only, for they will begin to use contemporary, fully intelligible translations of whichever TR they prefer.
Very interesting. 1. I could quickly find 30 things mocked in KJVO churches that would be applicable to the translators of the KJV eg having the title Reverend, using liturgy, celebrating days like good Friday, wearing robes etc. Would the Lord use these types from the polluted stream (The Trail of Blood) to preserve the pure Bible? 2. I think they are also scared. They want absolute certainty a Bible similar to Joseph Smith’s golden plates from heaven. Textual variant even trivial is of utmost seriousness. Eg if you use overseer vs bishop it will lead you down the path to eventually question the existence of God.
I agree completely on both points. Point #1 means that sometimes KJV-Onlyists must be given a dose of their own medicine, as Prov 26:5 enjoins. Point #2 means, I think, that you give them such doses very seldom, and mainly to the leaders. It means that you have mercy on those who doubt, as Jude 22 enjoins.
"Bishop" is the correct translation of "episcopos". King James laid out rules for the KJV translators, and one of them was to keep the traditional terminology. That is why we still speak of "baptism" rather than "washing" or "immersion"; and "Church" rather than "assembly".
"Bishop" is correct in the sense that the English word "bishop" is the result of a very distorted pronunciation of ἐπίσκοπος. But considering that the KJV Only movement is primarily found within fundamentalist Baptist circles, you'd think that they'd favor the translation "overseer" over an English word that apparently supports an episcopal ecclesiology. (In my own case, I'm fine with either translation. "Overseer" has the advantage of being a distinctly English word of Germanic origin rather than a loan word from Latin or Greek. One minor issue I have with the KJV is its overdependence on Latin, especially for theological terminology. But I suppose that's a reflection of the times.)
@@MAMoreno Priest is also derived from the Greek word "Presbyteros". I think King James was right to insist on traditional terminology. He also instructed the translators to translate words that were capable of more than one interpretation, to interpret them in accordance with the interpretation of the Fathers... which was also a good rule.
Years ago, Wed night prayer mtg: "My brother was convicted of a crime and is serving time in prison. He is now involved in a Bible study. But they are using the NIV..." The congregation of this Ruckmanite church does a collective gasp.
You don't have to be a Ruckmanite to disagree with Mr. Mark Ward, and stand firm on the Textus Receptis and the King James bible. What you are doing sir is casting doubt on God's word. I'd rather trust what God says about His words rather than man.
Did you receive a special revelation that the textual criticism conducted by Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza was infallible? If not, then you can't claim that God has said anything about the Textus Receptus, let alone a translation based on it. If the sign of "perfect preservation" is that a reading appears in a majority of Medieval Greek New Testament manuscripts, then you can keep most of the KJV, but you'll have to toss out Acts 8.37 and 1 John 5.7 (plus a few other readings). The evidence, both then and now, is that the Byzantine textual tradition was unfamiliar with those verses. Otherwise, you have to assume that the three scholars mentioned above were right to adopt readings from the Vulgate, which means that the correct text has to be reconstructed from different sources instead of being passed down as one source. And at that point, you're taking a position similar to that of textual scholars today.
@@MAMoreno No, I actually choose to believe and have faith in what God says about his words. So the revelation is this, that God is powerful enough to preserve it, and to not allow His saints to be in the dark and decieved for almost two centuries until these "so called" older manuscripts are discovered. God would not leave His saints in the dark about Acts 8:37, 1 Joh 5:7, John 7:53-8:11 and Mark 16. A lot of scriptures to believe that God couldn't preserve, dont you think?? Fact is that Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza had access to more manuscripts than we have today. Since you brought up those three, why not bring up William Tyndale, Wyclef and the over 40 translators of the KJB?? Would they not have to critique in order to translate?? Yet the translation was made, and there was unification until your phony codex Siniaticus showed up. Question for you? What Greek text today is the source of modern versions?
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.
@@ptwevangelism You can't directly compare Acts 8.37 and 1 John 5.7 with John 7.53-8.11 and Mark 16.9-20. The latter two texts appear in the majority of Greek manuscripts. Acts 8.37 has ancient support in Latin, but it lacks support in the "preserved" Byzantine tradition, so you don't have to look to Codex Sinaiticus to question its place in the text. 1 John 5.7 has very little support from any ancient source, and it makes Acts 8.37 look reliable by comparison. Now, John 7.53-8.11 does pose its own problems, as it is missing from some Byzantine witnesses, and the precise readings within the passage can be hard to establish, but it is certainly more "preserved" than those two verses. Mark 16.9-20 is the most stable and reliable of these four texts. It is missing from Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, but it is present in some of the other major ancient codices, and it is a staple of Byzantine manuscripts. While its authenticity is still questioned (due in large part to statements from Jerome that it was missing from many manuscripts in his day), it is not in the same class as these other examples. Now here the thing: Acts 8.37 could still be an authentic reading despite its "disappearance" from almost all the Greek texts. (1 John 5.7, on the other hand, is certainly a later interpolation.) But in order to accept it, you have to throw out the idea of "preservation" and move to a concept of "reconstruction," which is the perspective taken by modern textual critics. You can accuse them of going overboard in their efforts or failing to give sufficient consideration to other evidence, but you can't accuse them of rejecting a doctrine of "perfect preservation" when you're doing the exact same thing in following an obscure minority reading in Acts.
The symbol called the Triquetra is used on the NKJV The triquetra is a three-pointed symbol most strongly associated with *paganism* It also is similar to the Valknut which is a symbol of Odin, the Norse God. And so the triquetra has a lot of different meanings, *none of which is Christian* So why would you choose this as the symbol to plaster all over a Bible?
@@ColonelEmpire Yes, it's obvious: because Christians have been using the symbol for centuries, and the NKJV publishers wanted to make clear that it was made explicitly for orthodox trinitarians, not heretics. You sound like the Watch Tower Society with its "the cross is pagan" rhetoric.
@@MAMoreno LOL You are a kook... You have no substance so you attack me by calling me a JW! What a hoot! The Satanic symbol was NEVER a Christian symbol! It has always been a Satanic symbol!
@@ColonelEmpire The KJV has various pagan symbols on the title page as well as a picture of Poseidon on the first page of Matthew. What was the point you were trying to make again?
I came to find out about Ruckman from another KJV only pastor, who went to his school, Robert Breaker, maybe you know him, he's on TH-cam, and through him I adopted Ruckman's views, most of them, the one I was always skeptikal about was and is KJV onlyism, not that it matters to me that much since I read the Bible in Romanian, but the thought of limiting my options in English didn't sit well with me. I don't know much about him specifically, I want to read his books, except those on KJV onlyism, but I can say that I saw worst examples of that, I'm talking about when Steven Anderson said to James White that he doesn't believe that those who read the NIV and then the KJV and don't understand it are saved, using the passage in John where Jesus talks about how His sheep hear His voice, his argument being that the KJV is Jesus's voice and those who don't understand it, don't understand His voice, so are not His Sheep. I like the King James, even as I'm yet to read it, but I don't like KJV onlyism because it's very limiting. Thank you for your input on this problem, I like your video, your demeanor, style of speech, you seem a very nice and intelligent person.
Congratulations on the bold stand against Ruckman, misrepresenting and slandering a believer who has passed on and who cannot defend himself. I see many people on here who do not know who the man really was and will take your word for his character and possibly end up slandering him too. Yes Ruckman was angry, as Jesus was when needed and as any believer should be (Eph 4:26), but you state he was “always angry” Slanderer! If you spent some time with the man what would be more seen was his heart to see souls saved which he would often weep over. And to add to this, in the same manner, people will likely take your word on the King James Bible issue, when (as I believe I have pointed out before) a lot of information is suppressed. Get in the book people and check things out for yourself, nothing on this earth is of more value to have in your hands than the word of God, make sure you have it.
The KJV-Only side does plenty of slandering and misrepresenting of its own (Gail RIplinger being one of the more infamous examples). Nobody, regardless of who and what they are/were, is above criticism.
@@reidmason2551I have an answer I give to my 6 year old for that sort of logic. If Mark is right, and doing a godly work, he wouldn’t need to lie about a dead man.
@@josephgreen3436 I have only downloaded and listened to the MP3 audio, some excellent study and insight that is being vindicated now with all the bearings around it. Godspeed
These guys are more obsessed with the King James than Ruckman was. It looks like all his videos are about the KJB, but if you scroll through Ruckman’s material on the bookstore website, you’ll see he covered a lot more ground than just the Bible versions issue. People like this guy will never learn the Bible, because they can never believe the Bible. They’re too hung up on attacking it.
The KJV isn't the Bible, per se. It's a translation of the Bible into English. To the degree that any English translation can be called the Bible, it can be called the Bible. It can therefore be believed to the degree that it accurately reflects the Bible in Hebrew and Greek. (And, by most accounts from people with the knowledge and skill to evaluate such things, it reflects the original Bible fairly accurately, but not flawlessly.)
@@joshmccartney777 The textual variants are not different Bibles. Otherwise, we're stuck asking why the KJV sometimes uses Beza's Bible and sometimes uses Estienne's Bible instead, just as modern translations sometimes follow the most recent Nestle-Aland edition and sometimes choose other variant readings. It's not a helpful way of discussing the matter. We may be able to talk more broadly about the issue--who follows Medieval scholarship (by translating directly from the Vulgate instead of from a Greek text) vs. who follows Reformation-era scholarship (from Erasmus to Beza) vs. who follows modern scholarship (from Westcott-Hort to UBS)? But we're not talking about Marcion's abridged version of Luke here. We're talking about readings that developed naturally through the copying process.
Thank you for making this video. It will assuredly be helpful for others as well. When churches were shutdown, the only church we could find in our area that was holding in person services was an IFB church. They turned out to be followers of Ruckman (Some also of Gene Kim). They turned out to be good friends, but it was an interesting time of navigating their beliefs. To this day they have no idea that we hold to the Doctrines of Grace.
@@markwardonwords With all due respect, the Bible also stated emphatically not to add to nor take away from His Words. I do not mean the equivalency of a word rather the complete opposite. I do enjoy your content Pastor Ward but I do disagree with you on this.
I appreciate this: self-confessed Ruckmanites have never before told me they enjoyed my content! But, friend: do you understand that your stated principle-no adding to or subtracting from the word-doesn’t point to the KJV? It merely pushes the question back a level: does the KJV add to the word or do the modern versions take away?
@@markwardonwords I am sure you are well aware of the fact that modern versions really are at fault. Many of them have the Vaticanus text as a main tenet. In addition, many modern versions not only do a slide of hand with thousands of words/phrases but many also confuse the reader. NKJV for example, replaces Hell with Sheol/grave. How would they explain that? Lastly, it is well known that Thomas Nelson and Zondervan also publish the satanic bible and are own by specific corporate entities. Just the mere knowing of the history of wescott & hort and nestle & aland should bring much concern.
@@SoldierofChrist9 They "replace" "Hell" with "Sheol/grave" because there are two places called Hell, and the NKJV was making a distinction between the two.
I dont argue with people who only read the KJV. But it amazes me that people believe God waited until 1611 to give us the perfect Bible. Thats not very fair or just of God. Plus all those Chinese and Russian Christians are just SOL. My greatest frustration is when they claim the English KJV is the word of God, and the Hebrew and Greek are no longer reliable. It makes no sense
@@markwardonwords I know. I'm not saying anything bad about your video. I think it's great and necessary. I just haven't ever been able to discuss this with someone without them getting very angry, and at the end of the day, I don't care what version a person reads as long as they read. I just don't get the logic. And I don't like kids being taught that people will go to hell for reading any other version.
@@mombythesea2426 And I didn't mean to imply something bad about your comment! I'm with you. Your comments speak truth. I suppose I just don't want to give up on our KJV-Only brothers. As a group, they have many strengths.
Mark, I have noticed that most KJV onlyist also have a very strong objection to anything reformed/Calvinistic. Could this have anything to do with how the KJV translates certain passages? Example being Luke 2:14.
Their objections would be misplaced. Luke 2.14 is an example of a textual variant, not a translation bias. The Geneva Bible is explicitly Calvinist (as to be expected from a translation made in Geneva in the late 1550s), but it still says "toward men good will." They might chalk it up to the "corrupt Alexandrian text," but they can't blame the Calvinists here.
I recently came across a very dangerous outwork of claiming the KJV is word-for-word perfect on a KJVO website. When explaining why the KJV translators used "charity" instead of "love" in 1 Cor 13, the author of the post argued that modern translations are objectively incorrect by forming a contradiction between John 3:19 (men loved darkness) and 1 Cor 13:5 ([love] thinks no evil). Of course this is completely faulty interpretation to begin with, but what alarmed me is that the author of the post has basically attacked the inerrancy of the underlying Greek text (in fact he wrote that love in John 3:19 uses agapao). I'm already quite skeptical of the lack of charity (lol) from most KJVO argumentations but this argument has went way too far. In some sense I think this applies more generally to any kind of translation dispute where two senses or nuances of a Greek word can be communicated the same way in English, but the KJV chooses two renderings. To argue that the modern versions are wrong in these cases would, in some sense, be arguing that the original Greek isn't perfect.
This is very helpful. I recently had a dear friend (that I had not seen in a long time) lay some of this KJVO doctrine on me and try to convince me of the divine inspiration of the KJV translation. I wasn't prepared for the conversation as I did not grow up in the church nor have I ever been seriously exposed to the doctrine. Thanks for the thoughtful presentation.
My advice, my friend: don't get pulled into discussions about textual criticism. Focus on readability. Use my "false friends" concept, and appeal to 1 Cor 14: edification requires intelligibility. May the Lord help you help this friend!
Wow. Excellent! To say that false friends don't matter and need not be taught to one's KJV Only parishioners, is tantamount to saying that God meant one thing by His word in 1611, and a different thing now. When English words have actually changed meaning in the past 400 years, and one insists that those changed words need not be translated into current English, one is essentially arguing that what God meant has changed over time, which is simple heresy.
RIGHT! This is so important. I have seen people say this very thing openly, though they tend to say it confusingly. They don't seem to know what they mean.
Nearly 60 years ago (yes, I’m old), I gained relationship with Christ through the (gasp!) J.B. Phillips paraphrase, not the KJV which had been the only version I knew. The search for the “perfect” translation is never-ending and not win-able. The Holy Spirit will guide us into Truth (Jn. 16:13), and He will use what He will. Thank you, again. I deeply appreciate the freedom to learn that you extend!
How arragant to believe God's word is only English.
Nope the texture receptus for the Greek and the Riviera for the spanish
@@kjvnate777 In that case, the KJV is heretical and you need to learn Aramaic and Hebrew or you're not saved. Go bow down to your KJV idol.
@@randomizer6506What is the Riviera? I'm in a Spanish speaking church and this would be valuable information for me.
I like how you quoted from the ESV to say that people like Ruckman and Riplinger were ignorant of what they were talking about. Also, it's sad to see her in a video with Kent Hovind. I watched a lot of Kent Hovind's old age of the earth videos back during my undergrad which helped me immensely in the few science courses I had to take at a secular university. As a History/English student, I didn't have to take many, though.
Ruckman knew a lot. He hid his knowledge under a rough, even vile, exterior. But he wasn't a dummy. Riplinger, on the other hand, is best described as "wild-eyed." She can make up "facts" that scare and persuade people. I can hardly get through a page of her writing without wanting to retch. =( It's such a sorrow to me that her work even exists.
@@markwardonwords Sounds like Ruckman is like the New York Times, while Riplinger is the National Enquirer.
@@markwardonwords you can't write a book like New Age Bible versions without a tremendous amount of knowledge about the subject and her references in the end of the book show extensive research. Every book I looked up that she referenced was right on so why is it you "retch" when you read it? Because of your own willing ignorance? Oh well, I guess you will stay that way unless the Lord Jesus opens your eyes. You must feel proud of yourself standing up for texts that agree with the Roman Catholic bible against the KJV. 😒
@@Pilgrim-funj Of course the KJV translated from later manuscripts compiled by Erasmus a Catholic monk. That he dedicated to the Pope. Also the baby sprinkling Anglicans who translated the KJV also used the Catholic Latin Vulgate. So Latin words like Lucifer from the Vulgate that should not be in any English translation. Strange that you defend a Catholic translation like the KJV. Also you defend heretic and false teacher and KJV idolater Gail Riplinger
😂😂😊@@michaelkelleypoetry
Hi Mark. This is the first video I watched from you, and I really appreciate how you kept this both cordial and knowledge packed. I have read through many of the comments, and have found some good discussion below. In my life, I have frequently brushed up against KJVO adherents. The ones I have come across have mostly been on the overly abrasive/arrogant end of the spectrum, so you have handled this with at least a touch more grace than I could have mustered.
One of the questions I have adopted is asking them is if they think that someone needs to learn English or hear English through a translator in order to be saved. I have never heard a satisfactory answer to this, and the conversation normally gets shifted. Or in worse case scenarios have answered yes, which I find horrifying! Have you ever used this question? And what do you think about this approach? It usually helps get to the point if we'll be able to find any common ground.
I grew up reading the KJV mostly (we were not KJVO, but attended a more traditional church that used it primarily) . I certainly don't have an axe to grind, but I can say that especially in my teen years, using the KJV not only impeded my understanding of scripture, but caused me to misinterpret certain words and passages. And this is coming from someone who was an astute child who studied, and adapted to the old English style (some of which I still use in my speech, unlike most of my peers) . Many preachers (respectfully older ones especially) don't understand that most of the younger generations do not understand much of what thy are reading. I'm an older millennial (34 now) and the language gap already existing between myself and those of Gen Z is remarkable (of whom I struggle understand sometimes) . So I can only imagine this issue is getting exponentially worse.
In my own studies over the years and researching translations, I have found the 1995 NASB to be the best choice for me when it comes to general narrative reading. But realizing no translation is perfect, I frequently cross reference with others. I have never studied Greek or Hebrew language in depth, but even reading the Interlinear in it's jumbled English structure sometimes helps pin down the intent of the verse/passage. I have found that even when I can't get the clarity I'm looking for, these methods help me eliminate what it's NOT saying. I find that people who confine themselves to one translation frequently don't have a dynamic understanding of scripture themselves, and heavy rely on traditions and interpretations that have been passed down.
I'm rambling a bit now, but I think it's an important issue. In trying to be kind, I explain it this way. KJVO has a built in doctrinal arrogance. It doesn't mean that every person who holds this position is trying to be arrogant, unkind or abrasive. Sometimes it's just misplaced zeal from a place of true care (I'm sure we've all had misplaced zeal as we grow in Christ, I myself am guilty) . On the other hand, people who teach this view tend to be much more on the legalistic side. Some of the staunch KJVO churches I've come across breed some incredibly cold hearted, prideful congregations. So pardon my language, but I won't apologize in saying I'm convinced it's poison.
I never studied the history extensively on the KJVO perspective, so it makes sense when you pointed out that it was a movement to stave off modernism. Good intentions, bad outcome. It reminded me of another historic parallel. The Pharisees leading up to the days of Jesus were so concerned about the rapid Hellenization of the Jews, that they added more laws to the Torah. In adding to the Words of God, they made them void. They butchered God's Words so bad, that by the time Jesus arrived, He found most of them so full of pride that they were described as whitewashed tombs. Sadly, I see this pattern commonly fleshed out wherever KJVO takes root. As you so eloquently pointed out with more grace than I, be careful that a translation itself doesn't become your idol.
I will be sure to check out some of your other content, to see what I can learn. :)
Regards,
Jonathan
I *really* like that question about English. I am going to look for an opportunity to use that. I do find that KJVOs have very, very rarely given any thought to how their view plays out for people in other countries who don't speak English. They are almost always monolingual themselves (which isn't a criticism; most American Christians are, and it's not a sin!). But it means they are ill-equipped to discuss other languages in any way. Good thoughts! Thanks for dropping by!
@@markwardonwords Yes, being monolingual myself and relatively sheltered, I've really had to challenge my own views on some topics. Attempting to think through the lens of people from other cultures and languages has helped refine my views over the years, especially by studying pre-Christ Jewish customs. I do have one humorous conundrum on western blind spots. I had scarcely though about the topic of polygamy for decades as a young, American born Christian. Then I found out some dumbfounded missionaries had to deal with people coming to Christ, and asking them what they should do with their wives, not knowing if they should stay married to all of them, or which ones they should divorce. I loved how this question threw a wrench in my sometimes overly concrete mind. I never thought I'd see the day when I would surmise under the new covenant it's very possible that the most biblical answer would be to stay married to them all, and just refrain from marrying any more. Westerners just don't think about these things. Anyhow, if you get to use the English language question I proposed on some of your more scholarly minded KJVO folks, I would love to hear the results!
I like these presentations. Having come away from KJV-only-ism, and having devoured everything Ruckman ever produced, I did find that Ruckman’s perspective wasn’t represented with high fidelity here. Their perspective on the KJV translators preface could be better represented. Ruckman was more nuanced than many of his “followers.”
While Ruckmanism is presented as the fringe of KJVO, there was actually a fringe within Ruckmanism that took things further and in a less nuanced way than he did.
I appreciate this. I did my work on Ruckman’s views 20 years ago, and I have come to believe that, indeed, I lacked (and still lack) a fully accurate understanding of the man’s views. In my defense, 1) I now believe that Ruckman was inconsistent in his statements about inspiration of the KJV, though I confess I’m not prepared to back that up with full evidence at the moment. 2) My target in this video truly was Ruckman-ism-the view associated with him by his mainstream KJV-Only opponents. That view is-as you can see in the quote I made from Doug Levesque-definitely “double inspiration.”
But thank you for the kind word, and I’m open to hearing any particulars-how could I have said it better? You’ve read more Ruckman than I have, clearly. Again, I’m open.
@@markwardonwords He was inconsistent look here:
“I have in my King James Bible the Holy Scriptures in English. God has used that book more than he ever did any “original manuscript” in the history of Israel or the Church. I believe it is “given by inspiration“; certainly not as the “originals“ were, but “given by inspiration,“ nonetheless. I believe I have the very words in that book God wants me to have in English.” (Peter S. Ruckman, The Book of Daniel (Pensacola: BB Bookstore, 2016) 309-310.)
“So our position is this: The King James Bible may not claim for itself the original inspiration of God, breathing through the men who spoke when they were copied down by a writer at the time they spoke. However, it can claim to be preserved without proven error in the universal language of the world” (Peter S. Ruckman, Theological Studies Volume 2 (Pensacola: BB Bookstore, 1998) 781.)
“People like R. L. Hymers, Bobbie Sumner, Curtis Hutson, Bob Jones III, and James White are always complaining about “Ruckmanism” and “King James Onlyism.” I have never taught that the King James Version is the only Scripture that “is given by inspiration.” I recognize what God did with Luther in German, Valera in Spanish, Diodati in Italian, Olivetan in French, etc. I’m not “King James Only” when it comes to that sort of thing. But I do believe that King James Bible is the Holy Scriptures in English, with the very words God wants you to have in English, and that “ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God.” What these apostates can’t stand is that I have the Scriptures and they don’t because they believe the only Scriptures that were “given by inspiration” were the “original autographs.” Their authority is a lost pile of papers that no one has ever seen or read for the last 1,900 years, while mine is the Book I hold in my hand.” (Peter S. Ruckman, The Book of Luke (Pensacola: BB Bookstore, 2013) 4).
Your observation is why I think this video becomes noise. If you want to refute your opponent effectively, you have to represent their views accurately.
For example, pointing out that Ruckman was divorced doesn’t address his views.
Similarly, criticizing Gail Riplinger’s pronunciation of French doesn’t address her views either, in fact, it resembles the ad hominem attacks the author accuses Ruckman of.
Pairing fundamental Baptists with KJVO is an academic mistake that shows a lack of preparation to refute the view.
Also I think the author failed to define inspiration and argued from a posteriori instead of the a priori argument of inspiration that KJVO proponents argue from. So there is much opportunity to present straw man arguments instead of debating the merits of the respective positions.
For me, this is a disappointing answer to KJVO.
@@SimplyProtestantBibleBeliever..he didn’t reply…well said..
Interesting, gracious, and informative, as always! The length is a plus here, not a concern.
I found the quote from Kent Brandenburg in Thou Shalt Keep Them particularly interesting (starting around 27:10 in the video). KJVO arguments seem easily susceptible to running afoul of the great first Sola of the Reformation, Scripture Alone, and Brandenburg's statement here is a good illustration of that. Of course, more of his words could clarify this, but as the quote stands, it appears that he is turning to the authority of the "obedient" church to ratify the text of Scripture. I have heard many KJVO sermons in which the preacher rails against the "traditions of man" and points instead to the "Word of God." But to point to an asserted agreement among the "obedient" churches as evidence that the TR or KJV is the true "Word of God" is to rely on a tradition or judgment of man. This line of thought, in my experience fairly common in KJVO arguments, is either good evidence for those who would deny the doctrine of Scripture Alone or evidence that the KJVO interlocutor (who I assume holds strongly to Scripture Alone) has not fully embraced it. Regardless of how extreme or mild one's Sola claim here is, to assert that the TR or KJV is the correct text because the churches agreed on it is to necessarily place the authority of what Roman Catholics would conceive of as Tradition or the Magisterium (albeit not the correct ones, to their view) over the authority of Scripture. Whatever Sola Scriptura is to someone, it can't be that and still be Sola Scriptura.
Your conclusion was spot on. I believe most thoughtful Catholics would quibble with Charles Hodges's characterization of their view of the communion of saints as the "people [being] told to seek [God's blessings] at the hands of creatures." All I've encountered would insist that Hodges is in fact correct to declare that God alone can do these things, and that they do not and must not ask the saints to do them in his place. Whether the average Catholic in the pew correctly distinguishes what is going on is of course another question. But the analogy of the KJVO position to Hodges's characterization is perfect. God has ordained a world in which we necessarily see some things as through a glass, darkly, until all things are made perfect in Christ. Our view of the words written in the autographs is one of those things. We don't have the autographs. The copies we have don't perfectly agree. Decisions must be made. To essentially deny that this obvious fact is true is to, as you said, refuse the gifts God has given us in favor of demanding on/e he has not seen fit to provide. There is much that remains mystery to us. Even Scripture itself urges us to embrace the deep mysteries of God, whose ways are unsearchable, who exists as three persons but is one, whose Son was born of a virgin, whose Church is the bride of the Son, and so many other things. We are right to wonder, with Mary, "How can this be?" when our senses fail to encompass the totality of God. We are not right to demand, with Zechariah, "by what sign shall I know this?" when God forbears to expand on the Word he has given us.
Thank you for the kind and wise words, Robby! Yes-after I made the video, it suddenly hit me that Brandenburg was saying basically the same thing as Ruckman: English is the language we should look to for the perfect set of jots and tittles.
Thanks for another great video Mark. As someone who grew up in a KJV only church which was opposed to Peter Ruckman but which also, unknowingly taught some of his erroneous kjv opinions, I once again appreciate your grace and handling of this topic. For me, it wasn’t until I attended one of the Bible colleges you mentioned that I realized I had essentially learned dual inspiration from a pastor (a good man) who also taught us that Peter Ruckman was bad news. I think most kjv only church attendees are in similar situations; they have good, well meaning pastors who push ruckmanism off as fringe but then unknowingly teach things which can be traced back to him.
Sadly, I didn’t realize how ignorant I was until I after had been part of a group of students who made a stink about a professor advocating for the NKJV in class…little did I know that one day I’d be using it myself.
So now you don't believe God preserved His word anywhere in any language? That's awesome!
this is quickly becoming one of my favorite channels. i agree with you on most topics I've had the chance to listen to and really do appreciate the hard work you have put into serving the body of Christ.
Wow, thank you!
Does anyone know what video the "so that..." false friend was in. I am trying to find it and can't. Maybe the video was taken down?
The title of the video is "Maybe My Favorite False Friend."
@@MAMoreno Thank you!
At 28' 17" into the video, there are 10 TR versions displayed on the screen. I'm wondering if there is a chart or poster of those. A comment was made about "if you have logos or Bible works...," and I do, but where in Logos is it?
Ah, I see! I don't have a chart, I'm afraid. But I do have links in the video description to all of those TR editions (the word is "editions," not "versions"-"versions" means "translations"; that's why I was confused by your question).
In Logos: you can compare Stephen's TR to Scrivener's TR. Just make sure you own both:
www.logos.com/product/1802/stephens-textus-receptus
www.logos.com/product/4643/the-new-testament-in-greek
Then you can use the Text Comparison tool to look at differences. There aren't tons, but they're there.
Or you can let Scrivener, the one who put together in 1881 the TR used by KJV defenders, do this work for you. Just read Appendix E of his book here: kjvparallelbible.org/which-tr-stephanus-vs-beza/
Thank you. Much appreciated. @@markwardonwords
Ruckman, in my opinion, had a personal life that spoke loud and clear about what he practiced. What he preached from the pulpit was just the icing on his very wicked cake. I had not heard of this man until recently as my family moved into a new city and visited a church that advertised being non-denominational. We, after a few weeks, noticed the pastor become more and more caustic, rude, even mocking others in mad rants from the pulpit. Dang, it was scary. We left midway one Sunday. After research into the Doctrine and teaching of the pastor of that church, we discovered he was what he listed in his bio a 'Ruckman'. That led to our discovery of the life and very caustic preacher Peter Ruckman. I think the 2018 death of Peter Ruckman ll by suicide after killing his own two sons by gunshot sealed the conclusion for our family that this man was dangerous in his false teachings and the fruit among his own family and what they suffered by him gives a very evil picture of God's character. Which we know is not Biblical. Beware! Be watchful! The Bible clearly describes false teachers like this man. See 2 Peter ch 2.😊
I am not a Ruckmanite, but any family can fall victim to mental illness. It is not always the fault of their upbringing.
After this video I have grown in my appreciation for KJV. Thank you
So have I, my friend!
But you don't have to adopt divisive false teaching-like seeing the KJV as itself inspired and perfect-to appreciate the KJV.
@@markwardonwords all Bible versions are inspired and KJV is as close as you can get to perfect
It was because my best friend started attending a Ruckman Bible Believers church, that I found your work. For that, and just about that only, I am thankful for that church. The extremist KJV only views they hold are very convincing and only when we actually have a healthy textual confidence approach, can you see how dangerous the Ruckmanite doctrines are. Thank you for keeping at this and for all you do to help the church, trust in our modern translations. God bless you brother.
Thankfully, he has moved on from there 🙏
Praise God! Thank you for the kind word!
Thank you for this video Mark alot of great points you made , i just found you channel while looking for dr ruckman , subbed! also great looking video , which camera do you use if you don't mind me asking? All the best
Thanks for the sub!
I attended a KJV Only church after I got saved and remember reading Gail Riplinger's book and believing it based on what I'd been taught. Fortunately, I came out of all that years ago and realized how ridiculous it all is. I hope your videos help others out of that as well. Keep going!
Thank you! Pray for me! And for those others!
You don't believe in Satan's influence on the entire world? Do you believe in Big bang, heliocentrism and evolution too?
@@lindsayball5080 God almighty created the universe. Evolution had nothing to do with it. The sun is the center of our solar system but the earth is at the center of all history because this is where Jesus was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, shed his blood on the cross for forgiveness of sins, and rose again on the 3rd day.
Don't feel alone, I did the same thing, and then I fought with other Christians, telling them the KJV was the only Bible and they were all reading the devil's Bibles. I took it one step further, I even started throwing out my NIV Bibles, into the garbage. I'm very bothered by that to this day. I've had to repent for throwing out God's Words into a garbage can! I really believed I was doing what had to be done but I felt convicted about it and I couldn't shake it. I'm thankful I came out of that thought process. Now I use the NASB, NKJV and I use the KJV too. And I have a 1984 NIV. I read them all now.
One of the most serious problems that Ruckmanism creates in the Bible translation debate is that it overshadows the reasonable arguments presented by other believers who hold what can appear to be the same position, but in fact is fundamentally different; like when luddite thugs take advantage of legitimate complaints of a striking labor force, and co-opt their grievances and soil them with their unwanted association.
There is a thoughtful argument made by many KJV believers that the KJV is the only Bible that has been universally accepted by the English speaking church, and that to change it or dispute its text is to foment unbelief towards the Scripture as God has given it to us in our language. They do not believe that the KJV is perfect, but that it is without provable error. They also have deep suspicion for modern textual criticism that seems to them to be about finding a "Bible" in the sands of Egypt that 1800 years of believers never had, while rejecting the text (TR) that majority of Christians have read, believed, and trusted for all that time. They see the proliferation of translations as detrimental to faith, not conducive. And they especially dislike the implication, and many times explicit declaration, that one can only truly know what God said by being a Greek and Hebrew expert. They believe that God has spoken perfectly (in the sense of completely) in English and to update, revise, or abandon that is to abandon the faith that God has given the church a sufficient and complete Bible.
That would be an understandable position 140 years ago. But at this point, most Christians recognize that those codices found in the sands of Egypt are more reliable than the ones that were used in subsequent centuries (which were not identical to the TR, by the way). In the English-speaking world, people have moved past the exclusive use of the KJV and embraced the popular modern translations, with the exception of a tiny fraction of English-speaking Christians. It's a shame that not everyone can embrace the same modern translation, but that's because we don't have the British monarchy forcing us to use the same version.
If you don't want to contradict your own pro-KJV argument, Dr. Ward is actually trying to help you. He is really trying hard here to reach out with an olive branch without contradicting what he knows and others might not hear. I always learn stuff and enjoy the lesson.
Thank you! Yes!
You hit it on the nail! Exactly!
What exactly are you a doctor of Dr. Ward?
Yeah doc, you hit the white cane on the curb!
As a member of the "fringe," I want to thank you for NOT being offensive or calling me names!
My pleasure! What are your views, then, my friend-in short?
Yeah sucker, as long as your slacking him, what do you believe about the word of God that Dr. Ward can make fun of. Who knows maybe he can just help you out (of what the Holy Spirit convicted you about this Authorized Version of God's book when you were born again).That is if he can find the time with answering God's call to tear down the lifetime ministry of Peter Ruckman now that he has gone on to be with our Saviour the Lord Jesus Christ, and is covienently not able to defend the King James Bible the way he took on all comers when he was alive.
No offence brother, but it's not my habit to thank a viper for not biting me in a place where the poison can't be sucked out and it just sickens me when I run across someone that thin-skinned when you have an inerrant copy of the complete word of God written in the language that you read write and speak along with the promise of the Holy Spirit in your ammo dump while the enemy of God's word has only his own understanding, and a copy of Wescott & Hort.
I don't want you to answer any questions. From my watching 100's of videos, I find Ruckmans preachings on the book accurate. And I have never heard of you.
Great video. Will you produce a printable version of the false friends? That would be extremely helpful. God bless you.
It is my hope to produce a website. But I've not gotten around to this because of the work involved and because I think it is far more important to teach a man how to fish rather than to give him a fish. But I am producing a book, which I hope to finish soon!
@@markwardonwords amen. I am looking forward to your book. If you’re able to create a website with the work you have done that would be something amazing.
"Little children. stay away from idols."
Right. We can all make idols out of so many things, even good things.
Thank you! I especially like your discussion of point 4 (especially from 34:20 onward), on taking Ruckmanism or crypto-Ruckmanism as a matter of faith. I have encountered this position and my objection was the same. Not only do you articulate the problem so well, but also, you are more gracious than me. If one holds a belief about the world that is not actually supported by the world, that's just a regular error of a kind we all make. But if one holds a religious belief about God that is not actually supported either by God's Word or God's World, this is a more grave category of error, and there are several labels that might apply, all of them quite inflammatory.
P.S. Now we also know, Mark Ward has perfect pitch! (Lol, perhaps given the context, we ought to put quibble quotes around the "perfect!")
P.S. I should have listened to the rest before commenting. Wow. 1:01:50. Thanks so much, brother, and praise God! It's a really harsh allegation to make. I have uttered it without due sensitivity and caused strife. That's bad, but, it's helpful to have a mature brother affirm the complaint, even if my delivery was inexcusably poor.
The right to share that Hodge quote was, I hope, earned not only by an hour of argument and direct quotation but by years of (I pray!) love for my KJV-Only brothers! I couldn't have come out saying that on day one. Hodge's quote is savage-but, I think, true. Thankfully, there's a difference between sinning with a high hand and sinning without knowing/understanding/realizing it with clarity. I think that's where most of my KJV-Only brothers and sisters are.
@@markwardonwords amen, brother, You shouldn't have come out saying that on day one, and you didn't. Unlike me! Brother I really thank you and praise the Lord for this work you are doing.
I watched that debate (if we can even call it that) between Nathan and Mitch a while back. I was just dumbfounded at how way off Mitch was in a lot of his argumentation. He talked so much about Baptist history and did a lot of preaching, very little actual defending. The weirdest part was the numerology… or “numerics” as Mitch called it. Relabeling it didn’t help. I didn’t know a whole lot about Ruckman at that time but I know more now, thankfully. Thank you for making this video! Ruckman and others have done so much damage to the church through their wild accusations. And I’ve read enough comments to your videos to know that anytime you discuss this topic - the KJVO side seems to come out of the gates with personal attacks pretty quickly. There isn’t much attempt to legitimately refute you, other than to appeal to the standard talking points.
David w. Daniel's was the one who pulled me deeply into the insanity of kjvo. What helped me to escape was inspiringphilosophy and joel Richardson who debunked the whole Alexander hislope samiramis cultism as parallelmania. This got me to rethink everything chick tracks taught me. Slowly then quickly all the pillars fell for my kjvo insanity, after that was deep sorrow that set in for the harm I caused others by using chick tracts. SDA nonsense also played it's part in harming me too. The amount of people I destroyed my testimony in front of brought me a long deep sadness. I had to go to each one I could reach out too, that had not blocked me and apologized and confronted those that harmed me. I did talk to david I got blocked by him, I confronted him about his endorsements of Alexander hislope. The lord forgave me for all the sins I caused, but now I have to live with the aftermath of my misguided trust. Thank you for this video mark ward, I am glad I apologized to you in your kjv credo video. Now I watch your content a lot, thank you.
I certainly wish I could have apologized to more people, and get unblocked from certain groups online oh well.
All we can do when we sin is confess it and accept the forgiveness Christ guarantees and that others may or may not. May all our errors of various kinds lead us to humility about ourselves and confidence in Christ.
@@markwardonwords thank you Mark ward
I paused the video to check your A against my tuner 😉 I enjoy those little flourishes almost as much as the content itself.
Your sixth point addresses a misconception I run across a lot, though in a softer form. The people I know stop short of claiming the KJV is perfectly word-for-word, but seem to assume it to be more so than other translations. (I would describe many of them as KJV-default more than KJV-only). I recently heard the claim that the KJV's word-for-word accuracy brings out the structure of Hebrew poetry better than modern versions. My initial response, of course, was that plenty of modern translations are just as formal as the KJV. If I'd thought of it at the time, I might also have pointed out that in ar least one way modern versions do a better job with poetry-by formatting it as poetry!
Since I heard Andrew Case's podcast on it, Lamentations 3:33 (comparing KJV and ESV) has become one of my favorite counterexamples to the KJV-is-more-literal assumption. I also have to wonder if we'd see less of this claim if more people actually spoke more than one language and realized how silly the idea of a strict word-for-word translation is anyway. Maybe not-one of the most rabid KJV-onlyists I know personally is at least quadrilingual-but maybe more reasonable people would get it with more experience moving between languages.
I think I hit a B flat. Ah well! ;)
Andrew Case's podcast is the best!
Dr. Ward, have you ever considered updating the KJV preface into contemporary English? Or, at the very least, the relevant sections that would be applicable to the KJV-only debate? I know that is a huge undertaking but I thought I understood the KJV English but a lot of that has to do with growing up in it. I can’t get very far in the preface before I stop and struggle with a certain word or phrase. I understand most but not in a way that I can just pull it up and read a contemporary book.
Just curious and thank you for another excellent video.
He has a video where he did something like this, though he condensed the preface quite a bit.
Yes, M.A. is right. My friend Joshua Barzon also did something like this in his book The Forgotten Preface.
I have tried to use the KJV Preface when talking to KJV onlyists and to be honest it had very little effect on them. As matter of fact less than two weeks ago one KJV onlyists said he had read the entire Preface and he called it, "the insane ramblings of blathering idiots". The cognitive dissonance was strong with this guy.
A Parallel Preface: their English and our English side by side?!
@@johnmcafee6140 Lol. Why trust a translation when they think it was made by insane blathering idiots?
Its been nearly a year since i departed from the KJV-Onky group, i've read a plenthora of translations this year, however there is one thing that still remains for me.
I still have a large cognitive bias to the NIV, because of the amount if times that geoup spent criticising that translation. I have no issues with the CSB, and other translations, but i feel my issue with the NIV is almost subconscious due to the fact that that translation became a punching bag at that group.
I haven't been King James Only for around 15 years, and I still don't care much for the NIV, so it's possible that the translation will never "click" for you, either. The CSB is a solid alternative, and that's perhaps in part because it had the benefit of seeing where people took issue with decisions in the NIV.
@@MAMoreno it's also the Southern Baptist NIV ;)
@36:40
Um actually, the Disciples did NOT write with "jots and tiddles". They wrote in Greek and "jots and tiddles" are from Hebrew.
(This is just a joke for anyone that wants to "Um Actually" me back. 😉)
Mark, you did a great job with this. I had never heard of Ruckmanism, but I have definitely seen it. It is good to see how to sternly, but very graciously, work through it.
Thanks for the kind word!
I agree; Jesus was referring to Hebrew. But Jesus’ promise in Matt 5:18 is commonly used to refer to the preservation of all of Scripture.
Is there even possibly some irony here? Doesn't the text actually say not an iota or a stroke? Isn't that a more literal translation than "not one jot or one tittle"? The ESV and the Vulgate both convey that accurately but the KJV gives the false impression Jesus was referring to writing in the Hebrew language. Side note, it's interesting that "not an iota" became English idiom. How did that happen?
@@russell13904 I my understanding is that it originates in the Arian controversy, where a compromise position said that Christ is of "Similar Substance" homoousia instead of the proper "Same Substance" homoiousia. Hence the difference between heresy and orthodoxy was one of one iota
@@russell13904The Greek text was referring to Hebrew terms but I think they used Greek words to refer to them.
Just saw a Tweet that stating something along the lines of the trustworthiness of Scripture - forget exact words but impression left was decent message, decent tone, innocuous. There was a picture of an old Bible, turned to the page displaying the last page of the OT on the left and the preface of the NT on the right. It was old enough that New was spelled Newe.
What was displayed on the left was the last section of the book of 2 Maccabees.
Three comments: First, I think you yourself observed in another video that Ruckmanism is the only truly consistent form of KJV-onlyism. Any position that doesn't hold that the KJV (leaving aside the question of which KJV) is verbally (re)inspired by God must accept that it's the work of fallible men, translating the work of other fallible men (the TR (again, "which TR?")), and therefore must be open to at least the possibility of errors. And if you accept the *possibility* of errors, then you have to defend the text and the translation on evidence-based grounds, which is (by observation) anathema to KJVO.
Second, have none of these people spent any time with *any* foreign language? I studied German at the high school level, more years ago than I'd care to admit. I wouldn't have considered myself a scholar of the language then (except in the archaic sense of "scholar" as "student"), and I certainly wouldn't today. But even then, it was perfectly obvious that a "perfect" or "exact" translation of any non-trivial document from one language into another is simply impossible. Different languages have different verb tenses (and/or use them differently), different cases, different sentence structures, and different vocabularies--it's famously said that Eskimos have 50 words for "snow." Or in German, they don't distinguish between monkeys and apes (they use Affe for both). Or for a biblical example (which I guess would be more relevant), distinguish among agape, phileo, eros, and storge. Even if you're committed to being as strictly literal as possible, all of these differences mean that interpretation must be done as part of the translation, and where there's interpretation there's room for differences of interpretation.
Third, and I know I've said this before, it's striking how circular the KJVO position is. Even granting their understanding of preservation, why can't it be shown to have happened for over 1500 years after the last autograph was completed? When, they say, God promises to preserve his word through all generations (Ps. 12:6-7, kind of), why did he fail to do so between ~95 AD and 1611 AD? Because there are readings in the KJV that don't exist in any extant ms.
Thanks for your work on this.
excellent comment. Fully agreed.
I am a defender of the KJV and other Bible translations. But after doing research on the Ruckman Bible and I found that Ruckman imposes his view on Scripture that does not support his view based on historical and cultural background. Ruckman has taken Scripture out of context. Many of his notes are racist. The insane part is that many people find him to be %100 correct. Gail Riplinger's book is a book I almost bought and bought into, thank God I did not.
👏 good for you! ❤
I had the unfortunate experience of growing up in his “church”. I went to all the Blowouts, Sunday mornings and nights, Wednesday prayer meetings, summer kids camps, ad nauseam. One of the songs we always sang in Sunday school was about the KJV being THE authorized version with most of the simplistic lyrics: “The King James Authorized Version. The B-I-B-L-E. (Repeat) God wrote it just for me. I read it everyday, I study and I pray (Repeat).”
So as very small children with no concept of anything outside your little world, you’re being force fed (this is what cults do, and I firmly believe that Ruckmans church, “Bible Baptist Church of Pensacola” as well as his school, “Pensacola Bible Institute” or, PBI was most definitely a cult. If you Google “cults” you can tick off all the boxes save for child SA, thankfully, but CA was strongly encouraged. Going to that place for my formative years of 4-14 years old really put me in a bad mental state and at 42 years old there’s still some things I struggle with. Mostly the terrors of The Apocalypse and the Rapture screamed from the pulpit nearly every Sunday. A young child should not be subjected to that. He also taught about “the age of accountability” which, once you know the difference between right and wrong, at around 3 years old, you will go to hell if you died at that age. So you have to get saved at that time. 🤦♀️ the humans that walked the earth prior to Christianity and hearing the word of god also went to hell. 🤷♀️
Thank God you came out of that. I too had to come out of the KJV mindset. I can remember I was in Mississippi during Katrina when I got my first NIV Bible. I read it and I loved it. I also got my NIV Thompson Chain Bible in NIV which I had gotten. Thank God I was delivered from that.
@@charlesratcliff2016 thank god! And Katrina too??!!! Man, you’ve been through it and back! The church was also extremely r*cist and hateful of Catholics and LGBTQ. I remember Ruckman even saying that black folks were not welcome in due to (his fear of) race mixing. We can win their souls but they have to worship somewhere else (of course that church had to have Ruckmans approval but it’s a nonexistent thing in his head) I’m so glad I got out of there. I had friends of different backgrounds and ethnicities who I wasn’t willing to separate from. Why separate yourself from good, loving people just because they’re not the same color/gender/sex/religion as you? Surround yourself with love. It’s sad because you really miss out on life when you limit yourself in hate.
@@charlesratcliff2016 and many, many blessings upon you and your family, sir! 🙏 ❤️
@@triumphantpeanut5726 Thank you
Only about halfway through this. As someone who was raised Lutheran and taught about the Catholic churchs hold on scripture in the form of the vulgate, many of the things that I'm hearing out of Ruckmanism ring a bell.
I think so, too. =|
You have a wonderful way with words, Mr Ward!
Thank you for this.✝️
You are so welcome!
Be careful what you admire - Romans 16:18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
@@joshmccartney777 Mark does not appear to have much of a belly. But more seriously, he also does not match the "they" whose referent and definition is in the prior verse, Romans 16:17.
@@kawika3737 you don’t need a big belly to serve it, and I think he fits in just fine.
So by your logic, a good preacher, let’s say Jesus, John the Baptist & Paul, DOES use fair speeches?
@@joshmccartney777 The belly related sentence was a joke, as I actually made pretty explicit in my prior comment. You may have missed both the humor of the first sentence and the logic of the second sentence. The logic of the second sentence was that Mark does not match "those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned."
First off, thank you for the extremely well put together video and I truly appreciate all the time and effort you put into these. You are always on my watchlist.
I also greatly appreciate your distinction between the fringe KJV only and the more mainstream individuals who, like me, simply have strong preference towards KJV (and TR) as their primary Bible of choice.
I do have one critique though.
I think you make the umbrella of “Ruckmanism” a tad bit too big. Maybe it’s just me, but when I think of “Ruckmanism,” I don’t just think of someone who is staunchly KJV only, but also someone who is being quite a nasty person, using bad tactics, in a fairly ugly way. I picture someone who seeks to besmirch anyone who thinks differently than them. In this video you seem to imply that all people who believe the KJV is ‘the word of God’ are on par with Ruckman. I think that misses that there are plenty of well meaning, lovely people who simply believe that the KJV is special and unique and was shepherded into creation by God at a special time in history.
While I personally don’t consider myself someone who believes the TR and KJV were a ‘second inspiration’ of God and I personally use NKJV often, I do know many people who likely would openly make that claim, but they would make that claim without any of the malice or anger or finger pointing that I think would be needed to qualify as “Ruckmanism.”
To summarize, I greatly appreciate the point you are making, I agree with much, if not most of your ideas and the distinction you are describing. I just think you MAY be painting with a bit of a broad brush with equating so many people 'non-nasty' people to Ruckman. That being said, I do appreciate that you are pointing out the very real distinction that exists with mainstream and the fringe.
If I have implied that all KJV/TR defenders are like Ruckman in tone and style, I repent in dust and ashes! I sincerely did not intend to do this! I *know* this is not true, from very personal experience! And I think I said so, right? I said at the beginning that the mainstream wishes to remain distinct from the fringe, and one of the reasons is Ruckman's hatefulness. I, too, believe that there are plenty of well-meaning, lovely Christians who simply believe that the KJV is special and unique and was shepherded into creation by God at a special time in history. I myself am one such person-though I'd probably define "special" and "unique" differently than most KJV defenders!
Thank you for your measured response, brother! You are not the problem, my friend. Clearly. Your other comments have shown the same.
@@markwardonwords I feel like I have seen enough of your videos and heard enough of your views to know your heart is in a good place on these topics. I know you catch a lot of anger and vitriol, it is assuredly unwarranted and unjust.
My critique is a small one, at least to me. Others may (lets be honest, some will) feel more strongly than I. A large pain I deal with often is distancing myself from the "Ruckmans" while also defending my stances on the TR and CT and the various Bible translations. This video is truly a great one (not just for the various shooting locations either).
I do think though that you got pretty close to lumping together the belief in KJV 'perfection' or "God's inspiration" and the tactics and unchristian demeanor of a person like Ruckman.
I mean no condemnation to your video, just voicing what I believe is a slight critique. Keep doing good work, I will keep watching.
@@ChancyC I hear you gratefully and soberly. Will give consideration to this.
@@ChancyCI don't think he did that. I think his complaints about the character and actions of Ruckman and some others were side points. I think the overall thrust of the video is that, whilst many KJVOists distance themselves in all aspects from Ruckman, they end up nevertheless subscribing to his view of double inspiration. And that view is wrong because it's wrong, not because the man who championed it had all these other flaws. Ad hominem is a poor argument strategy, but, these complaints are not entirely irrelevant. One of the ways we judge the reliability of what anyone says - considering most of us are non-experts - is on their reliability as a person.
@@russell13904 As I said to Mark Ward in other comments, I do not think my critique undermines the overall thrust of this video. I do however think there is a fairly important distinction between those who believe in double inspiration and those who believe in double inspiration AND THEN demonize and insult and overall treat horribly anyone who disagrees with them.
If we lump all who believe in double inspiration (whether you or I think it’s incorrect or not) into the same group and then name that group after the most vile individual who happens to ascribe to that view, we are just acting in a new kind of ‘Ruckman..esk’ kind of way, demonizing people for their views on the Bible.
So my critique was to simply say ‘Ruckmanism’ as a term should really only be used for those individuals who actually engage in vile treatment of people who disagree with them, not a term for all KJVO people who happen to believe in second inspiration or whatever makes them KJVO.
A bit of providence. I have prayed for information on this because a close family member is KJV Only and sounds a bit like Ruckman. Thank you, Brother!
You're so welcome! I do believe that mainstream KJV-Onlyism constantly strays into Ruckmanism-but that they sincerely intend not to.
@@markwardonwords You are wrong. There were Bible believers *BEFORE* Peter Ruckman and there are still Bible believers after he has died. You don't throw the Bible out because Ruckman was off.
Do you reject Jesus Christ because the Catholic cult teaches about Jesus Christ? No. You should just reject Catholicism.
You don't stray from the word of God (King James Bible) because Peter Ruckman had some weird beliefs. You just keep believing the word of God.
The problem with the "Westcott & Hort onlyism" is that when you expose yourself to the corrupted English translations you also begin to accept the weak dogmas of the modern English versions that will indeed lead you back to Rome.
False connection. I am against Ruckman and I am a Bible believer. Yes, I believe the King James Bible is the ONLY pure preserved English Bible for this generation. I can show you *MANY* doctrinal changes in the modern versions. They weaken Christians and set them up for the one world church....
Beware of [people that attack the King James Bible. They are subtil like their daddy that showed up in Genesis 3:1.
@@ColonelEmpire 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. Those texts have had nothing to do with Westcott and Hort. And they translate those texts into fully intelligible contemporary English, which means they meet the principle of 1 Corinthians 14, edification requires intelligibility. I recommend the NKJV and MEV to you.
@@markwardonwords Nice spin. The "Yeah hath God said" oozes off of every comment....
The NKJV has numerous errors and I'll have to look into the errors of the MEV... Most likely the MEV is as corrupt as all modern English translations.
I will stick with the words of God (King James Bible). Thank you for your concern... My concern for you is that you are in a dangerous position deceiving people away from the King James Bible!
God warns us away from corrupted bibles...
Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
There are numerous errors in every modern English translation.... There are no errors in the King James Bible. I hope that helps!
Mark, I am always so impressed by the framing of your shots, the lead lines are so good in this video man. Also the content is fantastic but I can tell you’re a fan of well crafted videos and I deeply appreciate that. Thanks for all your hard work brother.
Thank you! I wish I could do better. It's hard as a one-man crew; today my camera fell off my tripod and I almost had a heart attack. It was a short distance, and it got only a scratch, but I was so scared!
@@markwardonwords Ive had that happen on the gorilla pod so many times, praise God cameras have gotten a little more robust over the years!
@@markwardonwords I totally agree about the composition. One minor helpful criticism would be to do a test shot and check the lighting on yourself. The first shot while beautifully framed is hindered by you being in shadow, because of the position of the sun. It really is quite noticeable because everything else is so bright. Hard to do with a one man setup but worth it if you can find a way to be lit well.
@@FlyFoxPro I'm planning to build a home studio, though I love filming outside when I can. I learn from every mistake I make, which is many! I don't think I had my ND filter on for this shot… One of these years I'm hoping that internal electronic ND makes it down to the TH-camr camera level, so I can afford it. I just don't see myself spending the money for the FX6.
@@markwardonwords. Even though I don’t use the King James Version I have found your content helpful and of a high quality. God bless. :)
I come from a small KJV church. I use it mostly because I am familiar with it. I have heard so many people put down other translations, but I use multiple ones in my studies. I have my own brain, and learned to smile and nod, and go on about my business coming up. I have enjoyed your videos so much. Thank you.
Good! Continue being humble. Don't make an issue out of it. But don't let your own conscience be burdened with untruths.
Another argument against 'English correcting the Hebrew' : the poetry of the Hebrew Bible is metrical. METRICAL! (I'm a comparative musicologist of biblical recitation and am part of SBL's Masoretic Studies unit. This is a breaking discovery, so it's not one that you'll hear about anywhere else, (except for Jerome's introduction to the Book of Job, in which he described the Hebrew Bible's metre), until well after I publish next year with Yale and Cambridge who've invited me to write papers.)
I, however, grew up in a KJV-only church.
I have heard this. Have you thought about any ways the meter could be brought out to people who don't know Hebrew? It would be such a blessing for many, for God's glory. (Learning Hebrew is on my to-do list but I'm not getting any younger!)
@@russell13904 Yes, but TH-cam deleted my reply as spam. Come ask me on my channel, and I'll share examples.
Wow! Yes, an excellent argument! I totally get this. How can any translation improve upon the literary devices that are present in the Hebrew and Greek and either untranslatable or very difficult to translate. Even our most dedicated translator of Hebrew literary devices into English, Robert Alter, admitted that it's impossible to bring it all across.
@@markwardonwords Yes, when I want to make an English adaptation of a Biblical Hebrew song, I always check with Alter to scope out options for capturing some or hopefully most of the brevity and beat of the original. But I have to switch words around, order wise, to respect the prosody of the Hebrew. But even then, it's almost always a lost cause to recoger the Rhyming and Assonance of the Hebrew.
"Yōbad yōwm
iwāled bō,
we ha lāyla amār
hōra djabār."
-Job 3, opening line to his lament
Mark, how can I get a chart or print out of the 10 TR versions?
I’m not sure what you’re referring to. I made this video a while ago! Remind me?
At 28' 17" into the video, there is a picture of the 10 TR versions. Is that available in chart form or poster form?@@markwardonwords
Thank you, Mark. I’m grateful for your excellent work and humble accompanying spirit.
Thank you, Roland! Pray for me!
@@markwardonwords Will do. I believe this to be a crucial and historically significant endeavor for the sake of the Gospel. People must be able to understand God's Word in their own tongue.
When I was in a KJVO church my pastor really liked Ruckman. Looking forward to seeing this!
well Ruckman is ok... but have you ever heard the saying "don't throw the baby out with the bath water"?.. same is true here.. you can toss Ruckman if you'd like..
just cuz Ruckman is a little off doesn't mean the KJV is Not sound... but Ruckman is No more off than those like Mark Ward.. in videos like these..
Unfortunately, my first exposure to KJBOs was to the Ruckmanite fringe, with whom I debated for far too many hours and with no fruit produced. I was never derided and called more hurtful and judgmental things as a fellow believer than by these people. In my 40 years as a believer I never realized that I was a “Bible doubter” and “Alexandrian Cultist.” It’s still difficult not to view them with animosity.
I am in a similar situation however I still attend that particular Church and they will talk about you "behind your back" rite in front of you (if that makes sense) by making comments on people that use other translations and just other translations themselves in general knowing that I am one of "those people", lol
@SEL-sg8rl your words from about 5 months back...
"Unfortunately, my first exposure to KJBOs was to the Ruckmanite fringe, with whom I debated for far too many hours and with no fruit produced. I was never derided and called more hurtful and judgmental things as a fellow believer than by these people. In my 40 years as a believer I never realized that I was a “Bible doubter” and “Alexandrian Cultist.” It’s still difficult not to view them with animosity."
did you ever wonder if maybe they had a reason for calling you a "bible doubter"?.. I would never call a fellow Christian names such as this.. even if they didn't contain curse words.. cuz I realize words can be hurtful.... but from my own experience with the KJV translation.. excluding Ruckman and all others... I have grown leaps and bounds in the Faith.. and my walk with God has increased 10 fold thru using the KJV...
other translations such as the ESV NASB NKJV.. NIV.. just don't get me to love or appreciate God as much..
I am sorry your experience is Not the same.. God bless...
@@jeffcarlson3269 I appreciate that, but this all quite subjective. I became a believer in the early 80's and used the NIV exclusively for over 20 years. I too, grew "leaps and bounds" over the years, especially early on. I poured over the scriptures (NIV), studied, memorized dozens of verses and even whole books, meditated etc. My love for the Lord was and is because He first loved me. I didn't even realize there was controversy surrounding Bible translations until the late 90's when the internet became a thing and I discovered other Christians were out there fighting over this. The internet made those pockets of Christian camps infinitely more visible and accessible.
At any rate, my love for God will never be determined by the use of a particular Bible translation. I read through many different ones (ESV, NKJV, NASB, CSB, NLT, LSB). The ESV is my primary nowadays. I have an aversion to the KJV now, and it's because of the sour association it brings from having wrestled so fruitlessly with certain Christian camps who treat it like a fourth member of the Trinity, and who've treated me so Pharisaically like a second rate Christian. How ironic that they've actually pushed me further away from ever wanting to read the KJV.
So this brings a question, is the sentence structure and word order of the kjv identically twinned by those of the greek and/or Hebrew? What is the EXACT word order the languges of them?
If understand God the Word of him important not was, than latin remain the words and English speak I yet .
In Hebrew, it's usually verb subject object I believe. Like, "In the beginning, created He God the heavens and the earth." Also, if you literally translated it, you would have a lot more "he's" "and's" and "the's" because of how Hebrew is written. To get everything to agree, you add prefixes and suffixes that would make the English really clunky.
I'm currently looking at Ruckman's booklet "About the New King James Version." Its arguments don't seem to get any deeper than, "Hey, the NKJV uses the same word that the RSV used here, and the RSV is made by evil liberals from the Alexandrian cult, so the NKJV is Alexandrian!" Never mind that the things he complains about aren't the result of readings from the Alexandrian text-type.
His first example is Job 1.1. The NKJV replaces the KJV's "perfect" with "blameless," just as the RSV did. He doesn't explain why "blameless" is a bad translation, but he lets you know that the National Council of Churches is the source of this, uh, corruption. (He proceeds to accuse the NCC of being Communists at random intervals throughout his list.) Another example is Job 3.8, where he insists that "Leviathan" (the NKJV's reading against the KJV's "their mourning") "is not found in any edition of the AV," which just tells me that he didn't bother to check the KJV's original marginal notes.
It goes on and on like this, never making an actual point (except for insisting that the NKJV's change from "formed the crooked serpent" to "pierced the fleeing serpent" in Job 26.13 somehow means that the translators didn't think that God created Satan). He then goes on to say that the NKJV "also contains scores of Westcott and Hort Alexandrian readings," and he gives quotes from Proverbs--not from the New Testament--as evidence! He does eventually get to the New Testament, where he suggests that the NKJV has followed the Alexandrian text in saying "means of gain" instead of "gain," but the Greek texts do not differ at that spot in the verse. It's all a mess.
It’s exhausting. :(
1. Dr. Ward, I'm a-thankin' you kindly for your lengthy and most informative video that involved a great deal of time and preparation. Truly as shown, you are a man for all seasons.
2. Anecdote: Many years ago, in fact over four decades ago, a young Baptist fellow told me the story of a seasoned churchgoer who, upon hearing about all of the new translations of the Inspired Word of God, exclaimed "Well, if the King James Bible was good enough for St. Paul, then it's good enough for me."
3. I have a question regarding your point #5 at 37:23-31 where you make this request of the King James Version Only brethren, "Publicly acknowledge an error in the KJV, or at least a place where you would have translated differently." My request of you is regarding the conjunction of the sentence's first clause in St. Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians, Chapter 11, Verse 27. In the English translation examples below, the sentence's first clause conjunction is capitalized:
A. Wycliffe's Bible, c. 1382-95: "Therfor who euere etith the breed, OR drynkith the cuppe of the Lord vnworthili, he schal be gilti of the bodi and of the blood of the Lord."
B. 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." 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."
C. The Great Bible, 1539 (first authorized edition of the Bible in English, authorized by King Henry VIII and prepared by Miles Coverdale): "Wherfore, whosoeuer, shall eate of this bread, OR dryncke of the cup of the Lorde vnworthely, shalbe gyltye of the body and bloud of the Lorde."
D. The Geneva Bible, 1560: "Wherefore, whosoeuer shall eate this bread, AND drinke the cup of the Lord vnworthily, shall be guiltie of the body and blood of the Lord."
E. 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."
F. The New King James Bible (NKJV), 1982 :"Therefore whoever eats this bread OR drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord."
4. On Bible Hub's Greek text analysis page is the following pertaining to the conjunction in the sentence's first clause of 1 Corinthians 11:27:
Strong's = 2228E; Greek = ἢ (ē); English = 'OR'; Morphology = Conj.
5. On the Bible Hub's page of parallel Greek New Testament versions for 1 Corinthians 11:27 that include, chronologically, (A) Stephanus Textus Receptus of 1550; (B) Beza Greek New Testament of 1598; (C) Tischendorf 8th edition of 1872; (D) Westcott and Hort of 1881; (E) Scrivenor's Textus Receptus of 1894; (F) Nestle Greek New Testament of 1904; (G) Greek Orthodox Church of 1904; (H) RP Byzantine Majority Text of 2005; (I) SBL Greek New Testament of 2010; and (J) Berean Greek New Testament of 2016, of these ten Greek versions, all ten have ἢ (ē), translated into English as 'OR' as the conjunction in the sentence's first clause of this verse.
6. Therefore I humbly beseech thee, Doctor Ward:
- Since -
A. Of the six English versions of 1 Corinthians 11:27 listed chronologically in Nos. 3 A-F above, only two have the conjunction 'AND' in the sentence's first clause of the verse, that of (D) the 1560 Geneva Bible and (E) the 1611 King James Version,
- and -
B. Of the ten Greek texts for 1 Corinthians 11:27 listed on Bible Hub in Nos. 5 A-J above, all have ἢ (ē), translated into English as 'OR' as the conjunction in the sentence's first clause of the verse,
- then -
C. Are there any ancient Greek manuscripts of 1 Corinthians 11:27 known in existence that have καὶ (kai) translated as 'AND' as the conjunction in the sentence's first clause of this verse?
7. If, Dr. Ward, in any manner of this inquiry, I have offended thy sacred Bob Jones University majesty or perchance that of anyone in the most gracious KJV Only or KJV Preferred community, then may God, in His great mercy and goodness, grant me recourse to Job 42:6 (KJV): "Wherefore, I abhor myself and repent in dust and ashes."
Boy, this has some potential. But… there are two other places (Mark 6:11 and 1 Pet 1:18) where the KJV renders ἢ with "and." And there are four places where the ESV does this (Mk 3:33; Ro 4:13; 2 Co 1:13; Col 2:16)-and ten (that I won't list) where the NIV does it. I really do think that we're probably dealing with the demands of natural English style. I like this, though, because it complicates the narrative in which the KJV is perfectly literal. It isn't. No good translation is.
Excellent homework!
1. Dr. Ward, I'm a thankin' you for your gracious response with all that good information you provided.
2. However, what's really tickling my innards is whether or not there are any ancient Greek manuscripts that support the use of 'kai' (YES in English) specifically as the conjunction in the first clause of 1 Corinthians 11:27.
3. I recently exchanged comments with a pastor who several months ago was relieved of his duties because his church elders did not consider him sufficiently KJV Only. He has now become KJV Preferred and, in effect, has unofficially joined in your greater cause for biblical translation openness. When I asked this question of him, he could not discover anywhere in the ancient manuscripts that he gleaned through the use of 'kai' (YES) as the conjunction for the first clause in 1 Corinthians 11:27.
4. Therefore, it was then that I decided to ask of you this question due to your (A) academic pedigree, (B) concern about the KJV issue and (C) search for the truth as the bottom line.
5. Please don't feel under any pressure to further respond, but I can only ask myself, "Where in tarnation did the 1560 Geneva translators and the 1611 King James translators come up with substituting 'AND' for 'OR" as the conjunction in the first clause of 1 Corinthians 11:27?" Miles Coverdale worked on both (A) the 1539 Great Bible authorized by King Henry VIII that has "OR" for the first clause conjunction and (B) the 1560 Geneva Bible translated under the authority of John Calvin that has "AND" as the first clause conjunction. So I'm a-wonderin', after all those miles he covered travelin' from England to Geneva, was Miles Coverdale tryin' to cover his tail or what?
6. I reckon this question may well remain a mystery, but since I aspire to join the company of the first clause of 1 Corinthians 4:10, then if being one of the "fools for Christ's sake" (KJV) was good enough for St. Paul, then that's good enough for me.
7. As they say in the south country, "God go with you."
@@annakimborahpa I totally forgot to answer that all-important question. I *did* look in the NA28, and I see no evidence that any manuscripts have και (kai; "and") there.
You have a unique comment style. ;) I hope I answered all your questions! The thing is, we probably can't achieve certainty on whether the KJV committed an error here. I'm leaning strongly toward no. I think the answer is probably not recoverable. It would require knowing the internal mental state(s) of whoever did that work.
1. "I did look in the NA28, and I see no evidence that any manuscripts have και (kai; "and") there."
Response: I'm a-offerin' you my grateful thanks for yer research into this matter. Please accept my apologies for not responding sooner because 'Ol' Blackie', my 1998 Oldsmobile Cutlass, was givin' me some trouble today and the old girl needed some lovin' attention.
2. "You have a unique comment style."
Response: Well, there's a sayin' where I come from that goes like this: "We like to put vinegar on our greens 'cause it gives 'em flayvor.
3. - Since -
A. It appears to be 99.9% 'definito' that there are no ancient Greek manuscripts with και as the conjunction in the first clause of 1 Corinthians 11:27,
- and -
B. Miles Coverdale worked on both (1) the 1539 Great Bible with 'OR' as the first clause and (2) the 1560 Geneva Bible with 'AND' as the first clause conjunction,
- then -
C. I figure them Geneva fellers under Johnny Calvin, followed by 'all the king's men' some sixty years later under James I, knew exactly what they were a-doin':
(1) 'Cause when yer livin' in a Genevan theocracy ruled by Calvin, then yer gonna get the whole cow, tongue included. The Geneva Bible WAS the dominant English bible in the last half of the 16th century and even influenced that crypto-Catholic Birdman of Avon, Billy-boy Shakespeare.
(2) But, and that's a big but, in the early 17th century, Jamey-boy #1 put his foot down and got rid of all them republican-minded commentaries and footnotes accompanying the sacred text, because after sniffin' out and smellin' 'em, his royal bulldog instincts knew dead on that they were gonna undermine his monarchy and his mitred boys' episcopacy. And sure 'nuf, two times later in the 17th century, dead Johnny Calvin's English Puritans would rev up their revolutions against the monarchy. But there's somethin' about them British folk that just cain't give up on King nor Queeny, God bless 'em.
4. If you like, I could go further into a probable rationale for why the conjunction 'AND' was used in the first clause of the Geneva's and the KJV's 1 Corinthians 11:27. It would involve exegesis and/or eisogesis, but hopefully not any witchcraft of hexagesis or the violence of ISIS-gesis. But only upon your request.
5. Filet-mignon on with the Lord, you ol' philologist, 'cause it's suppertime.
Thanks Mark. You mentioned Mitch Canup. I don't recall hearing his name since the late 70's when we first met. He was an acquaintance of a friend of mine. The few minutes we talked, all I heard was about Peter Ruckman. I'd never heard of Ruckman until then. This was in North Carolina. I think I remember him saying that he attended New Testament Independent Baptist Church. 🤔
Mitch has really gone off the deep end. =(
Kind of sad, Dr Ruckman has some great observations and commentary, but man there's just so much on the opposite end too. I love this video, I love the KJV, it is clearly beautiful. But so are others. Your channel has helped me a lot, i study with three bibles typically, LSB (or NASB95, KJV and CSB (thanks to Frisch Perspective, before him it was NLT). A pastor once told me bible translations are like a mechanic's toolbox, each one has a purpose. NLT or CSB for outreach to unschooled unchurched people, or even relaxed reading. My first trip through the OT was the CSB, made it so much easier! Have you checked out the LSB?
My small amount of reading in the LSB yields a positive assessment. It's not much different than the NASB 95.
i use the Reina Valera 1960 and the 1995 translation its from Beza but we get an update every so often oraund every 40 years in 1569 when casiodoro de reina transelated it first then cipriano de valera in 1602 revised it then there was another update in 1862 after that in 1909 we got another revision after that we have the 1995 there was an update in 2000 and there is another update in 2020 so there is no archaic language and i use the niv the esv the nkjvthe hcsb and i have 20 plus translations on my tablet so i am on booth camps thank you Mark
How different is the present edition from the 1569?
@@yahrescues8993 well it is in spanish and its like it was another language i can harly understand it its similar to the kjv a lot of dead words and false friends good thing we do mot have reina valera onlyest if we did no one would understand the bible
@@julioalvarengamartinez8829 thanks, I was curious as to how similar it was to the KJV, and how different the updates in Spanish were
@@yahrescues8993 they booth are based on the textus receptus so its the same textual base but in spanish we have updates every 40 or so years
I would like to know how you came to the conclusion that the original autographs were inspired? Also, I would like to know if the word "scripture" in the Bible refers to the original autographs only, or it applies equally to copies and even translations. Thank you.
I'm a Christian; I believe that God inspired the books of the Bible. I don't think the word "Scripture" refers to the original autographs only; it applies to all good copies and to all good translations. What I oppose is proclaiming that God has anointed one and only one translation as perfect and inspired.
@@markwardonwords Thank you for answering my question. If I may follow up your answer with some questions to clarify, what do you consider good copies and good translations? Is God involved in the process of producing good translations? Who determines what a good translation is? Has God delegated that role to someone? If you have your list of good translations, then why do you have a problem with other Christians having their list? The KJVO argument is exactly that, their list consists of only one translation. Who is the judge?
@@PerSon-b8e As in many areas of life that Scripture does not directly and explicitly address, we are left to our scripturally informed consciences and our observations of the way God's world works. As in many areas of our life that Scripture does not directly and explicitly address, we tend to develop traditions and institutions that, working together, pool trustworthy knowledge and therefore authority. As I like to say, this is the way God made the world: if you can't read Greek or Hebrew, you have to trust someone else to translate them for you. God is the ultimate judge, but he has not chosen to communicate to us which translations are good and which are bad. He hasn't given us ecclesiastical authorities beyond the local church level to make this determination. One of the few explicit things God has said regarding this issue is that edification requires intelligibility, 1 Cor 14. So I've worked hard to apply the truth of that passage to the KJV debate.
@@markwardonwords Thank you for answering my questions and clarifying your position. Based on your answer, is it fair to say that the issue of which Bible(s) is an issue of faith? Since we don't have the originals and since there's not only one copy (manuscript) of the scriptures, and the resulting Greek texts do have differences, than, one is left to exercise faith on what to do? Some choose to trust their language abilities or others to do it for them, others choose to trust that God is involved in the process of preservation. It appears that you choose to take the former position, which is fine, you have the liberty to do that, but I think what you must acknowledge that your position is weaker than those who choose to trust that it is not unbecoming of God or His character to preserve His words in a word-perfect translation. The argument of intelligibility is presumptuous and very subpar to the main issue. Yes, it stands as an argument from a practical standpoint given the decline of the education system in America, but if that is your strongest objection to KJVO, then you are left with a very weak argument against the other side's argument of final authority and God's role in the process of preserving His words for us.
@@markwardonwords Any idea why my last comment was deleted?
This is the explanatory note on Luke 10:18 from my Ruckman Reference Bible:
Notice two coincidences about "Satan" in this verse. First, there are thirteen words in verse eighteen, which number is six times three (see Rev. 13:18; App. 37). Second, "Satan" is connected with "lightning," and "lightning" is a form of electricity (see App. 89). Electricity operates as an electro-magnetic forcefield, and Satan is "the God of forces" (Dan. 11:38). So the "god" of modern science is the Devil.
🤣🤣🤣
Sigh. It's Bible code reasoning.
I went to one of the Christian book stores a few months ago and they had so many Ruckman bibles and books.
Sad. He’s vile. :(
Thank you for another informative video. You should write a book “ why the NASB,NIV,CSB and the ESV are not satans bible. I am glad you started the “ false freinds” you have been a big inspiration after I left my KJV only group. Thank you for inspiring me still to study the “WORD” and grow in knowledge of Christ!!
Thank you; I am glad to hear this! Growing in your knowledge of Christ is the goal!
I disagree in many ways with James White, but I have given away several copies of his "King James Only Controversy" book. It is thoughtful, gracious yet truthful, patient, and thorough. Though it was written in 95, before CSB or ESV were published, it is still worth reading, and fairly illustrates many sides of this debate.
The NIV had 2 open and self professed sodomites on the translation committee. Virginia Mollencott & Martin Woudstra. The NIV is one of Satan's master pieces....
My, question has nothing to do with this video. I am wondering when you did your 6 videos on The Best Bible Translation; why you did not go further and review the: ASV, RSV, NRSV, CEB, MEV, NAB and the Douay-Rhiems translations ? It seems that you focused on translations used most often by Evangelical Churches and did not look at translations used by Mainline Churches. Was there a reason for this? I and hopefully others would be very interested in getting your take on these other translations.
I forgot to ask you about the NLT, NET, NEB, and NJB are these translations ones you would be willing to give commentary on as well?
Thank you, Eugene
I’m an evangelical. I’ve read evangelical translations for the last 20 years. I’ve briefly checked mainline ones on a number of occasions (especially the CEB, I’d say), but I haven’t taken an adequate sample size: I can’t render a fair judgment. The NLT and NET, however, are on my list to do videos for! I’ve read a fair bit of the ASV, sort of, in Bibliotheca, too. And checked Catholic translations at specific spots.
@@markwardonwords, thank you for your reply. I look forward to more of your reviews on Bible translations. Myself being a recent convert to Orthodox Christianity from Mormonism have been at times overwhelmed by the number of different translations and formats available. I am learning the extreme value in reading the various translations in a study Bible format. It is wonderful to learn that all Christian’s really share so much in common. It is really to bad that small differences in thought seem to keep us all so separated. But as I have been told division is one of the Devils greatest tools. Anyhow good luck with your work and a Happy New Year to you and yours. May God bless and protect you.
I agree: division is a great tool of Satan. That's why it's one of the things the Lord hates (Prov 6:16ff.) and one of the works of the flesh (Gal 5:19ff.). But then the Bible calls for "division"-separation, rather-over false doctrine (Gal 1:8; 2 Thess 3:6, 14). So I'm looking to obey both. But I do definitely feel that division over Bible translations is particularly unfortunate, because it is almost always-almost by necessity-perpetrated by people who don't know Greek and Hebrew well among people who know these languages not at all. =( It seems so easy to destroy people's trust in a good thing, so hard to build it up. Almost I'm persuaded to stick with the KJV for that reason!
Here's what I expect from mainline and orthodox translations: the occasional, minor rendering that I could probably see a little denominational/theological bias in-just like evangelical translations. It's just that I am an evangelical, so I think the bias is correct. =) But, overall, I think a Martian coming from outside our disputes wouldn't be able to connect any given major mainline or evangelical translation to any particular theology. I expect, overall, that all major translations are done responsibly. Even the NRSVue, which I have criticized on this channel, is almost certainly mostly excellent.
@@markwardonwords, Thank you for your response. I understand the Bible passages you quoted about division over false teachings and doctrines. However, if I may point out the Gospels and Epistles also emphasize the need for unity and forgiveness towards one another in far to many places to list here.
I honestly feel if we begin to focus more on what we share in common and less on what divides us; we will make far greater strides towards church unity. We are all bothers and sisters in Christ. We may not always agree on what that exactly means. However, we have to look towards that common belief in Christ as the way forward.
Someday maybe we can all learn to set aside our own needs that work to keep us divided. And than we can work towards a healthier stronger unified Christian Church.
May God bless you and yours.
Eugene,
Thanks for this video Mark. I don't know any Ruckmanites or KJV only folks currently, but this video definitely will be referenced again if I meet any :-).
An old friend of mine believes the KJV to be perfect and inspired, but thankfully he isn't a Ruckmanite. His brother-in-law, he held the same KJV views, was shocked when I shared and agreed with him that the KJV is a great Bible. He thought I was anti-KJV, though I'm not sure what I said that might have given him that idea. I probably said something about the antiquated language of the KJV and it was misconstrued as being totally against it. I do believe they got it wrong when they translated pascha into Easter when in every other case they translated it into Passover.
Speaking of Greek. Other than Thayer's can you recommend any reasonably priced Greek dictionaries/lexicons for a believer who is pretty much illiterate regarding Koine Greek? I'd like to find some newer editions that reflect more up to date definitions.
I’ve just begun recommending semanticdictionary.org.
Yes, I have been told many, many times that I hate the KJV because I mention its archaisms.
@@markwardonwords
I don't necessarily think you Hate the KJV... but I think you should make it plainer.. that just because there are a few crackpots out there who like the KJV... doesn't mean the KJV is Not reliable or sound...
adding phrases like "don't throw out the baby with the bath water".. would go a long way in solidifying any anti KJV vibes coming across in your videos...
maybe you could make a video explaining the false beliefs of the KJV believers such as Ruckman, Dakes, Scofield Falwell Spurgeon, Calvin, and others and point out how... their false beliefs caused a damning blot on the KJV image...?..
or at least point out these individual's faults.. while still touting the GOOD things they brought forth...that way it would not appear as if you had an axe to grind against these men...
I might have an axe to grind against Farstad... myself.. but that is another story.. regarding how I feel about the NKJV..
The only way to avoid Ruckmanism is to follow the words of PSR when he said don’t act like me when you leave PBI.
My opinion about Riplinger's book, is that she works for the red image on the front cover to knowingly dissimulate, distort, confuse and confound the truth of God's word including the NT sources we have come to know and love. I would never have that book in my house which has a depiction of a devil on the front!
I honestly think she's just crazy. The image on the cover looks goofy and if I didn't know better I'd think it was a parody.
I"m King James Only ) when I study my Bible I look for GoD to correct my life ) not me to Correct my Lord and Saviour. Jesus Christ )
What are your thoughts on KJVF people? (King James Version First). They take kjv as first solid foundation then usual jump to NASB95.
I was such an one for a number of years. It's not a bad approach at all!
Excellent video, Mark! We told you that we’re not afraid of long videos and you listened! 😁 I thoroughly enjoyed listening and the information is super helpful. My heart just broke when Matthew Hanke berated the idea that a child would require a Bible that they can understand. What a horrible thing to say. I can’t imagine how awful any children hearing that would have felt, since they no doubt would be thinking about how much they struggle with the KJV. They’d feel so inadequate and wonder why God would care about their understanding so little. I want my children to understand the Bible so that they can love and obey God! Even if I have to read them a translation that isn’t my preferred daily reader, so be it! I prefer the ESV but I normally read the CSB, NIV, or even the NLT to them (they’re 3 and 2 so words like “behold” are even going to be difficult for them!)
Reading one chapter together at bedtime is how my youngest completed her first complete reading of her own Bible. I used the NLT as a"beginner Bible" for her only to discover I actually realized it was ideal as a Bible to share with seekers and unbelievers. Eventually I got myself a NLT study bible which I finally admitted I love, for it communicates well to me. She now uses her ESV most.
Not if they are accustomed to it from early exposure. And it is so much easier to commit to memory because of the lyrical framing. I learned it early on and still remember the verses learned in my childhood.
Not hard to understand. Give your kids some credit for having brains. If you start them out on it, the language becomes second nature, and it is very easy to memorize because of the poetic structure.
I guess I did not have brains as a kid, or as an adult-and I guess I still do not have them. Because I still learn just about every month archaic KJV words I didn’t realize I was misunderstanding. :(
@@markwardonwords you told me that the KJV was an excellent translation, so I don't understand why you are attempting to undermine it by casting doubt upon it. If you, in all your knowledge, know enough about these archaic words to instruct others ,surely you should be something of an expert. Why write about something that is still a mystery to you? By putting your ideas and your interpretations out there, you may be inhibiting the work of the Holy Spirit. He will reveal the Word to a searching heart on the level of understanding of which it is capable. How can you be sure that you alone have the last word on what the translators of the KJV intended to convey? By dumbing down the scriptures in to more "understandable" words, you could be thwarting the work of the Holy Spirit in working with people on a personal level. I don't have anything against Bible Story books for children, where a story is told in simple form, but it is different to give a child a bible from a possibly corrupt translation just because it is easy to read, and abdicate your responsibility to teach them God's Word and supervise their study of it.
Sir I’d like to ask you 2 questions, and I’d appreciate it greatly if you’d oblige me in answering them:
First, did Jesus Christ come in the flesh?
And Second, if a man admits he’s a sinner, believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who died on the cross, and whose blood was shed for his sins, and that he rose again, and confesses Jesus Christ is Lord, and trusts only the blood of Jesus for his salvation, and nothing else - is that man saved and going to heaven, or is he going to hell?
Thank you.
I take standard Reformation Protestant views on these questions.
@@markwardonwords All due respect, those questions were asked to you directly. If Jesus asked you those questions, would you refer him to someone else to get the answers?
Forgive me: I misunderstood. Yes, and heaven!
@@markwardonwords Amen, Jesus is Lord.
Amen!
We need both faith and reason when translating
Right!
You need God called and Holy Spirit filled men of God when translating the Bible. Then you also need the *correct* Manuscripts. The Alexandrian texts are corrupt... The evidence of that are the modern English bibles that weaken major Bible doctrines.
Perhaps your best video to date, Mark. But tell me, what do you mean when you say you were "adjacent to King James onlyism"? Thank you.
I lived in BJU circles-I still do. Tons of friendships there. I love Bob Jones University. While I was there, especially in undergrad, we were one sliver over from KJV-Onlyism on the spectrum of American evangelicalism. We weren't them, but we had a lot of friendships and historic ties with them. We both came out of the fundamentalist movement of the 20s and then the fundamentalist-evangelical split of the late 50s.
@@markwardonwords Ah, I see. Glad you were able to keep your sanity!
Great job…thank you for the hard work.
One additional comment…being in the military my family and I have moved to several different locations. Wanting to give our kids a Christian education has put us in the circles of believers that are KJVO. This is challenging for my wife and I, but mostly for my kids. I really hope and pray your work spreads and helps our brethren, including me, better understand this issue. For example, one teacher suggested they would “kick the NIV across the floor.” This is frustrating.
I totally get this. I have friends in this situation. If I were in that situation, I would prefer worshiping with confused and ignorant believers over nothing. But I really, really feel for those in this situation. =( May God give you wisdom!
FWIW, I went to a KJV-Only Christian school and had a very good experience. I heard from one of my old teachers just two days ago. A man I still love and respect.
But @Mark Ward, is it possible to worship with a church but reject their strongly-held position on a topic like this? How can you serve or engage in fellowship with such a conflict looming?
(I ask these questions genuinely, and since I'm here under my real name l must point out the teachers in my life are nowhere near as outrageous as to kick a Bible across the floor. I'm praying for 'M' and his family and that church.)
@@russell13904 I can tell you that I left a church because of this issue. I could not in good conscience switch over to using the KJV for my Sunday School lessons when I knew it was in service of a false doctrine. (And to clarify, I don't consider the TR-Only position to be a false teaching unless it dips into conspiracy theories. If absolutely necessary, I can teach from an NKJV with a clear conscience, even if I regard the underlying Greek text as less reliable than the Nestle-Aland text. It's specifically the KJV-Only position that necessitated a break in fellowship.)
@@russell13904 Hi. Just to clarify, this was a statement that a teacher/brother in Christ made at one of the Schools that my children previously attended. He was trying to make a point that other translations like the NIV are not God’s Word. His suggestion/point stuck with me and to be honest, if a translation other than the KJV is not the Word of God why not treat like any other book you may find lying on the ground? I hope it’s obvious that I do not share this reasoning, but what a person thinks about other translations will directly impact their use of it…I think. Apologies if I was not clear.
@@user-pe7uv8pb8q no no, I'm sorry if it seemed like I misunderstood or contradicted you! The written medium is terrible for misunderstanding sometimes. Brother, I thank you for your service and I'll be praying for you all.
The inferred connection of Ruckman to PCC was a little much. Geographic proximity doesn’t necessitate agreement with beliefs.
Aside from that I really appreciate your heart in this! As a KJV user I feel the tension you point out.
Oh no-I see why you'd think that. But I did *not* intend to infer a connection. Quite the opposite: I see a clear distinction! I just visited PCC and talked with almost all their Bible faculty. They are NOT Ruckmanites. I can see, however, how the way I put it might have been understood that way. Take this as an affirmation of what I really meant!
I used to have Ruckmans commentary set, the whole set. What a waste of money and commentary. This was when I was a Ruckmanite. I thank the Lord I came out of that garbage of that IFB ilk. Next was flatly leaving the IFB for good and the KJVO position. Now I am thankfully preaching and teaching from the ESV.
Would you be willing to donate that commentary?
@@AVvisalia Sorry, it went into the garbage.
Very encouraging, I know so many people who I care about in the Philippines who have been deceived into believing these doctrines. I'm praying they will get out of this cult. It's a shame that we as Americans export such terrible doctrine.
If you are serious about helping the KJVOs, I think you need to also address their legitimate complaints with textual criticism, original languages, and proliferation of translations. They might not be right on these issues, or not entirely right, but they do have strong, reasonable arguments that resonate with people who are not Ruckmanites and never will be. From their perspective, the modern translation side of the debate also commit serious infractions against the authority of Scripture, for instance, using "in the Greek..." or "this unfortunate translation..." to lazily smuggle in an idiosyncratic interpretation that could just as easily been accomplished with an English thesaurus. If KJV believers need to call out the extreme fringe of their camp, textual critics need to be more willing to do the same in their own midst.
I’m mostly with you. There is wisdom here. Will give some thought here.
Dr. Ruckman has been my Bible teacher since 1995, and I consider him one of the greatest Bible teachers of the 20th century. But I was King James ONLY before I ever heard the name of Peter Ruckman. As far as this silly video goes, anytime you want to debate these topics, with me, just reach out and let me know. I will be happy to throw down with you and your ESV.
So your hero is a vile racist, a pro-abolitionist and an extremely hateful man. Good for you. 👎
I'd like to see this
Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that one would have to be KJV-preferred to avoid Ruckmanism: KJVO = Ruckmanism.
I have been told for many years by many, many people who insist on the exclusive use of the KJV that they are NOT Ruckmanites and reject Ruckman’s “double inspiration” view. They insist that there is space between Ruckmanism and the mainstream view (the one I hold) in which you can believe that it’s “the Textus Receptus” that is perfect and can believe that the KJV is merely the best translation of the Textus Receptus. This is the group I’m talking to in this video.
Excellent, as always. Thank you for your hard work.
My pleasure!
I feel bad for you at the Judgement Seat of Christ one day deceiving many.
Love your enemies. Pray for them. Pray for me.
Where do non-English speakers find their perfect Bible translations - or is this a privilege given only to those who speak, read and understand A.D. 1600 era English?
This is a question rarely addressed in any detail by KJV/TR defenders. I cannot think of a place, in fact, where they have done so. Ruckman, to his credit, did list a number of foreign translations he supported. He did not say that people needed to learn English, not to my knowledge. This is the view of most knowledgeable KJV/TR defenders, in my experience: as long as the NT is TR-based, it's good. But a question I've never gotten an answer to: what about the times when the TRs underlying various translations differ? The TR used by the KJV translators does not perfectly match that of any other TR ever used. How could it when it used two major TR editions and several minor ones, as I showed in that quote from Scrivener?
OH MY WORD! I’ve been wanting to do this work myself! You are a top commenter!🥇 I am indebted to you! Oh boy oh boy!!
I have occasionally had KJV-Onlyists suggest a foreign language "equivalent" to the KJV, which gives me the opportunity to go through those "equivalants" to reveal to them readings present that they condemn in the modern Bible translations. It's a great "gotcha" the few times it happens.
Has God historically made a point of having His words available in all languages or even in the most common language of the day?
On the contrary - Deuteronomy 7:7 (KJV)
The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye [were] the fewest of all people:
I have a question. In the 1611 KJV, 1st Jn. 5:12 reads, " He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son hath not life." In the 1769 KJV and all KJV's since then, 1st Jn. 5:12 reads, "He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life." Which is correct according to KJVO proponents?
Only a small subset of KJVOs use the 1611 edition. Most of them think that any KJV that generally follows the 1769 Blayney edition is acceptable and reject any further squabbling over the matter. A group based out of Australia is convinced that they should only trust editions that follow the early 20th century Cambridge text. A smattering of people prefer the text used by Oxford, which reads a little differently than the texts from Cambridge.
I effectively never hear KJV-Onlyists mentioning such differences. M.A. is right: it's only those who are especially interested in picking a specific KJV edition.
I saw a dear pastor friend on Facebook this past week warn people to be careful of using digital KJV Bible apps because some of them have changed Timotheus to Timothy and the word throughly to thoroughly. It was very sad to see the alarm caused by good people who were afraid they’ve been using a “corrupted” Bible. When asked which version should be trusted, one elderly pastor affirmed that only the 1769 revision was the final authority. No support for his claim tho. But people follow these mens advice because they trust they know more.
@@bensbab That's just heart-rending!
@@MAMoreno On that thread, I've noticed that Holman is advertising many of its KJVs as being the "Pure Cambridge Text." I've assumed they mean Blayney, but I'm starting to wonder if this is some sort of dog whistle to a particular group. Any idea what they're getting at with that?
Get yourself a 27th edition Nestle-Aland greek text page 45
And I quote .."The text shared by these two editions was adopted by Bible Societies, and the following an agreement between the VATICAN and the UNITED BIBLE SOCIETIES it has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision." End quote I'll stick with the KJV not something the VATICAN has say over . No thanks ...I believed in the KJV waaaaaaaay before I ever heard of Peter Ruckman.
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.
@@markwardonwordswhy would you recommend the nkjv? The mev claims to be an update of it? It is crazy after 30 years of the nkjv being out they say it needs to be updated! What a joke!
Thank you so much for this video!
As an ex-KJVO, I can confidently say from personal experience that almost all KJVO people are Ruckmanite-ish; they're just not very good at Ruckmanism.
Mark, Would you consider writing a companion text as a help for KJ readers ?
I’m doing something very similar to that. If only I can find time to finish it! I have a contract with Lexham Press to write KJV Words You Don’t Know You Don’t Know.
I like to watch sermons and commentaries by people who edify their fellow brothers and sisters and the Word of God and it seems that all your videos are just trying to constantly put other people down and say negative things rather than showing and teaching positive things. I hope you don't take offense to this but you seem to have a good mind and so in love, I offer you this ... God much rather you focus on things of above rather than things of the world and it does not make you look higher to put people lower. God himself says when a man thinks he is something, he is nothing and the way you talk about other people is definitely not showing the love of Christ. I think you could do good for people by teaching them things in the Bible rather than about the bad that you find in the world because you just may be a part of that by doing what you're doing.
Wolves are attacking the sheep, my friend. I've got to do some fighting.
But I do want the balance to be positive, and that means showing people the riches we have in all our good English Bible translations.
Pray for me! I do not want to sin or to be wrapped up too much in controversy!
I really appreciate Mark's work. I do feel edified and I always feel any 'criticism' he voices is appropriate and measured. Rather than fighting for a particular translation, he seems to be working to end the translation tribalism and thus creating a space so we can 'focus on things above'. Whenever I watch one of Mark Ward's videos I always come away with more reverence and appreciation for God's Word.
@@DarrenRoy Right! Thank you for this! This is exactly it.
It is edifying and glorifying to God when he calls out wolves and falsities.
Many years ago I thought Ruckman was great to learn from. Having been a transcriptionist by trade, I downloaded a number of his videos and transcribed them. But I ended up getting totally turned off by him because of his foul mouth. I cannot remember now his favorite sayings, but they were like spreading curses CONSTANTLY. I ended up deleting everything I had worked on for probably a couple hundred hours.
You did right. He directly violated the New Testament instructions for the character of an elder: “no striker” (meaning not pugnacious).
@@markwardonwords Haha. Yes. Very pugnacious.
Mom and I had an interesting conversation in that she grew up with the KJV, but she got more out of the Good News and Living Bible. While some new free translations may not be word for word, I can see that a lot of the laity getting more out of something like the NLT, NIV, or CSB.
Right!
Hey Mark, question for you. Why has a Geneva or Tyndale only movement not materialized? Also the Ruckman UFO quote was very interesting for reasons I could probably write a paper on wew!
The simple answer is that the Geneva Bible largely fell out of use after a century, while the KJV remained in use for nearly three centuries before the arrival of the 1881 RV. No one today has grown up with the GB, nor did their parents, nor did their parents' parents' parents (and so forth for about five centuries). It's hard to be traditional about the GB when there is no long-standing GB tradition already in place.
The more complicated answer is that the KJV was the most popular translation in use during the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy that occurred a century ago, and fundamentalists have carried their skepticism of modernism into their perspective on Bible translations. If the ASV had come out in 1801 instead of 1901, it would likely be the one that's deemed "perfect."
Some fundamentalists have been willing to adopt the NASB and the NKJV, as those two translations tick the right boxes: theological conservatism and strict literalism. However, the apparent modernist bias of the RSV spooked many of them into rejecting even these two translations, despite them being designed specifically to combat the RSV's biases. (The broader movement of American evangelicalism opted instead for the NIV.)
@@MAMoreno The Geneva Bible is currently being modernized as we speak by Canon Press; the New Testament is finished and the Old is in progress. Unfortunately, the Modernized Geneva Bible (as it's called) has gotten flack from the KJV-Only movement as well, so it's anyone's guess how the completed version thereof will fare.
I agree with M.A.
@@MAMoreno fascinating, thank you!!
@@reidmason2551 It is very unlikely that any TR based translation will ever gain any traction. The vast majority of those who prefer the TR are also KJVO, not by default (as @M.A. Moreno implies) but by conviction; and the vast majority of those who are not KJVO, and therefore willing to give a new translation a fair chance, do not like the TR. There is essentially no middle ground, except for the nostalgic Reformed luddites who await JC's (John Calvin) second coming.
It seems to me that the only reason that one could be KJV ONLY is if the translation itself is perfect and inspired; otherwise it makes no sense. The reason these adherents stick their toes into Ruckmanish is because they actually believe it is the only correct word of God. Otherwise, the whole thing just falls apart. I realize that legalists and independent fundamental Baptist churches often don't seem to mind if they look foolish to others, but such illogical WORSHIP of a translation is indeed foolish, looks foolish, and sounds foolish. It is a large part of why others often reject the good that these fellow believers offer.
I agree with you, but I also want to take my brothers at their word when they say there is space between my view and Ruckmanism. They say, “The underlying text is the issue!” And I believe them. I think that if they rigoroussly make the text the issue, they will soon stop being KJV-Only, for they will begin to use contemporary, fully intelligible translations of whichever TR they prefer.
A translation can’t be inspired?
Very interesting.
1. I could quickly find 30 things mocked in KJVO churches that would be applicable to the translators of the KJV eg having the title Reverend, using liturgy, celebrating days like good Friday, wearing robes etc. Would the Lord use these types from the polluted stream (The Trail of Blood) to preserve the pure Bible?
2. I think they are also scared. They want absolute certainty a Bible similar to Joseph Smith’s golden plates from heaven. Textual variant even trivial is of utmost seriousness. Eg if you use overseer vs bishop it will lead you down the path to eventually question the existence of God.
I agree completely on both points.
Point #1 means that sometimes KJV-Onlyists must be given a dose of their own medicine, as Prov 26:5 enjoins.
Point #2 means, I think, that you give them such doses very seldom, and mainly to the leaders. It means that you have mercy on those who doubt, as Jude 22 enjoins.
"Bishop" is the correct translation of "episcopos". King James laid out rules for the KJV translators, and one of them was to keep the traditional terminology. That is why we still speak of "baptism" rather than "washing" or "immersion"; and "Church" rather than "assembly".
"Bishop" is correct in the sense that the English word "bishop" is the result of a very distorted pronunciation of ἐπίσκοπος. But considering that the KJV Only movement is primarily found within fundamentalist Baptist circles, you'd think that they'd favor the translation "overseer" over an English word that apparently supports an episcopal ecclesiology.
(In my own case, I'm fine with either translation. "Overseer" has the advantage of being a distinctly English word of Germanic origin rather than a loan word from Latin or Greek. One minor issue I have with the KJV is its overdependence on Latin, especially for theological terminology. But I suppose that's a reflection of the times.)
@@MAMoreno Priest is also derived from the Greek word "Presbyteros". I think King James was right to insist on traditional terminology. He also instructed the translators to translate words that were capable of more than one interpretation, to interpret them in accordance with the interpretation of the Fathers... which was also a good rule.
Years ago, Wed night prayer mtg:
"My brother was convicted of a crime and is serving time in prison. He is now involved in a Bible study. But they are using the NIV..."
The congregation of this Ruckmanite church does a collective gasp.
You don't have to be a Ruckmanite to disagree with Mr. Mark Ward, and stand firm on the Textus Receptis and the King James bible. What you are doing sir is casting doubt on God's word. I'd rather trust what God says about His words rather than man.
Did you receive a special revelation that the textual criticism conducted by Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza was infallible? If not, then you can't claim that God has said anything about the Textus Receptus, let alone a translation based on it.
If the sign of "perfect preservation" is that a reading appears in a majority of Medieval Greek New Testament manuscripts, then you can keep most of the KJV, but you'll have to toss out Acts 8.37 and 1 John 5.7 (plus a few other readings). The evidence, both then and now, is that the Byzantine textual tradition was unfamiliar with those verses.
Otherwise, you have to assume that the three scholars mentioned above were right to adopt readings from the Vulgate, which means that the correct text has to be reconstructed from different sources instead of being passed down as one source. And at that point, you're taking a position similar to that of textual scholars today.
@@MAMoreno No, I actually choose to believe and have faith in what God says about his words. So the revelation is this, that God is powerful enough to preserve it, and to not allow His saints to be in the dark and decieved for almost two centuries until these "so called" older manuscripts are discovered. God would not leave His saints in the dark about Acts 8:37, 1 Joh 5:7, John 7:53-8:11 and Mark 16. A lot of scriptures to believe that God couldn't preserve, dont you think??
Fact is that Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza had access to more manuscripts than we have today. Since you brought up those three, why not bring up William Tyndale, Wyclef and the over 40 translators of the KJB?? Would they not have to critique in order to translate?? Yet the translation was made, and there was unification until your phony codex Siniaticus showed up. Question for you? What Greek text today is the source of modern versions?
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.
@@ptwevangelism You can't directly compare Acts 8.37 and 1 John 5.7 with John 7.53-8.11 and Mark 16.9-20. The latter two texts appear in the majority of Greek manuscripts.
Acts 8.37 has ancient support in Latin, but it lacks support in the "preserved" Byzantine tradition, so you don't have to look to Codex Sinaiticus to question its place in the text. 1 John 5.7 has very little support from any ancient source, and it makes Acts 8.37 look reliable by comparison.
Now, John 7.53-8.11 does pose its own problems, as it is missing from some Byzantine witnesses, and the precise readings within the passage can be hard to establish, but it is certainly more "preserved" than those two verses.
Mark 16.9-20 is the most stable and reliable of these four texts. It is missing from Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, but it is present in some of the other major ancient codices, and it is a staple of Byzantine manuscripts. While its authenticity is still questioned (due in large part to statements from Jerome that it was missing from many manuscripts in his day), it is not in the same class as these other examples.
Now here the thing: Acts 8.37 could still be an authentic reading despite its "disappearance" from almost all the Greek texts. (1 John 5.7, on the other hand, is certainly a later interpolation.) But in order to accept it, you have to throw out the idea of "preservation" and move to a concept of "reconstruction," which is the perspective taken by modern textual critics. You can accuse them of going overboard in their efforts or failing to give sufficient consideration to other evidence, but you can't accuse them of rejecting a doctrine of "perfect preservation" when you're doing the exact same thing in following an obscure minority reading in Acts.
THE Textus Receptus? Do your homework. You have no idea as to what you are talking about.
Great video Mark! 😺
Thanks for watching, A.J. I'm honored!
The symbol called the Triquetra is used on the NKJV
The triquetra is a three-pointed symbol most strongly associated with *paganism*
It also is similar to the Valknut which is a symbol of Odin, the Norse God. And so the triquetra has a lot of different meanings, *none of which is Christian*
So why would you choose this as the symbol to plaster all over a Bible?
The NKJV hasn't used the triquetra as its logo for years.
@@MAMoreno They still do... Do some research.... That still begs the question of why did they use it to begin with? The answer is obvious.
@@ColonelEmpire Yes, it's obvious: because Christians have been using the symbol for centuries, and the NKJV publishers wanted to make clear that it was made explicitly for orthodox trinitarians, not heretics. You sound like the Watch Tower Society with its "the cross is pagan" rhetoric.
@@MAMoreno LOL You are a kook... You have no substance so you attack me by calling me a JW! What a hoot!
The Satanic symbol was NEVER a Christian symbol! It has always been a Satanic symbol!
@@ColonelEmpire The KJV has various pagan symbols on the title page as well as a picture of Poseidon on the first page of Matthew. What was the point you were trying to make again?
I came to find out about Ruckman from another KJV only pastor, who went to his school, Robert Breaker, maybe you know him, he's on TH-cam, and through him I adopted Ruckman's views, most of them, the one I was always skeptikal about was and is KJV onlyism, not that it matters to me that much since I read the Bible in Romanian, but the thought of limiting my options in English didn't sit well with me. I don't know much about him specifically, I want to read his books, except those on KJV onlyism, but I can say that I saw worst examples of that, I'm talking about when Steven Anderson said to James White that he doesn't believe that those who read the NIV and then the KJV and don't understand it are saved, using the passage in John where Jesus talks about how His sheep hear His voice, his argument being that the KJV is Jesus's voice and those who don't understand it, don't understand His voice, so are not His Sheep.
I like the King James, even as I'm yet to read it, but I don't like KJV onlyism because it's very limiting.
Thank you for your input on this problem, I like your video, your demeanor, style of speech, you seem a very nice and intelligent person.
Congratulations on the bold stand against Ruckman, misrepresenting and slandering a believer who has passed on and who cannot defend himself.
I see many people on here who do not know who the man really was and will take your word for his character and possibly end up slandering him too.
Yes Ruckman was angry, as Jesus was when needed and as any believer should be (Eph 4:26), but you state he was “always angry” Slanderer!
If you spent some time with the man what would be more seen was his heart to see souls saved which he would often weep over.
And to add to this, in the same manner, people will likely take your word on the King James Bible issue, when (as I believe I have pointed out before) a lot of information is suppressed.
Get in the book people and check things out for yourself, nothing on this earth is of more value to have in your hands than the word of God, make sure you have it.
The KJV-Only side does plenty of slandering and misrepresenting of its own (Gail RIplinger being one of the more infamous examples). Nobody, regardless of who and what they are/were, is above criticism.
@@reidmason2551I have an answer I give to my 6 year old for that sort of logic.
If Mark is right, and doing a godly work, he wouldn’t need to lie about a dead man.
@@joshmccartney777amen Josh. Do you have ruckmans book on ufo’s I think mark took him out of context.
@@josephgreen3436 I have only downloaded and listened to the MP3 audio, some excellent study and insight that is being vindicated now with all the bearings around it. Godspeed
@@joshmccartney777 I love ruckman! He quoted the Bible a lot more than this corrupter mark ward ever has
Fantastic Mark, thank you!!!!!!
My pleasure.
These guys are more obsessed with the King James than Ruckman was. It looks like all his videos are about the KJB, but if you scroll through Ruckman’s material on the bookstore website, you’ll see he covered a lot more ground than just the Bible versions issue. People like this guy will never learn the Bible, because they can never believe the Bible. They’re too hung up on attacking it.
The KJV isn't the Bible, per se. It's a translation of the Bible into English. To the degree that any English translation can be called the Bible, it can be called the Bible. It can therefore be believed to the degree that it accurately reflects the Bible in Hebrew and Greek. (And, by most accounts from people with the knowledge and skill to evaluate such things, it reflects the original Bible fairly accurately, but not flawlessly.)
Please see point 10 in my video, my friend. To fail to believe in the perfection of the KJV is not to disbelieve "the Bible."
@@MAMorenotranslation of which Bible into English?
@@joshmccartney777 The textual variants are not different Bibles. Otherwise, we're stuck asking why the KJV sometimes uses Beza's Bible and sometimes uses Estienne's Bible instead, just as modern translations sometimes follow the most recent Nestle-Aland edition and sometimes choose other variant readings. It's not a helpful way of discussing the matter.
We may be able to talk more broadly about the issue--who follows Medieval scholarship (by translating directly from the Vulgate instead of from a Greek text) vs. who follows Reformation-era scholarship (from Erasmus to Beza) vs. who follows modern scholarship (from Westcott-Hort to UBS)?
But we're not talking about Marcion's abridged version of Luke here. We're talking about readings that developed naturally through the copying process.
@@MAMoreno not sure what tangent you are on but from what I understand the King James Bible is not a translation of a Bible into English is it?
Thank you for making this video. It will assuredly be helpful for others as well.
When churches were shutdown, the only church we could find in our area that was holding in person services was an IFB church. They turned out to be followers of Ruckman (Some also of Gene Kim).
They turned out to be good friends, but it was an interesting time of navigating their beliefs. To this day they have no idea that we hold to the Doctrines of Grace.
God is merciful. He knows their hearts!
KJVO and Ruckmanite here!! I am not ashamed of it either.
You ought to be. The Bible does not teach Ruckmanism.
@@markwardonwords With all due respect, the Bible also stated emphatically not to add to nor take away from His Words. I do not mean the equivalency of a word rather the complete opposite. I do enjoy your content Pastor Ward but I do disagree with you on this.
I appreciate this: self-confessed Ruckmanites have never before told me they enjoyed my content! But, friend: do you understand that your stated principle-no adding to or subtracting from the word-doesn’t point to the KJV? It merely pushes the question back a level: does the KJV add to the word or do the modern versions take away?
@@markwardonwords I am sure you are well aware of the fact that modern versions really are at fault. Many of them have the Vaticanus text as a main tenet. In addition, many modern versions not only do a slide of hand with thousands of words/phrases but many also confuse the reader. NKJV for example, replaces Hell with Sheol/grave. How would they explain that? Lastly, it is well known that Thomas Nelson and Zondervan also publish the satanic bible and are own by specific corporate entities. Just the mere knowing of the history of wescott & hort and nestle & aland should bring much concern.
@@SoldierofChrist9 They "replace" "Hell" with "Sheol/grave" because there are two places called Hell, and the NKJV was making a distinction between the two.
I dont argue with people who only read the KJV. But it amazes me that people believe God waited until 1611 to give us the perfect Bible. Thats not very fair or just of God. Plus all those Chinese and Russian Christians are just SOL.
My greatest frustration is when they claim the English KJV is the word of God, and the Hebrew and Greek are no longer reliable. It makes no sense
But some are listening. Many are.
@@markwardonwords I know. I'm not saying anything bad about your video. I think it's great and necessary. I just haven't ever been able to discuss this with someone without them getting very angry, and at the end of the day, I don't care what version a person reads as long as they read. I just don't get the logic. And I don't like kids being taught that people will go to hell for reading any other version.
@@mombythesea2426 And I didn't mean to imply something bad about your comment! I'm with you. Your comments speak truth. I suppose I just don't want to give up on our KJV-Only brothers. As a group, they have many strengths.
Mark, I have noticed that most KJV onlyist also have a very strong objection to anything reformed/Calvinistic. Could this have anything to do with how the KJV translates certain passages? Example being Luke 2:14.
Their objections would be misplaced. Luke 2.14 is an example of a textual variant, not a translation bias. The Geneva Bible is explicitly Calvinist (as to be expected from a translation made in Geneva in the late 1550s), but it still says "toward men good will." They might chalk it up to the "corrupt Alexandrian text," but they can't blame the Calvinists here.
Agreed with M.A.
And funny enough, the KJV was translated by Calvinistic Anglicans and puritans.
@@DaneKristjan And what was your translation translated by?
@@WhatsinyourBibleI use the KJV, so my Bible was translated by Calvinist, Baby Baptizing, Anglicans.
Thank you for doing your homework Mark.
I recently came across a very dangerous outwork of claiming the KJV is word-for-word perfect on a KJVO website. When explaining why the KJV translators used "charity" instead of "love" in 1 Cor 13, the author of the post argued that modern translations are objectively incorrect by forming a contradiction between John 3:19 (men loved darkness) and 1 Cor 13:5 ([love] thinks no evil). Of course this is completely faulty interpretation to begin with, but what alarmed me is that the author of the post has basically attacked the inerrancy of the underlying Greek text (in fact he wrote that love in John 3:19 uses agapao). I'm already quite skeptical of the lack of charity (lol) from most KJVO argumentations but this argument has went way too far.
In some sense I think this applies more generally to any kind of translation dispute where two senses or nuances of a Greek word can be communicated the same way in English, but the KJV chooses two renderings. To argue that the modern versions are wrong in these cases would, in some sense, be arguing that the original Greek isn't perfect.
Yes, this kind of thing reveals that the KJV is being treated as inspired, as opposed to the Hebrew and Greek.
GREAT video!
Thank you!
I am not KJV only but once was, the folks mentioned are part of the problem. Glad someone made this video.
✔
At 1:05:06 you used the word “jive” when it should be “jibe”, which means “to fit”. But this is a great and very helpful video. Thank you!
You're right! Ha! Good catch!
This is very helpful. I recently had a dear friend (that I had not seen in a long time) lay some of this KJVO doctrine on me and try to convince me of the divine inspiration of the KJV translation. I wasn't prepared for the conversation as I did not grow up in the church nor have I ever been seriously exposed to the doctrine. Thanks for the thoughtful presentation.
My advice, my friend: don't get pulled into discussions about textual criticism. Focus on readability. Use my "false friends" concept, and appeal to 1 Cor 14: edification requires intelligibility. May the Lord help you help this friend!
Wow. Excellent! To say that false friends don't matter and need not be taught to one's KJV Only parishioners, is tantamount to saying that God meant one thing by His word in 1611, and a different thing now. When English words have actually changed meaning in the past 400 years, and one insists that those changed words need not be translated into current English, one is essentially arguing that what God meant has changed over time, which is simple heresy.
RIGHT! This is so important. I have seen people say this very thing openly, though they tend to say it confusingly. They don't seem to know what they mean.
@@markwardonwords Then they're not following their own train of thought out to its logical conclusion.