Synecdoche: a word for a part of something is used to refer to the thing itself (hired hand for a "worker") or a word for the thing itself is used to refer to part of the thing (society denotes "high society"). Metonymy: a concept is referred to by the name of something closely associated with that thing (crown used to mean king or queen).
@@markwardonwords you said using a related thing to name the thing itself which is a metonymy. Using bed to describe things that happen in a bed seems more like a synecdoche to me. I hope that that was a helpful answer
@@amptown1 @markwardonwords Just reading the definitions and the usages, it seems to me that Mark Ward got it right. I wouldn't refer to an act that takes place on a bed as an act which is a part of a bed. Those two things are associated, not subset of a set.
A problem with bringing back grammatical gender for English, then using it for Bible translation, is this: among languages with grammatical genders, different languages use different grammatical genders for the same thing I don’t know Greek, so I’ll use an example from a couple of languages that I do happen to know; the Hebrew word for “table“ is of masculine ge der but the French word for “table“ is of feminine gender. So, anyone who wants to preserve original language, grammatical, gender, and translates into French any” Hebrew sentence that includes the word table, will be producing ludicrously incorrect French by preserving the grammatical gender of the original Hebrew.
Clearly we need to borrow the Greek words into Old English with the correct God-Inspired gender if it differs in Ancient Greek and Old English, and then decline the borrowed words according to Old English rules, before borrowing the resultant inflected forms into the TAEV
I actually did think of this, but I though it would get too complex to explain it in the video… Maybe I was wrong! You guys clearly picked up on the same thread!
@@KateGladstone Another approach could be to artificially inject grammatical gender into English, such as by using "he" and "she" as enclitics after nouns (silent h after consonants, ʃ follows the voicing of the preceding consonant if any, of course) /jk
I don't always come across a KJV Onlyist, but when I do, they call me satan. It's pretty crazy how bewitched people can become by the doctrines of men.
I literally got called Satan just a couple of days ago in the comments of a Jonathan Burris video! Why is that a go-to for supposed Christians? It's awfu!
@@4jgarnerit is a slanderous insult to Non-King James Version Onlyists like you and me and for disagreeing with their faulty premise. The King James Version Onlyists lash out like that when you challenge and refute their fallacious arguments. It is a bad reflection on them and their spiritual state that is why we should pray for them.
@@greenhulk1982 Amen. That is exactly what we should do, Dr. Banner. It's so easy to react in kind to insults and such or to be angry. But our reaction should be prayer!
@@4jgarnerTo be fair, the people that flock to J Burris are more rash and more hostile. KJVO or not. He’s a pretty dogmatic teacher. The way he insults dispensationalism as if it’s really all that different from selective covenant theology is a huge turn off for me.
@@CC-iu7sq I haven't noticed that from him but I am not saying you're wrong either. I hope I'm not hateful to interlocutors. I certainly try not to be. I know I haven't noticed him being dogmatic about other issues though.
I had a very similar situation like this come up in catechism recently. I explained that at the end of Gen 4, where "men began to call on the name of the Lord," "begin" had an intended dual meaning, and "corrupt" was the secondary. Wickedness was increasing, so they called on the name of God, but they were also desecrating it. There is a very clear word play in context. We had a mix of Bibles, RSV, Douay, and NKJV. The Douay had a footnote claiming it meant Enosh was using it with more solemnity. I had to explain that word play doesn't come out and summarized parallels from I Enoch and Genesis Rabbah so they could see how the passage had been read and both senses were present. The translator is always a traitor. We lose things and gain things in a translation (e.g. I cannot make parallels of "Son of Righteousness" and "Sun of Righteousness" anywhere but English, but we lose a lot too). Although I'm not at all sure we need to ensure the idea was in mind for the author. We can rarely know that. Reception history is not always clear, either. We often have to use it as a medicine. God intended the uncertainty.
"O ye sons of men, how long will ye turn my glory into shame? how long will ye love vanity, and seek after leasing?" (Psalm 4:2). Quit leasing those cars!! #KJVOnlyLogic
I had to say I thoroughly enjoyed the scripting you’ve put together here. The actual content was fantastic, as usual. And your writing is always terrific as well, but I had to call out your excellent use of humor and grammar to engage and educate. Thank you for all you do here.
@@desertrat6373 It only makes sense that the first bible translated into a language must be the inspired one and all later translations are corruptions. So I'm a Wycliffe onlyist! lol
I appreciate you, your work and gift of presentation. I love poetry as a whole. I like old english. I love more modern stuff. Just my taste. I've yet to find an easier to understand, clear and doctrinally sound translation as the NLT. It is so underrated. It's as if people are ashamed of its clarity. Like the bible can't be that accessable to the unwashed masses! Give me a NKJV, ESV and NLT.
It's metonymy via euphemism. Synecdoche is a type of metonymy, but it's the kind you see when someone says, "You've got a new set of wheels," or, "This memo came down from the suits." In other words, it's alluding to the whole by referring to the part. Anyway, this term in Romans 13.13 gives the one reasonable defense for (part of) the NRSVue's infamous gloss for ἀρσενοκοῖται. The translation uses the term "illicit sex" for κοίταις in the Romans vice list, which gets the idea across without conflating it with πορνεία (as the ESV does by using the typical gloss for that term, "sexual immorality"). Granted, they are synonyms, and I could see Louw and Nida arguing that there's nothing lost by treating them as such. The CEB and Message handle it better, though: "sleeping around." Retaining the figure of speech inherent to κοίταις is a positive.
"when I disagree with dictionaries (I check with the NOW Corpus and check hundreds of uses)." I heard someone critique you by saying that you think you're smart enough to correct the dictionary. Um... dictionaries are made by people. And those people do things like checking the NOW Corpus to find out how words are used. The amount of work that you put into these videos is incredible. Thanks for another good one.
I disagree with dictionaries all the time, lol. I don't fault them, usually, I expect them to be a few decades behind, but that doesn't mean I won't argue that at least in certain contexts (namely, vtubers) "sasuga" and "yabai" are English words borrowed from Japanese, not just Japanese words used in English
Yes, Caleb. This is it. I definitely see unjust weights here. Occasionally a KJV-Onlyist will catch a place where a modern dictionary disagrees with my take on a word, effectively always because it preserves a sense I think is no longer truly used in the language. Suddenly the dictionary is authoritative for this KJV-Onlyist! But a) they never check corpuses (I've never seen it, anyway, after years of this work,) and b) when I repeatedly show with other words that the OED names the relevant KJV sense as "Obsolete," the dictionary is not authoritative. It is ignored.
@@markwardonwords do you find it interesting that you regard your view of how words are "truly used" in the language as authoritative, when millions of people still use the King James Bible as written in early modern english today? The words are still in use by millions of people, but if they are "King James Onlyist", or read the King James Bible, that isn't "true" usage for you! Fascinating!
@@capnjs I've answered this argument several times on the channel. But the best answer is probably kjbstudyproject.com. If even KJV-Only pastors don't know KJV English *at the places where it diverges from contemporary English*, then I don't think your argument works. If millions of people read "chambering" but don't understand it, does it make a sound?
@@markwardonwords do you find it interesting that you go from the anectdotal evidence of "KJV Only" pastors to painting millions of others with the same brush? According to you, the King James Bible, literally the most printed and used book in all of human history, by far most in english, more than every other bible combined-the language simply is "out of use" based on a pastor here or there that gets something wrong? I've not known a single pastor who's not gotten something wrong! Romans 3:4 "let God be true, but every man a liar" ... where are God's words for you sir? In your own head! No written word has authority over your own reasoning!
Your video reminded me of when our Women's Bible study group was doing an overview study of the prophets. As I studied Micah 1:10-14 I found in the commentaries that Micah was using word plays for these cities. That, of course, is not obvious in the English, it was fascinating to me. I love words and their etymology, so thank you for this video.
I thought the OE word for cross was rood. As an aside I recommend to anyone who hasn't, to give The Dream of the Rood a read, its really quite interesting.
@@markwardonwords Its no big deal; the point still stands. However do give The Dream of The Rood a read as a lover of English and God It really is worth the read.
@@raptor4916 The word "gealgtreow" is one of many names used for the cross in the Dream of the Rood. In this case, in line 146: 144b Be the Lord a friend to me 145 who here on earth earlier suffered 146 on that >gallows-tree< for man's sins.
I actually visited a church years back while I was traveling amd the preacher actually did try to link the word "koite" in Luke 11:7 with sexual activity. He said that humans always prefer to pleasure themselves rather than helping a friend or neighbor in need, but God is always giving up his own pleasure for our sakes. His conclusion was fairly sound, but how he got there was just bad exegesis.
Good teaching Mark. Thankfully God has graciously given us Gods word truth and wisdom in our modern English language intelligibly. I use and enjoy all the modern bibles.
What I love about your videos is that the naysayers have to really reveal their bad faith to attack your argument. There is no way someone can say that you are being mean or unduly negative by the critiques you offer.
And yet somehow they manage. ;) Which is why I really do appreciate it when people who disagree stop long enough to actually converse, and that happened today.
“Chambering” is one I picked up on my own from context. It was obviously enough not a word I knew, and so I had to stop and try to figure it out. Given the list it was in, I figured it was bad, and chamber led me to bedchamber, and the rest is clear enough from there. I think “bedding down” is actually probably pretty good here, and in my local vernacular “bedding” would be enough by itself in context. It’s coarse language, but St Paul wasn’t above that when it suited him. (Cf. 1 Cor 6:9, which for all the debate about those two contentious clearly means something like “softies and manbedders,” and definitely isn’t a compliment. And where is that he wishes the Judaizers would castrate themselves?) I’ve seen people call the end times discourse in Matthew “Scary Jesus;” call this “Spicy Paul” but don’t apologize for him-he knew what he was about.
I admire those who picked it up from context. I didn't. The addition of another dead (or close to dead?) word after it, wantonness, didn't help me. I agree with you about spicy Paul. I'd go for "bedding down" or "sleeping around." But one must also consider acceptability in the target audience.
@@markwardonwords The fun of sexual and body part euphemisms in Western English - you don't want to say certain words in public, so you come up with new words or new meanings for common words or a euphemism, and then someone decides it's more offensive than the word(s) you were trying to avoid, so the process begins again. Target audiences can be fickle. It would be nice to address a delicate subject with words that don't smack people in the face while communicating the specifics so openly, yet every attempt to do that seems to smack people in the face.
The Welsh of 1588/1620 translation captures dolos / adolos perfectly using the simple and still intelligible "twyll" and "ddidwyll" .... "di-" or in context "ddi-" is the welsh equivalent of the alpha-privative. The main modern Welsh versions have lost the wordplay by opting for "pur" (< eng. "pure") for adolos.
As someone who really has come to love reading and memorizing the KJV later in life I appreciate these videos. While educational, there is nothing weirder than a KJV only-ist. They need to be called out for their insanity
I’m totally ill equipped to make such a thing, but I will buy a Word Play Study Bible the second it goes on preorder. Give me whichever modern translation you want, but all the notes should be pointing out wordplay. Give me the original, a transliteration of it, an English translation of it, and an English explanation of what’s going on. I’d use this until the cover fell off and then immediately buy a new one.
I like the idea. For someone such as myself whose knowledge of the underlying Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek of the Bible is negligible, word play is easily missed.
Mark, I like the term, "sleeping around," metaphor for that word. Where does more or less "formal" styles of translation come into play when translating (I'm taking your term of "less formal" to mean something closer to "functional" on the Interlinear to paraphrase spectrum)? It seems, to me, quite accurate by keeping the "bed" terminology across the languages, and for almost all fluent English speakers, there is no doubt about what is being communicated should it be used. Even for the word counters out there, adding "around," doesn't seem to get too far away from formal. "Sleeping around," seems to fit perfectly well in the list Paul gives. I gather that the Greek word that Paul used in the list of sins was not being used a euphemism of the (same) Greek word that Jesus used in the parable, but rather a word with two definitions on display - one in each passage. I guess I'm asking (assuming a formal translation is of high priority) if it's wrong to translate Paul's use of the work euphemistically because Paul wasn't using an euphemism? I have no language education outside of what someone explains in non classroom settings, but I do find discussions of Bible translations and philosophies and difficulties very fascinating.
I had once heard that the word ‘sincere’ came from two words: ‘sin’, meaning ‘without’ - and ‘cere’ meaning ‘wax’. Dishes, supposedly, which were made ‘without wax’ were labeled as ‘sincere’. Other dishes were more for common use, and cost less. They were made, partially, ‘with wax’. Therefore, dishes which were marked ‘sincere’ were pure, unadulterated. However, people no longer use the word ‘sincere’ in this manner. You are absolutely correct.
The OED directly raises this possibility: "The first syllable may be the same as sim-, in simplex: see simple adj. There is no probability in the old explanation < sine cērā ‘without wax’." But it sure is appealing!
Yes! I appreciate Mark's reluctance to not use Greek. It is off putting when people give the impression that one can never really understand the Bible unless it is read in the original Klingon (sorry, Greek or Hebrew). However I do find knowing some of the original language interesting and useful when explained well.
@@Asher0208 It's not that you can't read and understand the Bible in translation, but you are literally reading it second hand, seeing it through a kind of interpretive screen-some screens, of course, being clearer than others. But I do take issue with your suggestion that referencing the original makes people feel like the Bible is unavailable to them. Feeling that way is both unnecessary and burying one's head in the sand. It's just reality that the Bible wasn't written in English.
@@markwardonwords I do gain insight from your false friends videos. I would stay with the KJV text, and just explain the definition of an “archaic” word. It seems to me most people don’t read the Bible enough as it is, that they would notice archaic words unless somebody told them.
I'm only in my third semester of Ancient Greek, so take this with a grain of salt, but if you can spare the money I'd highly recommend the Ancient Language Institute. I've also found Whitacre's Grammar of New Testament Greek to be an excellent resource whenever I want to review some grammar point. I'm also enjoying the Ranieri-Dowling method, but it takes some doing to collect some of the books mentioned in it
I learned Greek a particular way; at the time (I was still a teenager) I wasn't aware any other ways existed. I'm happy enough with the way I learned, but I've become fascinated with living-language approaches to Koine Greek. I have a trusted friend who teaches Greek this way. I'd point you here: www.biblicallanguagecenter.com/live-video/
@@markwardonwords I too learned Greek using an older methodology. Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, I did not use it for many years and lost quite a bit of it but have returned to it and now am taking in the newer methodology. The newer method has less emphasis on rote memorization and has memorization of how Greek nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc are formed so that it quickens the ability to recognize and parse a word based on those indicators. Even though I many not know the meaning of the word, I may be able to discern that it is an Aorist/Active/3rd Person/Plural verb from those indicators. I'm really enjoying the newer methodology as I begin refreshing and reading some of the New Testament daily in Greek. In Conjunction, I am taking Dr. Dan Wallace's 'Beyond The Basics' intermediate and an advanced grammar course to refresh the advanced grammar I took while in seminary. What are your thoughts on the newer ideas regarding aspect and discourse grammar? There was not that much emphasis on these when I was in seminary.
Mount Vernon, Washington? You are on the wrong side of the state! Highly recommend you get into a car and travel at least five hours east asap! :-) Oh, and the video was great!
Ha! I've been there-we loved Dry Falls State Park, and we were happy to visit Spokane. But I'll take Western Washington any day. I absolutely love it here!
Hey Mark! Just wanted to reach back out and say I listened to the audio version of your book twice through and ordered a physical copy. I also got my youth pastor to buy your book. Anyway I'd love to meet with you for coffee sometime in September.
Dear @markwardonwords, Hello ! I was conversing with a KJV Only supporter and noticed how rude he was with me. I asked him why he was being so rude. Christians shouldn't be so rude to each other as brothers in Christ. He told me to read 2 Cor. 11:6: "But though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge; but we have been throughly made manifest among you in all things." (KJV) He then told me, if it was ok for Paul to be "rude" in speaking to others, then it is ok for him to speak to me in a rude manner. The English word "rude" was probably an appropriate word to use to translate the Greek work "ἰδιώτης" (idiōtēs) back in 1611, but the common understanding we have of the word "rude" today, does not match the meaning back then. Apparently, he didn't grasp the change in the meaning of the word and as a result had a distorted understanding of the actual meaning of the text of the Scriptures. I suppose one could say he was exhibiting an idiōtēs attitude. SO you this be an example of one to the false friends ? Be Well, DZ
YES! And a great story. But a sad one. This one is going in my files. I kind of thought that sense of "rude" was still in the language, but NOAD labels it as archaic.
It has "odd one-person translation" written all over it. "By Periods GOD created that which produced the Solar Systems; then that which produced the Earth. But the Earth was unorganized and empty; and darkness covered its convulsed surface; while the breath of GOD rocked the surface of its waters" (Genesis 1.1-2). "So GOD created men under His own Shadow, creating them in the Shadow of God, and constituting them male and female" (Genesis 1.27). "And Abram believed in the EVER-LIVING, and it was repaid to him in righteousness" (Genesis 15.6). "And when Moses went with the tabernacle, the cloud tremblingly descended and stood at the door of the tabernacle, and the WORD was with Moses" (Exodus 33.9). "Then David sent messengers and took her, and went to her, and lay with her, and prostituting, he defiled her, and then sent her home" (2 Samuel 11.4). "And there was again a battle at Gob with the Philishtim, and Abkhanan-ben-Jari, the weaver of Bethlehem, defeated Galitha, the Githite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam" (2 Samuel 21.19; a note says that "Galitha" should not be confused with "Goliath" from 1 Samuel 17). "But the EVER-LIVING had appointed 'The Great Fish' to pick up Jonah" (Jonah 2.1; a footnote explains that this is the name of a ship that picked up Jonah; Fenton laments that the LXX had translated it as "whale," an error repeated by everyone until now). "My LORD attends;-I shall not want" (Psalm 23.1; I see what Fenton is attempting here, but the ISV better conveys the point that "shepherd" is actually a verb: "The LORD is the one who is shepherding me"). .... As with all such one-person efforts, Fenton's version does sometimes do things well (I quite liked his take on Psalm 136, for instance), and most of what I skimmed from both testaments was fine.
I have always pondered the phrase "love of money" in the verse, "The love of money is the root of all evil." I remember, but can't remember exactly, an ancient theologian saying that the word translated "love of money" is "covetousness" but because it was a compound word it was translated into two because its compound parts. Like strawberries being translated berries of straw. Could you check it out? Thanks.
Good single-word translations of philarguria would be greed or avarice or covetousness. Greed would be the simplest word in common use today, but all three are synonymous. A well-known verse induces paralysis in translators, because they know that people will reject a translation if it doesn't "sound right" in their favorite verses. "Greed" would be just fine here, but you are unlikely to ever see anything besides "love of money" except in paraphrases and translations that are obviously unconcerned with people's objections to such changes.
At 1 Peter 2:2, Peter did not use the word "sincere", that is the Greek word alethinos (G228), meaning "truthful, real and true, genuine" (and found 28 times in the Bible, in which context determines its exact meaning), as seen at Hebrew 8:2 and 10:22. Rather, Peter used the Greek word adolos (G97, and found only at 1 Peter 2:2, and is a combination of G1, Greek alpha, the first letter of the Greek alphabet, as at Rev 1:8, and G1388, dolos, meaning "a trick, crafty, deceitful, guile", as at Matt 26:4), that means "undeceitful, i.e. unadulterated, pure", so that 1 Peter 2:22 accurately says: "As newborn infants, form a longing for the unadulterated milk of the word, so that by means of it you may grow to salvation."(2013 New World Translation) When the King James Bible was published in 1611 C.E. (or the earlier Bibles, such as Matthews Bible of 1537 C.E., the Great Bible of 1539 C.E., the Geneva Bible of 1560 C.E., the Catholic Douay Version of 1582 C.E.), there was not a "clear-cut" understanding of ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek, whereby one of the best Greek scholars of that era was the Dutchman Desiderius Erasmus (born ?- 1536 C.E.) Words such as the Aramaic raka at Matthew 5:22 (and means "an unspeakable word of contempt") and Greek "hosanna" at Matthew 21:9 (from the Hebrew hohshana and means "save, we pray"; found 6 times in the Bible) were left as they were, untranslated by the King James Bible translators. The Bible encyclopedia Insight on the Scriptures says this: "The first printed edition of the Christian Greek Scriptures (commonly referred to as "the New Testament") was that appearing in the Complutensian Polyglott (in Greek and Latin), of 1514-1517." "Then in 1516 the Dutch scholar Desiderius Erasmus published his first edition of a master Greek text of the Christian Greek Scriptures. It contained many errors, but an improved text thereof was made available through four succeeding editions from 1519 to 1535." "Later, Paris printer and editor Robert Estienne, or Stephanus, issued several editions of the Greek “New Testament,” based principally on Erasmus’ text, but having corrections according to the Complutensian Polyglott (edition of 1522) and 15 late manuscripts (or no earlier than the 12th century C.E.)." "The third edition of Stephanus’ Greek text (issued in 1550) became, in effect, the “Received Text” (called textus receptus in Latin), which was used for many early English versions, including the King James Version of 1611."(Vol 2, pg 314) Only in our time frame has there been real accuracy in understanding and translating the Hebrew and Christian Greek Scriptures, for more often than not, "theological bias" has "colored" many translations, so that it is "twisted" in a "theological direction", and is NOT "unadulterated".
I notice you are wearing a Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary shirt! I studied Greek and Hebrew there back in the 1980's. I am enjoying your videos on the KJV. Perhaps you mentioned this in one of your videos, but I love to point out the the KJV does some major paraphrasing of Philippians 2:7, undoubtedly trying to avoid misunderstanding of the kenosis.
Quite an enjoyable video. I'm not a huge fan of the term "sexual immorality", because it assumes its own definition, and is thus singularly unhelpful to anyone looking to faithfully apply what the Bible teaches: I don't want a wishy-washy phrase like "sexual immorality" that does nothing but force you to substitute whatever current beliefs on sexual morality for its definition, but an actual meaningful word or phrase that actually communicates what is being forbidden. It's far better than a word like "chambering" or "cohabitation" (I don't think it's a stretch to understand "chambering" as cohabitation in context (after all, we have other "chamber"-in-the-sense-of-room words and verbing [sic] a noun is hardly alien to our English), but cohabitation isn't quite right anyway, as you said), neither of which communicate what's actually meant in modern English I looked up κοίτη on LSJ and StepBible, but it's hard to get a sense for which of their senses are accurate. I guess the next step would be to read instances of the lemma on perseus (it shows 67, so tractable to read them all), but my Greek is not (hopefully yet) good enough to make doing so not an awful pain that I would much rather spend in Antigone. If κοίτη truly can mean generic "sexual immorality" and it is most reasonable to assume it does so here, then it indeed imo ought indeed be translated "sexual immorality", as in that case the ambiguity is original to the text and such a translation is thereby faithful. But I feel incapable of discerning where the writers of the LSJ and similar are faithfully relating the meanings of words, and where they are using deceptive language to hide the plain meaning of the word (this sounds insane, but I am more and more suspecting that this is endemic in Bible translation. I don't know a word of Hebrew, but I can tell you that either the many educated people who I've heard claiming that the Song of Songs is sexually suggestive are wrong and just have dirty minds AND the translators of the NLT conspired to insert sexually suggestive language into a Bible translation for prurient reason, or else English translations generally translate it so poorly that it doesn't appear to refer to sex _at all_ . Another famous one is σκύβαλον in Phili 3:8, which only the LSJ has the guts to give primary place to "dung", with the default StepBible meaning relegating that meaning down the list, and most Bible translations choosing a synonym for "refuse" as if blind that surely even if "refuse" were meant, that the more concrete meaning of the word would still be in mind, and modern English happens to have several words which have the requisite polysemy to include both senses. And that's assuming (like every dictionary I've seen _including_ the LSJ has assumed) that the NET Notes are wrong that σκύβαλον has a vulgarity or shock value to it) One thing I've heard you repeat in multiple videos in one form or another, is the claim that most people can't evaluate claims that the KJV has a better text base than modern translations because they don't know Greek and Hebrew. I'm not sure why that follows. I'm studying Greek, but the more I learn, the less confident I become on text critical issues (I'm currently undecided between Byzantine Priority and the CT). In fact, I don't know why someone who didn't know a word of Greek or Hebrew could nonetheless be extremely knowledgeable about text criticism, nor why someone who was fluent in the languages could not be completely ignorant of it. They just seem to be mostly separate areas of expertise, to me. At most, a greater fluency in Greek will allow me to say something like "I like how this edition of the GNT reads", but I cannot see how just knowing Greek would ever allow me to honestly say "This edition of the GNT is closer to the original autographs (source: trust me bro, I read/speak Ancient Greek fluently)"
There are some really great thoughts here, and you write very well. I pray for your success in Greek study. I'll admit something to you: my view of textual criticism is hidden-a little bit-in my perspective on the learnability of textual criticism by laypeople. I believe that we ought to make some effort to incorporate all the evidence, all the readings God has preserved for us, rather than just a few or a subset. KJV-Onlyists don't believe that; they think they have a method of doing textual criticism that doesn't require looking at any evidence in Greek at all. If you take their viewpoint, then you don't need to know Greek to do NT textual criticism; if you take mine, then it is foolhardy to attempt textual criticism without knowing the language of the documents you're comparing. I think you're on the right track in viewing κοιτη as general, even ambiguous. I think it's fine to have to fill in the meaning of "sexual immorality" from other passages in Scripture. Paul didn't write in a contextless vacuum. But I think you're right to want to be careful to study out any issues related to gender or sexuality. If you hit your limits with Greek (I really, really know how that feels!), then I'd encourage you to go to the commentaries. I hope that helps!
@@markwardonwords I definitely have your view on Textual criticism in the sense that I think the original autographs are the standard by which we judge all translations, and that the way we reconstruct the original autographs is through weighing of manuscript evidence, and so I am right there with you in terms of dismissing KJVo's view on Textual Criticism However, when it comes to views on Textual Criticism which do not ignore the evidence in favor of just declaring one edition to be inspired (explicitly or in practice), as far as I've been able to tell, the differences between them lie not in whether or not the original autographs are authoritative, nor in whether or not we ought to use historical evidence to reconstruct said autographs, but rather in what assumptions we ought to have regarding the transmission of the text. I am not sure how Ancient Greek would be of any use discriminating one set of assumptions (Byzantine Priority) from the other (standard Critical Text). Both sides will look at a given edition of the GNT and agree on what the Greek means, they just disagree on what the Greek should be (on occasion). Both sides will appeal to the same types of scribal errors, they'll just evaluate their likelihood and explanatory power differently. Both sides agree that an older text is more reliable, they just disagree on whether the oldest manuscripts best represent that oldest text. Perhaps if one became fluent enough in Ancient Greek and spent enough years copying manuscripts by hand to begin to make various scribal errors naturally, then one could leverage their Ancient Greek skill to genuinely weigh in on textual criticism. Maybe. That's a _really_ high degree of fluency, though, to be confident that you're making the same sorts of errors a native speaker would've been making at the same sort of rate and places; I'm not sure there's a single person alive today who has that degree of fluency in Ancient Greek All that said, it could well be that there will come an inflection point in my study of Ancient Greek where Textual Criticism will start making more sense to me rather than less. For now I'm tentatively treating it like Bible Translations, though, in the sense that there's no harm using multiple, as they show a range of ways good Christians can legitimately translate a passage (or, in the case of GNTs, a range of ways good Christians can legitimately reconstruct the autographs, at least to the degree of precision that I can detect) Re κοίτη, I have wondered if a reasonable context to assume might be "what the Tanakh gives as immoral sexual actions", which is similar to what you said, but I have no idea how to either support or disprove that idea, so I don't really want to conclude its true. I suppose the Bible does assume we know what "wickedness" is, so maybe it's no problem for κοίτη to be somewhat ambiguous in the same way
I’ve got a possible video idea for you. My father in law who is 73 says when he was in college a man came to speak who had apparently gone into some courts and proved creation over evolution. The guy told the student body he could only do this from the King James. He said all of the other translations had changed so much it would not hold up in court. I have tried googling this and found nothing. He doesn’t remember the man’s name.
If your father-in-law is 73, then he most likely would not have attended college until after the 1968 Epperson v. Arkansas case, which determined that states could not pass laws banning the teaching of evolution in schools. Thus, the man he heard could not have been taking such action by the time he addressed the class. On the other hand, the speaker would have to be a generation younger than William Jennings Bryan, who died immediately after winning the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial. There were a number of people who lobbied for anti-evolution laws in the wake of that decision. Do you know if this man supposedly took these actions in a particular state?
@@MAMoreno He doesn’t seem to remember. This is irritating because things like this get said without any way to check and people just take it as evidence.
I love you Mark, but to use Erasmian pronunciation while talking about listening for word-play in Greek would have made an old Greek teacher of mine red with anger. The existence and prevalence of this kind of word-play was the very reason he gave for using Koine or Modern pronunciation.
"Non tainted" milk. "Kosher" milk. "Pure and undefiled" milk. "Non-gaslighted" milk. Douay Rheims: "as infants even now borne, reasonable, milke without guile desire ye, that in it you may grow vnto saluation." "Guile" and "without guile" sounds best to me.
Hey Brother. Video idea. So I hear often about how in 1611 there were words that existed that were better fits for the Greek and Hebrew words than any words that exist today, which I'm sure is true. I must also assume that there are words today that are a better translation with no 1611 equivalent.
George Chapman was the first major English translator of Homer's The Odyssey and The Iliad in the 1611. I wonder whether KJV Onlyists only read The Odyssey or The Iliad in the Chapman translation (Chapman Onlyists?), rather than the corrupted translation of Robert Fagles, who translated The Iliad in 1990 and The Odyssey in 1996 for modern readers. Here is an interesting video from the perspective of a 'ploughboy' discussing which translation of the Iliad you should read (I think you will enjoy it). It is interesting to hear what she is looking for in a translation (spoiler - accessibility and understanding are important). NB: Her reasons for selecting the translation she did include the design and beauty of the copy she chose (notice how her face lights up when she describes her beautiful copy!): th-cam.com/video/cgFxgnK90zI/w-d-xo.html I wonder what the Greek word for 'sincere' is in the following passage from Chapman's translation (I bet it is "dolos" with the 'pure' meaning intended): And thee, O archer Phœbus, with waves clear Wash’d sweetly over, swaddled with sincere And spotless swathbands; and made then to flow About thy breast a mantle, white as snow, My update of the above passage (I think I will call it The Simplified Homer): And you, archer Phœbus, washed over sweetly with clear waves, and wrapped with pure And spotless linen bands; made to flow About your breast as a cloak, white as snow, Here you can read Chapman's Odyssey for free (no doubt a selling point to Homer Onlyists). You don't have to pay a modern publishing company or author for their corrupted new moneymaking translation: www.gutenberg.org/files/48895/48895-h/48895-h.htm
So, no one ever misunderstands? Or those who do, misunderstand because they don't open themselves to the Holy Spirit? In that case, all the examples that Mark gives of KJVO preachers not understanding the KJV words they are using become guilty of something very damning. Not sure I want to go beyond declaring them to be normal fallible humans; I don't want to accuse them of lacking the Spirit. Do you?
Clark gave a truly great comment. And I have another question: if this is the case, why not read the Hebrew and Greek? Who needs a translation at all if the Spirit can just fill in the gaps and give us understanding?
@@clarkcoleman8143 What about timing? God gives us understanding through the Holy Spirit at the appropriate time. Just because you don’t fully understand something now doesn’t mean you never will. Everything we know is because God gave us that understanding. Read Matthew 13:10-16
If the original word has the meaning of two things, with both meaning related. Would it be wrong to place a word that leaves out one meaning? Sincere may be the best word… Do you believe the Bible is God breathed? “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:“
This is a fair question, it really is! I love this. Your question implies a principle-would you agree? It goes like this, and I've heard it before: "All translations of the Bible should be word-for-word accurate to the originals." Here's the problem: this is utterly impossible. There is hardly a single verse of Scripture in which it is possible to go directly from Hebrew or Greek to English, with each form matching exactly the meaning of the original language form. The closest we could get is "Jesus wept," perhaps. But even there, the Greek says, literally, word-for-word, "[He/that one] wept the Jesus." There is an article-"the"-in Greek that makes no sense in English. And the Greek verb contains grammatical information that the English one doesn't (in other words, "I wept" and "he wept" and "they wept" and "we wept" are different forms in Greek, but in English the "wept" form is used for all of them). There is effectively always grammatical information in Hebrew and Greek that simply cannot be translated into English. But this doesn't mean we're missing something essential. If it did, then the Greek New Testament itself wouldn't include translations into Greek of verses from the Hebrew Bible. Languages never, ever line up one-for-one. Even languages that are closely related, like Italian and Spanish, do not line up word-for-word. God gave us this situation. If key meaning is difficult to get across in translation-and I would say this is rare-translators have footnotes and other workarounds they can use. Does this make sense?
@@markwardonwords Hello Mark, I do see what you mean, I’m not exactly a word for word person. If as far as we know the original holds two meanings, if an up to-date word can’t be found two words together could easily be fitted. Also it would be difficult for us to read, if for example if the Chinese language was translated word for word.
@@markwardonwords It would be interesting to see you do a video on how we (your viewers - presumably lay people with an interest in words) can go about rooting out false friends in the KJV and NKJV; i.e. what is the best way to do so. Is it by using a modern translation like the ESV and noticing when the KJV (or NKJV) word looks familiar but is translated by the ESV translators differently from the false friend? Are there other methods? How do you go about it? Is there a list of potential false friends to look for?
@@markwardonwords Yes, I think we all know that "hosts" means "a male who is throwing a party or arranging a get together" (and "hostess" would be a female throwing a party or arranging a get together" or "a female who greets guests at a restaurant and shows them to their table").
@@captainnolan5062 I think that just having a category, label, and category for false friends is a big start in the right direction. Checking modern versions is the easiest way to identify them, and doing so repeatedly helps to hone a sensitivity to contextual conflict, in my experience.
Hey there, Pr. Mark. Quick question for you: I see a/the reason Wescott & Hort chose renderings different to those found in the TR was due to them being older, as opposed to them being the majority reading. If this is correct, would you please explain to me why age, and not number is used as a criterion for accuracy? I assume that it is because the older it is, the less likely it is that variation/changes occurred through copyist's adding some thoughts of their own (whether well-intentioned or not). However, wasn't the timing of the older manuscripts (3rd/4th century) a time of many false teachings arising? In other words, perhaps these older ones were actually just older, wronger ones? Please do help. I have so many more questions on this subject, but this will do for now. Thanks for your ministry. I do appreciate it.
This is a fantastic question. I don't think it can truly be answered without some willingness on the part of the questioner to do some homework. I'd send you right to this book: www.amazon.com/dp/1433564092?tag=3755-20. However, you are basically right that the assumption is that older manuscripts are less likely to have been touched by quite so many well-meaning hands. The reason I myself do not believe that the rise of false teaching in the third and fourth centuries should give us concern regarding our oldest Greek New Testament manuscripts is that I've looked at every last translatable difference between two of the best examples of the major options (a more majority approach in Scrivener's TR and a more older-is-better, eclectic approach in the SBLGNT/NA28) and I just don't see them truly disagreeing. If the bad guys got to the critical text long ago, they did a very poor job of altering the theology contained within it. A related video: th-cam.com/video/iqUZhjozBhs/w-d-xo.html And a website you need to check out if you haven't seen it, a website done by yours truly and a team of volunteers: kjvparallelbible.org
@@markwardonwords Thank you so much! I will definitely check this out. And I appreciate your argument. It makes sense. If I may ask another question, can you point me to some place where someone actually responds to Dr. Robinson's defense of the Byzantine text? I am yet to read all the way through Robinson's stuff (there is a link on one of your blogs where you link a lengthy article of his), in which he appears to state that CT proponents like Dr. Wallace tend to just ignore his arguments (or the evidence favouring the Byzantine text). Also, how can a layman like myself determine which arguments are stronger? I do not know any Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. I sometimes feel like these people are talking past each other. I know ultimately, unless I learn these languages and perhaps how to do textual criticism, I will have to rely on others' expert opinions, but without that, how can one navigate the literature well?
@@davidsymons6063 This is excellent and humble thinking-funny enough, the two often go together. There's this that's worth reading: evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2006/01/review-of-robinson-and-pierpont.html And you might as well read Wallace: bible.org/article/majority-text-and-original-text-are-they-identical I think you might observe what you do in other disputes that feel over your head-I certainly do this. And I'm not talking only about theological disputes. I think you do your best to see who's knowledgeable and trustworthy, you listen hard, and you make the best decision you can with real humility. And sometimes that decision is to believe that all the sides sure have knowledgeable and trustworthy proponents and isn't that neat. Then go back to what the Bible actually says in the form in which it's sitting in your study on the desk. Does it push you one way or the other? If not-and I think not-then feel the liberty to not come to a conclusion. Really, that's where I'm at. I have some conclusions I've come to, but I see it as a Christian's liberty to use whatever text comes to hand.
Which is the true Bible translation? Did the text begin when the author first made a mark on papyrus or stone? Or did it start when it was edited and added to new scriptural material? Perhaps it began when the books were canonized. If so, which canonization-was it the Masoretic Text or the Septuagint of the Old Testament, or Marcion's first collection of scriptures, which was the earliest collection of New Testament writings? Or was it when the Old Testament and New Testament were combined? Or when the Apocryphal books were removed? Was it the first translation corrected by translators, or possibly even by "God"? Can anyone pinpoint the exact moment when the collection of books, written by 40 different authors over more than 3,000 years, was truly completed? Was the true text created with the first inspirational translation, or when modern translators discovered and edited interpolations? Will the true translation of the Bible please stand up?
I find it very sad that KJVonlyists have to circle the wagons n squirsh themselves into a corner(see what I did there) and push all other bible versions and users out into some kind of YOU'RE ALL DECEIVED GET AWAY FROM ME YOU HERETIC mode.
Yes, I see this as very sad. But a LOT of the good folks in KJV-Onlyism are not doing this, they really aren't. The rank-and-file don't treat me this way. I think they know better in their Christian hearts. They know I'm their brother.
My friend, I urge you to watch my video on “Study to shew thyself approved.” Language has changed over time, and this phrase in 2 Timothy 2:15 does not mean what you think it means. To find out what the KJV translators meant, watch this video: th-cam.com/video/Nzgmi6I2HIE/w-d-xo.html I’d love to hear what you think. Please feel free to comment on that video.
I wondered the same but failed to look it up! Ok, so here's what the OED says: "The first syllable may be the same as sim-, in simplex: see simple adj. There is no probability in the old explanation < sine cērā ‘without wax’." So no: "sincere" doesn't have a clear etymology related to "sine."
@@markwardonwords Well thank you for doing the leg work. That would have been a fascinating discovery to find out that it had an archaic privative that most of us had just never realized. I have also wondered if you would ever consider doing some work similar to your current work on Textual Absolutism and what I would generally call "Single Translation-ism" where people think we should hold rigidly to one given translation? I've encountered a lot of that in Spanish. Many Spanish-speaking Christians aren't even aware of translations other than the RVR1960 or are confused/scared by them. Your work on KJV Onlyism has been so great I think it would be awesome if you ever decided to do similar stuff in Spanish, although idk how much Spanish you speak. Either way thank you and God bless you for the work you are doing Dr. Ward!
@@4jgarner I speak Spanish somewhat well-though I'm a bit rusty. I *have* considered this. I have a friend I could work with. But I wasn't imagining doing more than one or two videos. I'd love to see someone en el mundo hispanohablante do similar work. They wouldn't have to invent the wheel, just find wheel examples in the relevant Spanish Bibles.
@@markwardonwords I am not 1/10th the scholar you are but I have thought about dipping my toes into this. Even simple things like "vosotros" are somewhat of a false friend for many people. I was recently present when an entire room of people realized it wasn't a synonym for "nosotros", rather a plural second person pronoun. For now I am doing what I can to combat "Single Translationism" in Spanish at my local congregation but informing them about things like the underlying texts that are the real reason for many supposed "changes" and the different styles of translation. Please pray that God will equip me someday to dive into the language change aspect as well. In the meantime, any work you do in this, even just the 2 videos, you have at least one person who would watch and rewatch.
@@4jgarner I appreciate this. I'm running out of time to tackle all the topics I could tackle before my self-imposed Dec 31, 2024 deadline for being done with KJV stuff on the channel. =|
@@markwardonwordsthat may be your hope. It’s not mine 😊. I and obviously many others really enjoy your work related to KJV onlyism. I think it helps me to have an overall better understanding of both modern and older translations - and the issues translators face.
Going to bed SEX, sleep together if context dictates, I laid down with my two year old till they fell off to sleep. This isn't sex. So context dictates. BTW κοίτη (koitē), is used 64 times in 62 verses in the LXX Greek. 📖 Rom 13:13 KJV - Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in CHAMBERING and wantonness, not in strife and envying. 📜 Rom 13:13 TR - ὡς ἐν ἡμέρᾳ εὐσχημόνως περιπατήσωμεν μὴ κώμοις καὶ μέθαις μὴ κοίταις καὶ ἀσελγείαις μὴ ἔριδι καὶ ζήλῳ 📜 Rom 13:13 TR - ὡς ἐν ἡμέρᾳ εὐσχημόνως περιπατήσωμεν μὴ κώμοις καὶ μέθαις μὴ κοίταις [CHAMBERING] καὶ ἀσελγείαις μὴ ἔριδι καὶ ζήλῳ 📚 κοίταις koitais N-DPF - κοίτη koitē 📋 If the KJV would've maintained concordance with the Greek Word κοίτη koitē, then by deduction of use the reader would understand. 📖Rom 9:10 KJV And not only this; but when Rebecca also had CONCEIVED [κοίτην koitēn] by one, even by our father Isaac; 🔖Rom 9:10 KJV And not only this; but when Rebecca also had CHAMBERED [κοίτην koitēn] by one, even by our father Isaac; 📖Heb 13:4 KJV Marriage is honourable in all, and the BED [κοίτη koitē] undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. 🔖Heb 13:4 KJV Marriage is honourable in all, and the CHAMBER [κοίτη koitē] undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. 📋It's not the best word even for 1611, but would be understood if a concordant use was maintained. 📖 Rom 13:13 KJV - Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in CHAMBERING and wantonness, not in strife and envying. 📜 Rom 13:13 TR - ὡς ἐν ἡμέρᾳ εὐσχημόνως περιπατήσωμεν μὴ κώμοις καὶ μέθαις μὴ κοίταις καὶ ἀσελγείαις μὴ ἔριδι καὶ ζήλῳ 📖 Rom 13:13 VUL - {13} sicut in die honeste ambulemus non in comesationibus et ebrietatibus non in cubilibus [beds] et inpudicitiis non in contentione et aemulatione 📖 Rom 13:13 SE - {13} Andemos como de día, honestamente; no en glotonerías y borracheras, no en lechos [beds] y disoluciones, no en pendencias y envidia; 🔖 Rom 13:13 SE/EN Let's walk as in the day, honestly; not in gluttony and drunkenness, not in BEDS and dissoluteness, not in quarrels and envy 📖 Rom 13:13 EM - {13} Andemos decentemente, como de día; no con glotonerías y borracheras, ni en pecados sexuales y desenfrenos, ni en peleas y envidia. 🔖Rom 13:13 EM/EN Let us walk decently, as in the day; not with gluttony and drunkenness, nor in SEXUAL SINS and debaucheries, nor in fights and envy. 📖 Rom 13:13 NASB95 - Let us behave properly as in the day, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in SEXUAL PROMISCUITY and sensuality, not in strife and jealousy. 📖 Rom 13:13 NIV - Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in SEXUAL IMMORALITY and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. 📖 Rom 13:13 PHILLIPS - Let us live cleanly, as in the daylight, not in the “delights” of getting drunk or PLAYING WITH SEX, nor yet in quarrelling or jealousies. 📖 Rom 13:13 LSB - Let us walk properly as in the day, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in SEXUAL PROMISCUITY and sensuality, not in strife and jealousy. ✔️📖 Rom 13:13 NMB - Let us walk honourably, as in the daylight: not in revelry and drunkenness, nor in SLEEPING AROUND and wantonness, nor in strife and envying, ✔️📋 closest to our common slang of English CHAMBERING? 📋 Possibly bad thoughts (sexual?) CHAMBERING? Mic 2:1 KJV Woe to them that devise iniquity, and work evil upon their BEDS [CHAMBER κοίταις]! when the morning is light, they practise it, because it is in the power of their hand. Mic 2:1 LXX ἐγένοντο λογιζόμενοι κόπους καὶ ἐργαζόμενοι κακὰ ἐν ταῖς κοίταις αὐτῶν καὶ ἅμα τῇ ἡμέρᾳ συνετέλουν αὐτά διότι οὐκ ἦραν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῶν 📋 Possibly spiritual unfaithfulness, IDK if I stretch the thought? 📖 1Ch 5:1 KJV Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he was the firstborn; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father's BED [CHAMBER κοίτην], his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright. 📜 1Ch 5:1 LXX - καὶ υἱοὶ Ρουβην πρωτοτόκου Ισραηλ ὅτι οὗτος ὁ πρωτότοκος καὶ ἐν τῷ ἀναβῆναι ἐπὶ τὴν κοίτην τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ ἔδωκεν εὐλογίαν αὐτοῦ τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ Ιωσηφ υἱῷ Ισραηλ καὶ οὐκ ἐγενεαλογήθη εἰς πρωτοτόκια 📖 Lev 15:18 KJV - The woman also with whom man shall LIE 《CHAMBER 》 [with] seed of copulation, they shall [both] bathe [themselves] in water, and be unclean until the even. 📜 Lev 15:18 LXX - καὶ γυνή ἐὰν κοιμηθῇ ἀνὴρ μετ᾽ αὐτῆς κοίτην σπέρματος καὶ λούσονται ὕδατι καὶ ἀκάθαρτοι ἔσονται ἕως ἑσπέρας 📋 But there is a Greek CHAMBER. • 📑 Psalms 19:5 παστού αυτού - his nuptial chamber, • 📑 Joel 2:16 παστού αυτής - her nuptial chamber! 📖 Psa 19:5 KJV - {5} Which [is] as a bridegroom coming out of his CHAMBER, [and] rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. 📜 Psa 19:5 LXX - {5} (18:6) καὶ αὐτὸς ὡς νυμφίος ἐκπορευόμενος ἐκ παστοῦ αὐτοῦ ἀγαλλιάσεται ὡς γίγας δραμεῖν ὁδὸν αὐτοῦ
Just out of curiosity, how many modern languages do you know? On a scale of 1-10 where do you stand? What translation work have you done? Have you ever translated a Bible? Thanks.
This is complicated. I speak and understand Spanish (though I'm a bit rusty at this point). I have working, professional knowledge of biblical Hebrew and (especially) Greek. I am able to use pretty much all indo-European languages for the work I do, especially Latin, German, French, Italian, Portuguese, and Dutch. And I speak very well English.
@@markwardonwords Thank you for answering my questions, even though partially. It's exactly what I guessed, because anyone who actually knows languages and has done translation work can tell that you don't have a working knowledge on any modern language or how translation actually works. You have a lot of book knowledge, which is not sufficient for any serious translation work. Anyone who has done serious translation work can pick up on these facts based on your arguments. They are the typical arguments made by people who have enough knowledge to not know what they're talking about while sounding professional to the crowd.
@@markwardonwords Mark, As someone who has worked in the past to translate some books from English into Spanish, as someone who has observed the vast work that you have done working with people from all across the globe (a number of them involved in Bible interpretation and translation), and as someone who understands that your statement of a “professional knowledge of biblical Hebrew and (especially) Greek” is a statement made in humility of your vast knowledge and study; my opinion is that you do have ample knowledge to know what you are talking about.
James White once bragged that he doesn't use an English translation when he preaches: He just reads out of the GNT and then preaches on it. This achieves maximum unintelligibility. So give Kent a little credit, for he's at least reading the Scriptures to his congregation in (partially unintelligible) English. I can't wrap my head around "chambering". Even knowing its meaning I still can't "hear" the word in that sense.
@@markwardonwords Yeah, that's it. Reads Greek and then tells them what it means. He described it in one of his debates or one of his podcasts. I can't remember where though.
I was going to say that this was interesting, but it wasn't. It reminds me of people like the Pharisees and Saducees debating about the things of a God that they neither knew nor had His word in them. Not being a scholar or historian, I am just guessing that possibly millions of followers of Jesus Christ have willingly given their lives as martyrs, not based on translations or interpretations of scripture, but because of a very real and vibrant relationship with Father, Son and Spirit. Scholarship is needed and presents some interesting things to consider, but as I said, the top scholars of Jesus day, religious scholars, did not even know God. Our bibles are great, but worthless apart from the Spirit of Truth that is our teacher.
God has worked through various versions of the Bible throughout history, even if those Bibles don't agree with every reading. While it would be nice to know the exact correct wording for every passage, the minor differences in the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Syriac, and other texts have not stopped the gospel message from spreading.
He hasn’t worked through the new version, this guy fails to recognise English as a universal language for the end times , fails to put the Kjv is authority, he is just pied piper what he was taught in seminary destroying faith, As long as the message stays true , you can alter Verses about the deity of Christ under the pre tense of being to archaic This guy doesn’t even believe in the bible if he DID he’d tell which one is GODS holy word Just a waste of time , worker of the devil , twice dead wicked heretic, will be a lot to answer for at the judgment seat of Christ
@@alex-fw1bl I would strongly suggest you review Christ's statements from the ending of Mark chapter 3 (re: blaspheming the Holy Spirit by claiming that the Spirit's power is actually demonic power) before you start claiming with certainty that God is not working through the new versions. I'm a member of a church that uses modern versions, and I fully trust that it is God who is working through that church to accomplish the Great Commission.
Anybody that can get behind the NIV omitting 63000 words , ought to really have a deep think , question the pastor for poisoning the congregation. Modern apostates say as long as the message is there , we can omit / change / why ? Would a bastion of the faith do that ? The doctrines have been mutated so that you wouldn’t be able to cross reference the passages , the scumbags lied when they said it was a better translation. It’s off the westcort and Hort gnostic text from Alexandria Egypt a real child of God avoids anything to do with Egypt as bible calls it a type of the world. You are using a corrupt bible , it’s satanic and mark should be called out and those fake seminaries going against the Holy infallible KJV which is better than the originals
Do you think God is for these changes in the NKJV Omitted words Lord 66 times God 51 times Heaven 50 times Repent 44 times Blood 23 times Hell 22 times Jehovah removed completely New Testament removed completely Damnation removed completely Devils removed completely 2 Corinthians 13 5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates? God is for this , spiritual revival ? No
Hebrew scholars like James White and Greek scholar, Pastor Chris Rosebrough, would disagree with you. An all-around scholar is retired pastor, Daryl Rahfeldt. While there are many rich verses in the KJV, telling people KJV is the only interpretation that's true is ignorant. There are quite a few verses that are not word-to-word interpretations in the KJV. Both men have videos on just this topic. You should go watch them.
Sincere in ancient Greek also means,unmixed, unadulterated, pure, the one who does not lie. If the words of God must be pure, and if in fact the King James Bible contains the preserved words of God, then any other words are not the word of God. This means the NIV, the ASV and all the others are not the right seed, because they are not incoruptable. 1st Peter 2:2 kjv says: " As newborn babes, desire the SINCERE MILK OF THE WORD, then ye may grow thereby." So to grow in grace, we must have the SINCERE (PURE) word of God ( see Deuteronomy 4:10&36). There are several ways that the word of God are made into impure words, by translators and theologians (self styled). Revelation 22:19 kjv gives a stern rebuke. Proverbs 30: 5-6 says: " Every Word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. " ADD THOU NOT UNTO HIS WORDS, LEST HE REPROVE THEE, AND THOU BE FOUND A LIAR"
Why is it OK for you to offer a parenthetical explanation (e.g. "SINCERE (PURE)" ) and not OK for translators to go ahead and use "pure" rather than "sincere" in their translation?
@@Jim-jt4ps So by your definition of the "pure" word of God, no English translation can be considered the Bible, as every English translation has changed or removed words from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
@@samandkathyshelton4207 Your very wrong. The King James Bible was translated from the TEXTUS RECEPTUS ( Recived Text) the world language at the time which was Greek. English became and still is the world language.It was translated to English by many scholars and checked over and over. A very painstaking time consuming job. The only changes made with the King James were a few minor spelling changes and font changes. Words were not changed completely and words were not removed. In the late 19th century Wescott & Hort butchered the Bible with there so called Revised Edition. They used a completely different manuscript too. Which was written in Greek and came from EGYPT. It was a corrupt manuscript. There is also major speculation that it's fraudulent. Wescott & Hort were occultist ( Hermies Club and Ghostly Guild) They were into conjuring up spirits. This is documented in in a life and letters book. All modern Bible versions are based off their work which used the Alexandrian Manuscript from Egypt. They also changed and removed words while they were re- writing the Bible. The 1800s was a time of occult infiltration into society. Check out Alice Baily and Helena Blavatsky of the THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY. Modern Bibles also attack The deity of Christ and so much more, such as a FALSE PLAN of salvation.The trend still continues with modern Bible versions. Since all modern Bible versions have a copyright, they have to change words. Its about money. The King James has no copyright because it's the real Words. What's the first thing Satan is gonna go after? Gods Word. The whole, it's hard to read and it's archaic talk about the King James is nonsense.
God gave you the KJB in his perfect word and you throw it away for roman catholic bibles that change it in over 30,000 places, created out of two grossly corrupt forgeries ( siniaitucus vaticanus) that include the apocrypha as inspired canon and feign ignorances claiming a hobby horse, and make yourselves god by messing around with dead languages; John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him Proverbs 8:8-9 8 All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them. They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge. God has magnified his word above his name (psalm 138:2) and to deny his promises of preservation of his word (psalm 12:6-7, matthew 24:35, isaiah 40:8, Isaiah chapter 34, psalm 119:160, john 10:35, 1 Peter 1:23), he can create the world but he can't preserve us a book for us? jeremiah 32:27 Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me? God warned you about messing with his SPOKEN WORDS not the capital W Word who is Jesus Proverbs 30:5-6 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Revelation 22:18-19 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: 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. 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. Repent, These perverted roman catholic perversions that none of you will dare "analyze the greek" of although it's freely online to analyze yourself, are straight out of the pit of hell ( codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx)
The KJV is an excellent translation-but if you're going to read it exclusively, you need to understand that it was translated into a form of English no one quite speaks or writes anymore. So there are going to be some places where you think you understand but, because of language change, you're going to miss the intent of the KJV translators. For help discerning when this is the case, I encourage you to check out my "Fifty False Friends in the KJV" series on TH-cam for help reading the KJV! th-cam.com/play/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc.html
John 14 23 is telling us to abide in God's teachings. To be a doer of the word and not just a hearer. It is not saying that you have to strictly follow a translation from 1611. Me, reading different translations, including kj, to get the spirit of the translation and a proper understanding of the scripture is not disobeying John 14 23. Me, being dishonest about a car I'm selling is not keeping with John 14 23.
@@markwardonwords It feels disingenuous to assume that the kind of English "no one quite speaks or writes anymore" that's available in the KJV was given as reading to older generations in public school curriculum only a couple decades ago. If those children weren't speaking Ye old English, how were they able to understand stuff like Shakespeare (works way harder to understand) for example with no access to online resources, who were speaking in a radically different way. I think it's an insult to people's intelligence, that during the information age despite having all information is at our fingertips that younger people are unable to decipher what the true word of God is trying to say to the point where we have to completely change the book to be more understandable. It's the same language and time time gap between KJV and now is historically a very small period. This isint hebrew we're talking about here. It feels like we're framing the KJV as a foreign alien language that no one has ever seen before when the opposite is true
@@WatchingUntiltheEnd Oh really? spirit of the translation huh? okay so how about the jesuit rheims reading in Mark one of the ESV? Mark 1:1-3 ESV 1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.[a] 2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet,[b] “Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way, 3 the voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare[c] the way of the Lord, make his paths straight,’” Please explain to what the spirit of the reading is, in regards to the text, where in the Authorized version we read " PROPHETS" but the ESV reads " ISAIAH", ISAIAH DID NOT SAY VERSE 2, that was MALACHI. Why does it say Isaiah said it, did God bumble like an idiot and forget his own prophecy he spoke through the prophet? How about this one, lets look at the amplified bible Jesus is God correct? Eternally the Word correct? explain to me the spirit of the translation in the amplified bible agreeing with roman catholic idolatry John 1:18 AMP " No one has seen God [His essence, His divine nature] at any time; the [One and] only begotten God [that is, the unique Son]" Explain to me how jesus is not the begotten son, but a begotten god agreesing with jehovah witnesses and every gnostic that ever lived. Go on I'm waiting, There are THOUSANDS of these errors, in every translation, explain to me the biblical revelation the Holy Ghost supposedly gave you by examining perverted roman catholic bibles I'll wait
@@TehCheeezyPoofz How are people supposed to look up words they don't realize they're misunderstanding? That's what a false friend is. I've asked this question now dozens of times. The only straight answer I've ever gotten is that people just need to look up every single word in the KJV.
Romans 13:13 (KJV): Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. Response: 1. "Chambering" resonates much better with those who speak the King's English rather than with the uncouth tongue of colonial upstarts. 2. Merriam-Webster definition of chambermaid (noun): a maid who makes beds and does general cleaning of bedrooms (as in a hotel) [Merriam Webster Com /dictionary/chambermaid] 3. Because of the prurient nature of the words "chambering and wantonness" in the 17th century, which I assume meant 'dissolute bed hopping', I am sympathetic to a more diffuse understanding in the 21st century that shades the reader with a veneer of modesty and reticence. 4. Perhaps this subtlety is part of the KJV appeal in that what once was explicit in the text now has become smoothed over with the passage of time. 5. Other translations that use "chambering" in Romans 13:13: American Standard Version, Douay-Rheims Bible, English Revised Version, Webster's Bible Translation, Young's Literal Translation [Bible Hub Com /romans/13-13.htm]
Synecdoche: a word for a part of something is used to refer to the thing itself (hired hand for a "worker") or a word for the thing itself is used to refer to part of the thing (society denotes "high society").
Metonymy: a concept is referred to by the name of something closely associated with that thing (crown used to mean king or queen).
Thank you! So which one should I have used?
@@markwardonwords don't ask me, I just work here
@@markwardonwords you said using a related thing to name the thing itself which is a metonymy. Using bed to describe things that happen in a bed seems more like a synecdoche to me. I hope that that was a helpful answer
@@amptown1 @markwardonwords
Just reading the definitions and the usages, it seems to me that Mark Ward got it right. I wouldn't refer to an act that takes place on a bed as an act which is a part of a bed. Those two things are associated, not subset of a set.
@@markwardonwords From what I've read here, I think you were right the first time (in the video) after all.
A problem with bringing back grammatical gender for English, then using it for Bible translation, is this: among languages with grammatical genders, different languages use different grammatical genders for the same thing
I don’t know Greek, so I’ll use an example from a couple of languages that I do happen to know; the Hebrew word for “table“ is of masculine ge der but the French word for “table“ is of feminine gender. So, anyone who wants to preserve original language, grammatical, gender, and translates into French any” Hebrew sentence that includes the word table, will be producing ludicrously incorrect French by preserving the grammatical gender of the original Hebrew.
Clearly we need to borrow the Greek words into Old English with the correct God-Inspired gender if it differs in Ancient Greek and Old English, and then decline the borrowed words according to Old English rules, before borrowing the resultant inflected forms into the TAEV
I actually did think of this, but I though it would get too complex to explain it in the video… Maybe I was wrong! You guys clearly picked up on the same thread!
@@KateGladstone Another approach could be to artificially inject grammatical gender into English, such as by using "he" and "she" as enclitics after nouns (silent h after consonants, ʃ follows the voicing of the preceding consonant if any, of course) /jk
I don't always come across a KJV Onlyist, but when I do, they call me satan.
It's pretty crazy how bewitched people can become by the doctrines of men.
I literally got called Satan just a couple of days ago in the comments of a Jonathan Burris video! Why is that a go-to for supposed Christians? It's awfu!
@@4jgarnerit is a slanderous insult to Non-King James Version Onlyists like you and me and for disagreeing with their faulty premise. The King James Version Onlyists lash out like that when you challenge and refute their fallacious arguments. It is a bad reflection on them and their spiritual state that is why we should pray for them.
@@greenhulk1982 Amen. That is exactly what we should do, Dr. Banner. It's so easy to react in kind to insults and such or to be angry. But our reaction should be prayer!
@@4jgarnerTo be fair, the people that flock to J Burris are more rash and more hostile. KJVO or not.
He’s a pretty dogmatic teacher. The way he insults dispensationalism as if it’s really all that different from selective covenant theology is a huge turn off for me.
@@CC-iu7sq I haven't noticed that from him but I am not saying you're wrong either. I hope I'm not hateful to interlocutors. I certainly try not to be. I know I haven't noticed him being dogmatic about other issues though.
When you initially mentioned 'chambering' what came to my mind was the modern use of the expression 'shacking up'; take from that what you will.
...and it turns out that was about spot on. ;)
Good for you! I never got that. Just didn’t know what chambering was at all.
I had a very similar situation like this come up in catechism recently. I explained that at the end of Gen 4, where "men began to call on the name of the Lord," "begin" had an intended dual meaning, and "corrupt" was the secondary. Wickedness was increasing, so they called on the name of God, but they were also desecrating it. There is a very clear word play in context.
We had a mix of Bibles, RSV, Douay, and NKJV. The Douay had a footnote claiming it meant Enosh was using it with more solemnity. I had to explain that word play doesn't come out and summarized parallels from I Enoch and Genesis Rabbah so they could see how the passage had been read and both senses were present.
The translator is always a traitor. We lose things and gain things in a translation (e.g. I cannot make parallels of "Son of Righteousness" and "Sun of Righteousness" anywhere but English, but we lose a lot too).
Although I'm not at all sure we need to ensure the idea was in mind for the author. We can rarely know that. Reception history is not always clear, either. We often have to use it as a medicine. God intended the uncertainty.
Nothing like Kudzu to choke the sincerity out of any ecosystem. Even Biblical language. 😅
Right!
"O ye sons of men, how long will ye turn my glory into shame? how long will ye love vanity, and seek after leasing?" (Psalm 4:2). Quit leasing those cars!! #KJVOnlyLogic
RIGHT! I only BUY cars!
I had to say I thoroughly enjoyed the scripting you’ve put together here. The actual content was fantastic, as usual. And your writing is always terrific as well, but I had to call out your excellent use of humor and grammar to engage and educate. Thank you for all you do here.
Many thanks!
Some people just won't move away from their favorite idols.
#NIVONLY 😜
@@randywheeler3914 I prefer the Nearly Inspired Version (NIV) in most circumstances over the Elect Standard Version (ESV), but I use both.
Since the KJV is a revision of the Geneva Bible why don't people rely on the Geneva ? King James himself wanted changes to the Bible to suit his needs
@@desertrat6373 It only makes sense that the first bible translated into a language must be the inspired one and all later translations are corruptions.
So I'm a Wycliffe onlyist! lol
@@desertrat6373 Maybe no one is saved unless they learn to read Koine Greek?
I appreciate you, your work and gift of presentation. I love poetry as a whole. I like old english. I love more modern stuff. Just my taste. I've yet to find an easier to understand, clear and doctrinally sound translation as the NLT. It is so underrated. It's as if people are ashamed of its clarity. Like the bible can't be that accessable to the unwashed masses! Give me a NKJV, ESV and NLT.
It's metonymy via euphemism. Synecdoche is a type of metonymy, but it's the kind you see when someone says, "You've got a new set of wheels," or, "This memo came down from the suits." In other words, it's alluding to the whole by referring to the part.
Anyway, this term in Romans 13.13 gives the one reasonable defense for (part of) the NRSVue's infamous gloss for ἀρσενοκοῖται. The translation uses the term "illicit sex" for κοίταις in the Romans vice list, which gets the idea across without conflating it with πορνεία (as the ESV does by using the typical gloss for that term, "sexual immorality"). Granted, they are synonyms, and I could see Louw and Nida arguing that there's nothing lost by treating them as such.
The CEB and Message handle it better, though: "sleeping around." Retaining the figure of speech inherent to κοίταις is a positive.
YES! You're the best!
“Sleeping around” is exactly what I thought as Mark was discussing this…although I’m only coming at the issue from the English side.
I’m "sincere" I like this discussion……😉
"when I disagree with dictionaries (I check with the NOW Corpus and check hundreds of uses)." I heard someone critique you by saying that you think you're smart enough to correct the dictionary. Um... dictionaries are made by people. And those people do things like checking the NOW Corpus to find out how words are used. The amount of work that you put into these videos is incredible. Thanks for another good one.
I disagree with dictionaries all the time, lol. I don't fault them, usually, I expect them to be a few decades behind, but that doesn't mean I won't argue that at least in certain contexts (namely, vtubers) "sasuga" and "yabai" are English words borrowed from Japanese, not just Japanese words used in English
Yes, Caleb. This is it. I definitely see unjust weights here. Occasionally a KJV-Onlyist will catch a place where a modern dictionary disagrees with my take on a word, effectively always because it preserves a sense I think is no longer truly used in the language. Suddenly the dictionary is authoritative for this KJV-Onlyist! But a) they never check corpuses (I've never seen it, anyway, after years of this work,) and b) when I repeatedly show with other words that the OED names the relevant KJV sense as "Obsolete," the dictionary is not authoritative. It is ignored.
@@markwardonwords do you find it interesting that you regard your view of how words are "truly used" in the language as authoritative, when millions of people still use the King James Bible as written in early modern english today? The words are still in use by millions of people, but if they are "King James Onlyist", or read the King James Bible, that isn't "true" usage for you! Fascinating!
@@capnjs I've answered this argument several times on the channel. But the best answer is probably kjbstudyproject.com. If even KJV-Only pastors don't know KJV English *at the places where it diverges from contemporary English*, then I don't think your argument works. If millions of people read "chambering" but don't understand it, does it make a sound?
@@markwardonwords do you find it interesting that you go from the anectdotal evidence of "KJV Only" pastors to painting millions of others with the same brush? According to you, the King James Bible, literally the most printed and used book in all of human history, by far most in english, more than every other bible combined-the language simply is "out of use" based on a pastor here or there that gets something wrong? I've not known a single pastor who's not gotten something wrong! Romans 3:4 "let God be true, but every man a liar" ... where are God's words for you sir? In your own head! No written word has authority over your own reasoning!
Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary
spotted :)
Yup! They gave me the jacket thing!
Your video reminded me of when our Women's Bible study group was doing an overview study of the prophets. As I studied Micah 1:10-14 I found in the commentaries that Micah was using word plays for these cities. That, of course, is not obvious in the English, it was fascinating to me. I love words and their etymology, so thank you for this video.
Neat! Yes, I find it fascinating that the Lord would inspire untranslatable wordplay.
I thought the OE word for cross was rood. As an aside I recommend to anyone who hasn't, to give The Dream of the Rood a read, its really quite interesting.
That would be rude. (See what I did there, Mark? 😄 )
You may be right. I relied on Google Translate here, I confess!
@@markwardonwords Its no big deal; the point still stands. However do give The Dream of The Rood a read as a lover of English and God It really is worth the read.
@@raptor4916 The word "gealgtreow" is one of many names used for the cross in the Dream of the Rood. In this case, in line 146:
144b Be the Lord a friend to me
145 who here on earth earlier suffered
146 on that >gallows-tree< for man's sins.
I actually visited a church years back while I was traveling amd the preacher actually did try to link the word "koite" in Luke 11:7 with sexual activity. He said that humans always prefer to pleasure themselves rather than helping a friend or neighbor in need, but God is always giving up his own pleasure for our sakes. His conclusion was fairly sound, but how he got there was just bad exegesis.
Oh my!
Good teaching Mark. Thankfully God has graciously given us Gods word truth and wisdom in our modern English language intelligibly. I use and enjoy all the modern bibles.
What I love about your videos is that the naysayers have to really reveal their bad faith to attack your argument. There is no way someone can say that you are being mean or unduly negative by the critiques you offer.
And yet somehow they manage. ;) Which is why I really do appreciate it when people who disagree stop long enough to actually converse, and that happened today.
“Chambering” is one I picked up on my own from context. It was obviously enough not a word I knew, and so I had to stop and try to figure it out. Given the list it was in, I figured it was bad, and chamber led me to bedchamber, and the rest is clear enough from there.
I think “bedding down” is actually probably pretty good here, and in my local vernacular “bedding” would be enough by itself in context. It’s coarse language, but St Paul wasn’t above that when it suited him. (Cf. 1 Cor 6:9, which for all the debate about those two contentious clearly means something like “softies and manbedders,” and definitely isn’t a compliment. And where is that he wishes the Judaizers would castrate themselves?) I’ve seen people call the end times discourse in Matthew “Scary Jesus;” call this “Spicy Paul” but don’t apologize for him-he knew what he was about.
I admire those who picked it up from context. I didn't. The addition of another dead (or close to dead?) word after it, wantonness, didn't help me.
I agree with you about spicy Paul. I'd go for "bedding down" or "sleeping around." But one must also consider acceptability in the target audience.
@@markwardonwords The fun of sexual and body part euphemisms in Western English - you don't want to say certain words in public, so you come up with new words or new meanings for common words or a euphemism, and then someone decides it's more offensive than the word(s) you were trying to avoid, so the process begins again. Target audiences can be fickle. It would be nice to address a delicate subject with words that don't smack people in the face while communicating the specifics so openly, yet every attempt to do that seems to smack people in the face.
Romans 1:31 in the NKJV: "undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful;". Interesting approach.
Ah, yes!!
Reminds me of the beat poem by Mike Myers in, So I married an ax murderer. Un love ed 😂
similar in the HCSB (and lost a little in the CSB) - the 'un-' prefix replicating the 'ɑ-'
The Welsh of 1588/1620 translation captures dolos / adolos perfectly using the simple and still intelligible "twyll" and "ddidwyll" .... "di-" or in context "ddi-" is the welsh equivalent of the alpha-privative.
The main modern Welsh versions have lost the wordplay by opting for "pur" (< eng. "pure") for adolos.
Wow! Very cool, Hefin!
As someone who really has come to love reading and memorizing the KJV later in life I appreciate these videos. While educational, there is nothing weirder than a KJV only-ist. They need to be called out for their insanity
You have convinced me to become TAEV-Only!
Yup. I persuaded everyone to be NIV-Only with the last video, but I've moved on to a new Only.
I’m totally ill equipped to make such a thing, but I will buy a Word Play Study Bible the second it goes on preorder. Give me whichever modern translation you want, but all the notes should be pointing out wordplay. Give me the original, a transliteration of it, an English translation of it, and an English explanation of what’s going on. I’d use this until the cover fell off and then immediately buy a new one.
Alter is probably your best bet, Robby! I assume you have his OT translation?
@@markwardonwords I do have, and it was what originally gave me the idea!
I like the idea. For someone such as myself whose knowledge of the underlying Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek of the Bible is negligible, word play is easily missed.
Now that is something that would be an incredible resource! Sign me up.
Mark, I like the term, "sleeping around," metaphor for that word. Where does more or less "formal" styles of translation come into play when translating (I'm taking your term of "less formal" to mean something closer to "functional" on the Interlinear to paraphrase spectrum)?
It seems, to me, quite accurate by keeping the "bed" terminology across the languages, and for almost all fluent English speakers, there is no doubt about what is being communicated should it be used. Even for the word counters out there, adding "around," doesn't seem to get too far away from formal. "Sleeping around," seems to fit perfectly well in the list Paul gives. I gather that the Greek word that Paul used in the list of sins was not being used a euphemism of the (same) Greek word that Jesus used in the parable, but rather a word with two definitions on display - one in each passage.
I guess I'm asking (assuming a formal translation is of high priority) if it's wrong to translate Paul's use of the work euphemistically because Paul wasn't using an euphemism?
I have no language education outside of what someone explains in non classroom settings, but I do find discussions of Bible translations and philosophies and difficulties very fascinating.
I had once heard that the word ‘sincere’ came from two words: ‘sin’, meaning ‘without’ - and ‘cere’ meaning ‘wax’. Dishes, supposedly, which were made ‘without wax’ were labeled as ‘sincere’. Other dishes were more for common use, and cost less. They were made, partially, ‘with wax’.
Therefore, dishes which were marked ‘sincere’ were pure, unadulterated.
However, people no longer use the word ‘sincere’ in this manner. You are absolutely correct.
The OED directly raises this possibility: "The first syllable may be the same as sim-, in simplex: see simple adj. There is no probability in the old explanation < sine cērā ‘without wax’."
But it sure is appealing!
@@markwardonwords , thank you for clarifying that to me.
Yes! We finally get some Greek. I think it adds a lot-and may also encourage people to learn Greek.
I appreciate this. Will consider.
I second this. Not knowing biblical languages, I love the explanations when going in this direction.
Yes! I appreciate Mark's reluctance to not use Greek. It is off putting when people give the impression that one can never really understand the Bible unless it is read in the original Klingon (sorry, Greek or Hebrew).
However I do find knowing some of the original language interesting and useful when explained well.
@@Asher0208 It's not that you can't read and understand the Bible in translation, but you are literally reading it second hand, seeing it through a kind of interpretive screen-some screens, of course, being clearer than others. But I do take issue with your suggestion that referencing the original makes people feel like the Bible is unavailable to them. Feeling that way is both unnecessary and burying one's head in the sand. It's just reality that the Bible wasn't written in English.
Excellent teaching.
Glad it was helpful!
I just googled the definition of sincere (Merriam-Webster): honest, pure, true.
Good guess! What do you think now that you’ve watched the video?
@@markwardonwords I do gain insight from your false friends videos. I would stay with the KJV text, and just explain the definition of an “archaic” word. It seems to me most people don’t read the Bible enough as it is, that they would notice archaic words unless somebody told them.
This video was even better than the last one. Any resources to learn Greek? These videos have really piqued my interest.
I'm only in my third semester of Ancient Greek, so take this with a grain of salt, but if you can spare the money I'd highly recommend the Ancient Language Institute. I've also found Whitacre's Grammar of New Testament Greek to be an excellent resource whenever I want to review some grammar point. I'm also enjoying the Ranieri-Dowling method, but it takes some doing to collect some of the books mentioned in it
I learned Greek a particular way; at the time (I was still a teenager) I wasn't aware any other ways existed. I'm happy enough with the way I learned, but I've become fascinated with living-language approaches to Koine Greek.
I have a trusted friend who teaches Greek this way. I'd point you here: www.biblicallanguagecenter.com/live-video/
@@markwardonwordsthanks
@@StrategicGamesEtcthanks
@@markwardonwords I too learned Greek using an older methodology. Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, I did not use it for many years and lost quite a bit of it but have returned to it and now am taking in the newer methodology. The newer method has less emphasis on rote memorization and has memorization of how Greek nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc are formed so that it quickens the ability to recognize and parse a word based on those indicators. Even though I many not know the meaning of the word, I may be able to discern that it is an Aorist/Active/3rd Person/Plural verb from those indicators. I'm really enjoying the newer methodology as I begin refreshing and reading some of the New Testament daily in Greek. In Conjunction, I am taking Dr. Dan Wallace's 'Beyond The Basics' intermediate and an advanced grammar course to refresh the advanced grammar I took while in seminary. What are your thoughts on the newer ideas regarding aspect and discourse grammar? There was not that much emphasis on these when I was in seminary.
"I've put that claim on the internet, I'll have you know. It is therefore true." Tarepex! Tarepex!
I've always spelled it "tairpex," but apparently there is a variant spelling already, moments after the birth of the word! ;)
Lol, at the Dick Van Dyke joke. 🤣🤣
;)
Crazy! Your plane too! Thankfully all our kids were allowed to use the bathroom while we waited a long time for a gate
It was awful on so many levels. =( The flight staff were great, though, as usual.
Thank you, Mark for sharing your insights into the meanings and influences of the KJV in relation to the original languages.
My pleasure!
I thought cynesetl (presumably kingsettle in modern spelling) for throne was quite a good old English word.
It's a perfectly cromulent word.
Excellent presentation!
Glad you liked it!
Mount Vernon, Washington? You are on the wrong side of the state! Highly recommend you get into a car and travel at least five hours east asap! :-) Oh, and the video was great!
Ha! I've been there-we loved Dry Falls State Park, and we were happy to visit Spokane. But I'll take Western Washington any day. I absolutely love it here!
Hey Mark! Just wanted to reach back out and say I listened to the audio version of your book twice through and ordered a physical copy. I also got my youth pastor to buy your book. Anyway I'd love to meet with you for coffee sometime in September.
Do you have my email?
@@markwardonwords No. I would have contacted you that way but I couldn't find it. I know this isn't the best way to try to contact somebody.😂
@@JonathanToole I can't give it out here. =| I have another way…
Groaner jokes are the best jokes.
Too bad there are none of those here!
Thank you for the informative video
Dear @markwardonwords, Hello !
I was conversing with a KJV Only supporter and noticed how rude he was with me. I asked him why he was being so rude. Christians shouldn't be so rude to each other as brothers in Christ.
He told me to read 2 Cor. 11:6:
"But though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge; but we have
been throughly made manifest among you in all things." (KJV)
He then told me, if it was ok for Paul to be "rude" in speaking to others, then it is ok for him to speak to me in a rude manner.
The English word "rude" was probably an appropriate word to use to translate the Greek work "ἰδιώτης" (idiōtēs) back in 1611, but the common understanding we have of the word "rude" today, does not match the meaning back then. Apparently, he didn't grasp the change in the meaning of the word and as a result had a distorted understanding of the actual meaning of the text of the Scriptures.
I suppose one could say he was exhibiting an idiōtēs attitude.
SO you this be an example of one to the false friends ? Be Well, DZ
YES! And a great story. But a sad one. This one is going in my files. I kind of thought that sense of "rude" was still in the language, but NOAD labels it as archaic.
Curious... What do you think of the Ferrar Fenton version? How he actually writes the Psalms with poetic meter and rhyme?
I confess to complete ignorance of it!
It has "odd one-person translation" written all over it.
"By Periods GOD created that which produced the Solar Systems; then that which produced the Earth. But the Earth was unorganized and empty; and darkness covered its convulsed surface; while the breath of GOD rocked the surface of its waters" (Genesis 1.1-2).
"So GOD created men under His own Shadow, creating them in the Shadow of God, and constituting them male and female" (Genesis 1.27).
"And Abram believed in the EVER-LIVING, and it was repaid to him in righteousness" (Genesis 15.6).
"And when Moses went with the tabernacle, the cloud tremblingly descended and stood at the door of the tabernacle, and the WORD was with Moses" (Exodus 33.9).
"Then David sent messengers and took her, and went to her, and lay with her, and prostituting, he defiled her, and then sent her home" (2 Samuel 11.4).
"And there was again a battle at Gob with the Philishtim, and Abkhanan-ben-Jari, the weaver of Bethlehem, defeated Galitha, the Githite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam" (2 Samuel 21.19; a note says that "Galitha" should not be confused with "Goliath" from 1 Samuel 17).
"But the EVER-LIVING had appointed 'The Great Fish' to pick up Jonah" (Jonah 2.1; a footnote explains that this is the name of a ship that picked up Jonah; Fenton laments that the LXX had translated it as "whale," an error repeated by everyone until now).
"My LORD attends;-I shall not want" (Psalm 23.1; I see what Fenton is attempting here, but the ISV better conveys the point that "shepherd" is actually a verb: "The LORD is the one who is shepherding me").
....
As with all such one-person efforts, Fenton's version does sometimes do things well (I quite liked his take on Psalm 136, for instance), and most of what I skimmed from both testaments was fine.
Excellent video…
Many thanks!
Keep 'em comin'!
That's the plan! Though I also plan to be done with KJV issues by the end of 2024.
Wait… are you telling me that a “carpet” isn’t an animal that rides with me in my automobile?
I have always pondered the phrase "love of money" in the verse, "The love of money is the root of all evil." I remember, but can't remember exactly, an ancient theologian saying that the word translated "love of money" is "covetousness" but because it was a compound word it was translated into two because its compound parts. Like strawberries being translated berries of straw. Could you check it out? Thanks.
Good single-word translations of philarguria would be greed or avarice or covetousness. Greed would be the simplest word in common use today, but all three are synonymous.
A well-known verse induces paralysis in translators, because they know that people will reject a translation if it doesn't "sound right" in their favorite verses. "Greed" would be just fine here, but you are unlikely to ever see anything besides "love of money" except in paraphrases and translations that are obviously unconcerned with people's objections to such changes.
At 1 Peter 2:2, Peter did not use the word "sincere", that is the Greek word alethinos (G228), meaning "truthful, real and true, genuine" (and found 28 times in the Bible, in which context determines its exact meaning), as seen at Hebrew 8:2 and 10:22.
Rather, Peter used the Greek word adolos (G97, and found only at 1 Peter 2:2, and is a combination of G1, Greek alpha, the first letter of the Greek alphabet, as at Rev 1:8, and G1388, dolos, meaning "a trick, crafty, deceitful, guile", as at Matt 26:4), that means "undeceitful, i.e. unadulterated, pure", so that 1 Peter 2:22 accurately says: "As newborn infants, form a longing for the unadulterated milk of the word, so that by means of it you may grow to salvation."(2013 New World Translation)
When the King James Bible was published in 1611 C.E. (or the earlier Bibles, such as Matthews Bible of 1537 C.E., the Great Bible of 1539 C.E., the Geneva Bible of 1560 C.E., the Catholic Douay Version of 1582 C.E.), there was not a "clear-cut" understanding of ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek, whereby one of the best Greek scholars of that era was the Dutchman Desiderius Erasmus (born ?- 1536 C.E.)
Words such as the Aramaic raka at Matthew 5:22 (and means "an unspeakable word of contempt") and Greek "hosanna" at Matthew 21:9 (from the Hebrew hohshana and means "save, we pray"; found 6 times in the Bible) were left as they were, untranslated by the King James Bible translators.
The Bible encyclopedia Insight on the Scriptures says this: "The first printed edition of the Christian Greek Scriptures (commonly referred to as "the New Testament") was that appearing in the Complutensian Polyglott (in Greek and Latin), of 1514-1517."
"Then in 1516 the Dutch scholar Desiderius Erasmus published his first edition of a master Greek text of the Christian Greek Scriptures. It contained many errors, but an improved text thereof was made available through four succeeding editions from 1519 to 1535."
"Later, Paris printer and editor Robert Estienne, or Stephanus, issued several editions of the Greek “New Testament,” based principally on Erasmus’ text, but having corrections according to the Complutensian Polyglott (edition of 1522) and 15 late manuscripts (or no earlier than the 12th century C.E.)."
"The third edition of Stephanus’ Greek text (issued in 1550) became, in effect, the “Received Text” (called textus receptus in Latin), which was used for many early English versions, including the King James Version of 1611."(Vol 2, pg 314)
Only in our time frame has there been real accuracy in understanding and translating the Hebrew and Christian Greek Scriptures, for more often than not, "theological bias" has "colored" many translations, so that it is "twisted" in a "theological direction", and is NOT "unadulterated".
I notice you are wearing a Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary shirt! I studied Greek and Hebrew there back in the 1980's. I am enjoying your videos on the KJV. Perhaps you mentioned this in one of your videos, but I love to point out the the KJV does some major paraphrasing of Philippians 2:7, undoubtedly trying to avoid misunderstanding of the kenosis.
I have some respected friends at DBTS and am about to redesign their website!
On Phil 2:7 I believe you’re right.
Quite an enjoyable video. I'm not a huge fan of the term "sexual immorality", because it assumes its own definition, and is thus singularly unhelpful to anyone looking to faithfully apply what the Bible teaches: I don't want a wishy-washy phrase like "sexual immorality" that does nothing but force you to substitute whatever current beliefs on sexual morality for its definition, but an actual meaningful word or phrase that actually communicates what is being forbidden. It's far better than a word like "chambering" or "cohabitation" (I don't think it's a stretch to understand "chambering" as cohabitation in context (after all, we have other "chamber"-in-the-sense-of-room words and verbing [sic] a noun is hardly alien to our English), but cohabitation isn't quite right anyway, as you said), neither of which communicate what's actually meant in modern English
I looked up κοίτη on LSJ and StepBible, but it's hard to get a sense for which of their senses are accurate. I guess the next step would be to read instances of the lemma on perseus (it shows 67, so tractable to read them all), but my Greek is not (hopefully yet) good enough to make doing so not an awful pain that I would much rather spend in Antigone. If κοίτη truly can mean generic "sexual immorality" and it is most reasonable to assume it does so here, then it indeed imo ought indeed be translated "sexual immorality", as in that case the ambiguity is original to the text and such a translation is thereby faithful. But I feel incapable of discerning where the writers of the LSJ and similar are faithfully relating the meanings of words, and where they are using deceptive language to hide the plain meaning of the word (this sounds insane, but I am more and more suspecting that this is endemic in Bible translation. I don't know a word of Hebrew, but I can tell you that either the many educated people who I've heard claiming that the Song of Songs is sexually suggestive are wrong and just have dirty minds AND the translators of the NLT conspired to insert sexually suggestive language into a Bible translation for prurient reason, or else English translations generally translate it so poorly that it doesn't appear to refer to sex _at all_ . Another famous one is σκύβαλον in Phili 3:8, which only the LSJ has the guts to give primary place to "dung", with the default StepBible meaning relegating that meaning down the list, and most Bible translations choosing a synonym for "refuse" as if blind that surely even if "refuse" were meant, that the more concrete meaning of the word would still be in mind, and modern English happens to have several words which have the requisite polysemy to include both senses. And that's assuming (like every dictionary I've seen _including_ the LSJ has assumed) that the NET Notes are wrong that σκύβαλον has a vulgarity or shock value to it)
One thing I've heard you repeat in multiple videos in one form or another, is the claim that most people can't evaluate claims that the KJV has a better text base than modern translations because they don't know Greek and Hebrew. I'm not sure why that follows. I'm studying Greek, but the more I learn, the less confident I become on text critical issues (I'm currently undecided between Byzantine Priority and the CT). In fact, I don't know why someone who didn't know a word of Greek or Hebrew could nonetheless be extremely knowledgeable about text criticism, nor why someone who was fluent in the languages could not be completely ignorant of it. They just seem to be mostly separate areas of expertise, to me. At most, a greater fluency in Greek will allow me to say something like "I like how this edition of the GNT reads", but I cannot see how just knowing Greek would ever allow me to honestly say "This edition of the GNT is closer to the original autographs (source: trust me bro, I read/speak Ancient Greek fluently)"
There are some really great thoughts here, and you write very well. I pray for your success in Greek study.
I'll admit something to you: my view of textual criticism is hidden-a little bit-in my perspective on the learnability of textual criticism by laypeople. I believe that we ought to make some effort to incorporate all the evidence, all the readings God has preserved for us, rather than just a few or a subset. KJV-Onlyists don't believe that; they think they have a method of doing textual criticism that doesn't require looking at any evidence in Greek at all. If you take their viewpoint, then you don't need to know Greek to do NT textual criticism; if you take mine, then it is foolhardy to attempt textual criticism without knowing the language of the documents you're comparing.
I think you're on the right track in viewing κοιτη as general, even ambiguous. I think it's fine to have to fill in the meaning of "sexual immorality" from other passages in Scripture. Paul didn't write in a contextless vacuum. But I think you're right to want to be careful to study out any issues related to gender or sexuality. If you hit your limits with Greek (I really, really know how that feels!), then I'd encourage you to go to the commentaries.
I hope that helps!
@@markwardonwords I definitely have your view on Textual criticism in the sense that I think the original autographs are the standard by which we judge all translations, and that the way we reconstruct the original autographs is through weighing of manuscript evidence, and so I am right there with you in terms of dismissing KJVo's view on Textual Criticism
However, when it comes to views on Textual Criticism which do not ignore the evidence in favor of just declaring one edition to be inspired (explicitly or in practice), as far as I've been able to tell, the differences between them lie not in whether or not the original autographs are authoritative, nor in whether or not we ought to use historical evidence to reconstruct said autographs, but rather in what assumptions we ought to have regarding the transmission of the text. I am not sure how Ancient Greek would be of any use discriminating one set of assumptions (Byzantine Priority) from the other (standard Critical Text). Both sides will look at a given edition of the GNT and agree on what the Greek means, they just disagree on what the Greek should be (on occasion). Both sides will appeal to the same types of scribal errors, they'll just evaluate their likelihood and explanatory power differently. Both sides agree that an older text is more reliable, they just disagree on whether the oldest manuscripts best represent that oldest text. Perhaps if one became fluent enough in Ancient Greek and spent enough years copying manuscripts by hand to begin to make various scribal errors naturally, then one could leverage their Ancient Greek skill to genuinely weigh in on textual criticism. Maybe. That's a _really_ high degree of fluency, though, to be confident that you're making the same sorts of errors a native speaker would've been making at the same sort of rate and places; I'm not sure there's a single person alive today who has that degree of fluency in Ancient Greek
All that said, it could well be that there will come an inflection point in my study of Ancient Greek where Textual Criticism will start making more sense to me rather than less. For now I'm tentatively treating it like Bible Translations, though, in the sense that there's no harm using multiple, as they show a range of ways good Christians can legitimately translate a passage (or, in the case of GNTs, a range of ways good Christians can legitimately reconstruct the autographs, at least to the degree of precision that I can detect)
Re κοίτη, I have wondered if a reasonable context to assume might be "what the Tanakh gives as immoral sexual actions", which is similar to what you said, but I have no idea how to either support or disprove that idea, so I don't really want to conclude its true. I suppose the Bible does assume we know what "wickedness" is, so maybe it's no problem for κοίτη to be somewhat ambiguous in the same way
@@StrategicGamesEtcI wish you well for your studies.
I’ve got a possible video idea for you. My father in law who is 73 says when he was in college a man came to speak who had apparently gone into some courts and proved creation over evolution. The guy told the student body he could only do this from the King James. He said all of the other translations had changed so much it would not hold up in court. I have tried googling this and found nothing. He doesn’t remember the man’s name.
Yeah, I've got nothin. No bells are ringing!
If your father-in-law is 73, then he most likely would not have attended college until after the 1968 Epperson v. Arkansas case, which determined that states could not pass laws banning the teaching of evolution in schools. Thus, the man he heard could not have been taking such action by the time he addressed the class. On the other hand, the speaker would have to be a generation younger than William Jennings Bryan, who died immediately after winning the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial. There were a number of people who lobbied for anti-evolution laws in the wake of that decision. Do you know if this man supposedly took these actions in a particular state?
@@MAMoreno He doesn’t seem to remember. This is irritating because things like this get said without any way to check and people just take it as evidence.
I love you Mark, but to use Erasmian pronunciation while talking about listening for word-play in Greek would have made an old Greek teacher of mine red with anger. The existence and prevalence of this kind of word-play was the very reason he gave for using Koine or Modern pronunciation.
I totally get it. I've gone back and forth on whether I should learn Modern Greek pronunciation or some other scheme.
@@markwardonwords If Koine was good enough for Peter, it's good enough for me! 😉
"Non tainted" milk. "Kosher" milk. "Pure and undefiled" milk. "Non-gaslighted" milk. Douay Rheims: "as infants even now borne, reasonable, milke without guile desire ye, that in it you may grow vnto saluation." "Guile" and "without guile" sounds best to me.
I have had local pastor's ask me how I preach when I don't believe God gave us an absolutely perfect without any error translation..................
If they were living in the early 1600s, they'd undoubtedly be asking the KJV translators the same question...
@@MAMoreno I was in Germany a year ago, and I did not see one KJV....are you telling me that the Germans do not have God's word?
@@kdeh21803 Read my comment again. I did not say "you." I said "they."
@@MAMoreno doesn't matter... I have trouble with people that tell me that any translation is completely without a single error in translation....
@@kdeh21803 So did the KJV's translators.
Hey Brother. Video idea. So I hear often about how in 1611 there were words that existed that were better fits for the Greek and Hebrew words than any words that exist today, which I'm sure is true. I must also assume that there are words today that are a better translation with no 1611 equivalent.
Excellent idea. Can’t think of an example off the top of my head.
Love your excessively nerdy videos. Does this mean I'm a nerd?
I am sorry to have to be the one to reveal this to you.
Yes.
@@markwardonwords Ok good I married a nerd and wasn't sure because he was so much more nerdy than I.
I think Paul was predicting Glocks and AR15s when he mentions chambering 😁
That was my first thought. "Chamber a round into the rifle".
That was my first thought. "Chamber a round into the rifle".
George Chapman was the first major English translator of Homer's The Odyssey and The Iliad in the 1611. I wonder whether KJV Onlyists only read The Odyssey or The Iliad in the Chapman translation (Chapman Onlyists?), rather than the corrupted translation of Robert Fagles, who translated The Iliad in 1990 and The Odyssey in 1996 for modern readers.
Here is an interesting video from the perspective of a 'ploughboy' discussing which translation of the Iliad you should read (I think you will enjoy it). It is interesting to hear what she is looking for in a translation (spoiler - accessibility and understanding are important). NB: Her reasons for selecting the translation she did include the design and beauty of the copy she chose (notice how her face lights up when she describes her beautiful copy!): th-cam.com/video/cgFxgnK90zI/w-d-xo.html
I wonder what the Greek word for 'sincere' is in the following passage from Chapman's translation (I bet it is "dolos" with the 'pure' meaning intended):
And thee, O archer Phœbus, with waves clear
Wash’d sweetly over, swaddled with sincere
And spotless swathbands; and made then to flow
About thy breast a mantle, white as snow,
My update of the above passage (I think I will call it The Simplified Homer):
And you, archer Phœbus, washed over sweetly
with clear waves, and wrapped with pure
And spotless linen bands; made to flow
About your breast as a cloak, white as snow,
Here you can read Chapman's Odyssey for free (no doubt a selling point to Homer Onlyists). You don't have to pay a modern publishing company or author for their corrupted new moneymaking translation: www.gutenberg.org/files/48895/48895-h/48895-h.htm
It doesn’t matter which version you read. The Spirit fills in the gaps and gives us understanding.
That's a great and often overlooked point.
Even a "perfect" translation is worthless without the Spirit to give understanding.
So, no one ever misunderstands? Or those who do, misunderstand because they don't open themselves to the Holy Spirit? In that case, all the examples that Mark gives of KJVO preachers not understanding the KJV words they are using become guilty of something very damning. Not sure I want to go beyond declaring them to be normal fallible humans; I don't want to accuse them of lacking the Spirit. Do you?
Clark gave a truly great comment.
And I have another question: if this is the case, why not read the Hebrew and Greek? Who needs a translation at all if the Spirit can just fill in the gaps and give us understanding?
Yeah, just like when Eve's spirit filled in the gaps when satan gave her his version too.
@@clarkcoleman8143 What about timing? God gives us understanding through the Holy Spirit at the appropriate time. Just because you don’t fully understand something now doesn’t mean you never will. Everything we know is because God gave us that understanding. Read Matthew 13:10-16
If the original word has the meaning of two things, with both meaning related. Would it be wrong to place a word that leaves out one meaning? Sincere may be the best word… Do you believe the Bible is God breathed? “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:“
This is a fair question, it really is! I love this.
Your question implies a principle-would you agree? It goes like this, and I've heard it before: "All translations of the Bible should be word-for-word accurate to the originals."
Here's the problem: this is utterly impossible. There is hardly a single verse of Scripture in which it is possible to go directly from Hebrew or Greek to English, with each form matching exactly the meaning of the original language form. The closest we could get is "Jesus wept," perhaps. But even there, the Greek says, literally, word-for-word, "[He/that one] wept the Jesus." There is an article-"the"-in Greek that makes no sense in English. And the Greek verb contains grammatical information that the English one doesn't (in other words, "I wept" and "he wept" and "they wept" and "we wept" are different forms in Greek, but in English the "wept" form is used for all of them).
There is effectively always grammatical information in Hebrew and Greek that simply cannot be translated into English. But this doesn't mean we're missing something essential. If it did, then the Greek New Testament itself wouldn't include translations into Greek of verses from the Hebrew Bible.
Languages never, ever line up one-for-one. Even languages that are closely related, like Italian and Spanish, do not line up word-for-word. God gave us this situation. If key meaning is difficult to get across in translation-and I would say this is rare-translators have footnotes and other workarounds they can use.
Does this make sense?
@@markwardonwords Hello Mark, I do see what you mean, I’m not exactly a word for word person. If as far as we know the original holds two meanings, if an up to-date word can’t be found two words together could easily be fitted. Also it would be difficult for us to read, if for example if the Chinese language was translated word for word.
Being sincere didn’t reveal the Great Pumpkin to Charlie Brown!
I used to love the comics about the Great Pumpkin!
Any version that supports your particular dogma, I’d a good one!! 😂
You are sooo clever and funny that you scare me a little
It’s all camera tricks.
100% sincere❤
Yes, I am!
The first edition had more scripture
Considering Ancient Hebrew was a dead language about 347bc, I highly doubt the KJV!
Not sure I follow, my friend!
undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful - Rom. 1:31. The NKJV is another translation that translates the literary pattern.
Yes! Love that!
Did the creators of the NKJV catch all of the false friends in their update?
I would say not quite. But the ones they didn't catch are borderline, like "hosts."
@@markwardonwords It would be interesting to see you do a video on how we (your viewers - presumably lay people with an interest in words) can go about rooting out false friends in the KJV and NKJV; i.e. what is the best way to do so. Is it by using a modern translation like the ESV and noticing when the KJV (or NKJV) word looks familiar but is translated by the ESV translators differently from the false friend? Are there other methods? How do you go about it? Is there a list of potential false friends to look for?
@@markwardonwords Yes, I think we all know that "hosts" means "a male who is throwing a party or arranging a get together" (and "hostess" would be a female throwing a party or arranging a get together" or "a female who greets guests at a restaurant and shows them to their table").
@captainnolan5062 ;)
@@captainnolan5062 I think that just having a category, label, and category for false friends is a big start in the right direction. Checking modern versions is the easiest way to identify them, and doing so repeatedly helps to hone a sensitivity to contextual conflict, in my experience.
Hey there, Pr. Mark. Quick question for you: I see a/the reason Wescott & Hort chose renderings different to those found in the TR was due to them being older, as opposed to them being the majority reading. If this is correct, would you please explain to me why age, and not number is used as a criterion for accuracy? I assume that it is because the older it is, the less likely it is that variation/changes occurred through copyist's adding some thoughts of their own (whether well-intentioned or not). However, wasn't the timing of the older manuscripts (3rd/4th century) a time of many false teachings arising? In other words, perhaps these older ones were actually just older, wronger ones? Please do help. I have so many more questions on this subject, but this will do for now. Thanks for your ministry. I do appreciate it.
This is a fantastic question. I don't think it can truly be answered without some willingness on the part of the questioner to do some homework. I'd send you right to this book: www.amazon.com/dp/1433564092?tag=3755-20.
However, you are basically right that the assumption is that older manuscripts are less likely to have been touched by quite so many well-meaning hands. The reason I myself do not believe that the rise of false teaching in the third and fourth centuries should give us concern regarding our oldest Greek New Testament manuscripts is that I've looked at every last translatable difference between two of the best examples of the major options (a more majority approach in Scrivener's TR and a more older-is-better, eclectic approach in the SBLGNT/NA28) and I just don't see them truly disagreeing. If the bad guys got to the critical text long ago, they did a very poor job of altering the theology contained within it.
A related video:
th-cam.com/video/iqUZhjozBhs/w-d-xo.html
And a website you need to check out if you haven't seen it, a website done by yours truly and a team of volunteers:
kjvparallelbible.org
@@markwardonwords Thank you so much! I will definitely check this out. And I appreciate your argument. It makes sense.
If I may ask another question, can you point me to some place where someone actually responds to Dr. Robinson's defense of the Byzantine text? I am yet to read all the way through Robinson's stuff (there is a link on one of your blogs where you link a lengthy article of his), in which he appears to state that CT proponents like Dr. Wallace tend to just ignore his arguments (or the evidence favouring the Byzantine text).
Also, how can a layman like myself determine which arguments are stronger? I do not know any Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. I sometimes feel like these people are talking past each other. I know ultimately, unless I learn these languages and perhaps how to do textual criticism, I will have to rely on others' expert opinions, but without that, how can one navigate the literature well?
@@davidsymons6063 This is excellent and humble thinking-funny enough, the two often go together.
There's this that's worth reading: evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2006/01/review-of-robinson-and-pierpont.html
And you might as well read Wallace: bible.org/article/majority-text-and-original-text-are-they-identical
I think you might observe what you do in other disputes that feel over your head-I certainly do this. And I'm not talking only about theological disputes. I think you do your best to see who's knowledgeable and trustworthy, you listen hard, and you make the best decision you can with real humility. And sometimes that decision is to believe that all the sides sure have knowledgeable and trustworthy proponents and isn't that neat. Then go back to what the Bible actually says in the form in which it's sitting in your study on the desk. Does it push you one way or the other? If not-and I think not-then feel the liberty to not come to a conclusion. Really, that's where I'm at. I have some conclusions I've come to, but I see it as a Christian's liberty to use whatever text comes to hand.
@@markwardonwords Thanks so much for this!
Of course Moses had Janus in mind; after all he wrote Janusis.
You must be a dad!!
@@markwardonwords Indeed (though the kids are out of the house and on their own; so a "successful Dad" to be sure).
I wot not.
Which is the true Bible translation? Did the text begin when the author first made a mark on papyrus or stone? Or did it start when it was edited and added to new scriptural material? Perhaps it began when the books were canonized. If so, which canonization-was it the Masoretic Text or the Septuagint of the Old Testament, or Marcion's first collection of scriptures, which was the earliest collection of New Testament writings? Or was it when the Old Testament and New Testament were combined? Or when the Apocryphal books were removed? Was it the first translation corrected by translators, or possibly even by "God"? Can anyone pinpoint the exact moment when the collection of books, written by 40 different authors over more than 3,000 years, was truly completed? Was the true text created with the first inspirational translation, or when modern translators discovered and edited interpolations? Will the true translation of the Bible please stand up?
I find it very sad that KJVonlyists have to circle the wagons n squirsh themselves into a corner(see what I did there) and push all other bible versions and users out into some kind of YOU'RE ALL DECEIVED GET AWAY FROM ME YOU HERETIC mode.
Yes, I see this as very sad. But a LOT of the good folks in KJV-Onlyism are not doing this, they really aren't. The rank-and-file don't treat me this way. I think they know better in their Christian hearts. They know I'm their brother.
I agree, somewhat. It does seem like they like the last word and get a jab in at times.
STUDY to approve yourself unto God, a workman needs not be ashamed, Rightly dividing the Word of God. One Teacher the Holy Spirit.
My friend, I urge you to watch my video on “Study to shew thyself approved.” Language has changed over time, and this phrase in 2 Timothy 2:15 does not mean what you think it means. To find out what the KJV translators meant, watch this video:
th-cam.com/video/Nzgmi6I2HIE/w-d-xo.html
I’d love to hear what you think. Please feel free to comment on that video.
Too colloquial and time sensitive, but “hooking up” would make perfect contemporary sense. But sure shouldn’t be in a translation.
Yeah, a worthy idea. But, yes, too slangy and therefore time-sensitive. I agree.
@@markwardonwords Just reading: When is the last time you used "minished" in a sentence? Ps. 107:39
So, Mark, would the privative in that word where we got the "sin" in sincere? Like the Spanish word for "without?" So it would be without deceit?
I wondered the same but failed to look it up!
Ok, so here's what the OED says: "The first syllable may be the same as sim-, in simplex: see simple adj. There is no probability in the old explanation < sine cērā ‘without wax’."
So no: "sincere" doesn't have a clear etymology related to "sine."
@@markwardonwords Well thank you for doing the leg work. That would have been a fascinating discovery to find out that it had an archaic privative that most of us had just never realized.
I have also wondered if you would ever consider doing some work similar to your current work on Textual Absolutism and what I would generally call "Single Translation-ism" where people think we should hold rigidly to one given translation? I've encountered a lot of that in Spanish. Many Spanish-speaking Christians aren't even aware of translations other than the RVR1960 or are confused/scared by them. Your work on KJV Onlyism has been so great I think it would be awesome if you ever decided to do similar stuff in Spanish, although idk how much Spanish you speak.
Either way thank you and God bless you for the work you are doing Dr. Ward!
@@4jgarner I speak Spanish somewhat well-though I'm a bit rusty. I *have* considered this. I have a friend I could work with. But I wasn't imagining doing more than one or two videos. I'd love to see someone en el mundo hispanohablante do similar work. They wouldn't have to invent the wheel, just find wheel examples in the relevant Spanish Bibles.
@@markwardonwords I am not 1/10th the scholar you are but I have thought about dipping my toes into this. Even simple things like "vosotros" are somewhat of a false friend for many people. I was recently present when an entire room of people realized it wasn't a synonym for "nosotros", rather a plural second person pronoun. For now I am doing what I can to combat "Single Translationism" in Spanish at my local congregation but informing them about things like the underlying texts that are the real reason for many supposed "changes" and the different styles of translation. Please pray that God will equip me someday to dive into the language change aspect as well.
In the meantime, any work you do in this, even just the 2 videos, you have at least one person who would watch and rewatch.
@@4jgarner I appreciate this. I'm running out of time to tackle all the topics I could tackle before my self-imposed Dec 31, 2024 deadline for being done with KJV stuff on the channel. =|
So what u suggest KJV or ESV ?
Both!
I thought you were done making KJV videos! But I’m glad you’re still doing them!
I will be by the end of 2024!
@@markwardonwords Until you need to make one in 2025! Bwahahahaha
@@markwardonwordsthat may be your hope. It’s not mine 😊. I and obviously many others really enjoy your work related to KJV onlyism. I think it helps me to have an overall better understanding of both modern and older translations - and the issues translators face.
@@dondgc2298 I’ll still talk about Bible translation, I feel sure!
Going to bed SEX, sleep together if context dictates, I laid down with my two year old till they fell off to sleep. This isn't sex. So context dictates.
BTW κοίτη (koitē), is used 64 times in 62 verses in the LXX Greek.
📖 Rom 13:13 KJV - Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in CHAMBERING and wantonness, not in strife and envying.
📜 Rom 13:13 TR - ὡς ἐν ἡμέρᾳ εὐσχημόνως περιπατήσωμεν μὴ κώμοις καὶ μέθαις μὴ κοίταις καὶ ἀσελγείαις μὴ ἔριδι καὶ ζήλῳ
📜 Rom 13:13 TR - ὡς ἐν ἡμέρᾳ εὐσχημόνως περιπατήσωμεν μὴ κώμοις καὶ μέθαις μὴ κοίταις [CHAMBERING] καὶ ἀσελγείαις μὴ ἔριδι καὶ ζήλῳ
📚 κοίταις koitais N-DPF - κοίτη koitē
📋 If the KJV would've maintained concordance with the Greek Word κοίτη koitē, then by deduction of use the reader would understand.
📖Rom 9:10 KJV And not only this; but when Rebecca also had CONCEIVED [κοίτην koitēn] by one, even by our father Isaac;
🔖Rom 9:10 KJV And not only this; but when Rebecca also had CHAMBERED [κοίτην koitēn] by one, even by our father Isaac;
📖Heb 13:4 KJV Marriage is honourable in all, and the BED [κοίτη koitē] undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
🔖Heb 13:4 KJV Marriage is honourable in all, and the CHAMBER [κοίτη koitē] undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
📋It's not the best word even for 1611, but would be understood if a concordant use was maintained.
📖 Rom 13:13 KJV - Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in CHAMBERING and wantonness, not in strife and envying.
📜 Rom 13:13 TR - ὡς ἐν ἡμέρᾳ εὐσχημόνως περιπατήσωμεν μὴ κώμοις καὶ μέθαις μὴ κοίταις καὶ ἀσελγείαις μὴ ἔριδι καὶ ζήλῳ
📖 Rom 13:13 VUL - {13} sicut in die honeste ambulemus non in comesationibus et ebrietatibus non in cubilibus [beds] et inpudicitiis non in contentione et aemulatione
📖 Rom 13:13 SE - {13} Andemos como de día, honestamente; no en glotonerías y borracheras, no en lechos [beds] y disoluciones, no en pendencias y envidia;
🔖 Rom 13:13 SE/EN Let's walk as in the day, honestly; not in gluttony and drunkenness, not in BEDS and dissoluteness, not in quarrels and envy
📖 Rom 13:13 EM - {13} Andemos decentemente, como de día; no con glotonerías y borracheras, ni en pecados sexuales y desenfrenos, ni en peleas y envidia.
🔖Rom 13:13 EM/EN Let us walk decently, as in the day; not with gluttony and drunkenness, nor in SEXUAL SINS and debaucheries, nor in fights and envy.
📖 Rom 13:13 NASB95 - Let us behave properly as in the day, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in SEXUAL PROMISCUITY and sensuality, not in strife and jealousy.
📖 Rom 13:13 NIV - Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in SEXUAL IMMORALITY and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy.
📖 Rom 13:13 PHILLIPS - Let us live cleanly, as in the daylight, not in the “delights” of getting drunk or PLAYING WITH SEX, nor yet in quarrelling or jealousies.
📖 Rom 13:13 LSB - Let us walk properly as in the day, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in SEXUAL PROMISCUITY and sensuality, not in strife and jealousy.
✔️📖 Rom 13:13 NMB - Let us walk honourably, as in the daylight: not in revelry and drunkenness, nor in SLEEPING AROUND and wantonness, nor in strife and envying,
✔️📋 closest to our common slang of English CHAMBERING?
📋 Possibly bad thoughts (sexual?) CHAMBERING?
Mic 2:1 KJV Woe to them that devise iniquity, and work evil upon their BEDS [CHAMBER κοίταις]! when the morning is light, they practise it, because it is in the power of their hand.
Mic 2:1 LXX ἐγένοντο λογιζόμενοι κόπους καὶ ἐργαζόμενοι κακὰ ἐν ταῖς
κοίταις αὐτῶν καὶ ἅμα τῇ ἡμέρᾳ συνετέλουν αὐτά διότι οὐκ ἦραν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῶν
📋 Possibly spiritual unfaithfulness, IDK if I stretch the thought?
📖 1Ch 5:1 KJV Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he was the firstborn; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father's BED [CHAMBER κοίτην], his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright.
📜 1Ch 5:1 LXX - καὶ υἱοὶ Ρουβην πρωτοτόκου Ισραηλ ὅτι οὗτος ὁ πρωτότοκος καὶ ἐν τῷ ἀναβῆναι ἐπὶ τὴν κοίτην τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ ἔδωκεν εὐλογίαν αὐτοῦ τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ Ιωσηφ υἱῷ Ισραηλ καὶ οὐκ ἐγενεαλογήθη εἰς πρωτοτόκια
📖 Lev 15:18 KJV - The woman also with whom man shall LIE 《CHAMBER 》 [with] seed of copulation, they shall [both] bathe [themselves] in water, and be unclean until the even.
📜 Lev 15:18 LXX - καὶ γυνή ἐὰν κοιμηθῇ ἀνὴρ μετ᾽ αὐτῆς κοίτην σπέρματος καὶ λούσονται ὕδατι καὶ ἀκάθαρτοι ἔσονται ἕως ἑσπέρας
📋 But there is a Greek CHAMBER.
• 📑 Psalms 19:5 παστού αυτού - his nuptial chamber,
• 📑 Joel 2:16 παστού αυτής - her nuptial chamber!
📖 Psa 19:5 KJV - {5} Which [is] as a bridegroom coming out of his CHAMBER, [and] rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
📜 Psa 19:5 LXX - {5} (18:6) καὶ αὐτὸς ὡς νυμφίος ἐκπορευόμενος ἐκ παστοῦ αὐτοῦ ἀγαλλιάσεται ὡς γίγας δραμεῖν ὁδὸν αὐτοῦ
Just out of curiosity, how many modern languages do you know? On a scale of 1-10 where do you stand? What translation work have you done? Have you ever translated a Bible? Thanks.
This is complicated. I speak and understand Spanish (though I'm a bit rusty at this point). I have working, professional knowledge of biblical Hebrew and (especially) Greek. I am able to use pretty much all indo-European languages for the work I do, especially Latin, German, French, Italian, Portuguese, and Dutch. And I speak very well English.
@@markwardonwords Thank you for answering my questions, even though partially. It's exactly what I guessed, because anyone who actually knows languages and has done translation work can tell that you don't have a working knowledge on any modern language or how translation actually works. You have a lot of book knowledge, which is not sufficient for any serious translation work. Anyone who has done serious translation work can pick up on these facts based on your arguments. They are the typical arguments made by people who have enough knowledge to not know what they're talking about while sounding professional to the crowd.
@@PerSon-b8e This is merely an insult; I'll give you the last word.
@@markwardonwords There is no insult. It's the opinion of someone who has done translation work for over 30 years. You're entitled to your opinion.
@@markwardonwords
Mark,
As someone who has worked in the past to translate some books from English into Spanish, as someone who has observed the vast work that you have done working with people from all across the globe (a number of them involved in Bible interpretation and translation), and as someone who understands that your statement of a “professional knowledge of biblical Hebrew and (especially) Greek” is a statement made in humility of your vast knowledge and study; my opinion is that you do have ample knowledge to know what you are talking about.
Gracias, Maestro 🌹🔥⭐🔥🌹
¡De nada, estudiante!
James White once bragged that he doesn't use an English translation when he preaches: He just reads out of the GNT and then preaches on it. This achieves maximum unintelligibility. So give Kent a little credit, for he's at least reading the Scriptures to his congregation in (partially unintelligible) English.
I can't wrap my head around "chambering". Even knowing its meaning I still can't "hear" the word in that sense.
He reads the Greek words in Greek? Didn't he mean he translates them live?
@@markwardonwords Yeah, that's it. Reads Greek and then tells them what it means. He described it in one of his debates or one of his podcasts. I can't remember where though.
When you going to talk about the KJVER?
I need to, I know!
I was going to say that this was interesting, but it wasn't. It reminds me of people like the Pharisees and Saducees debating about the things of a God that they neither knew nor had His word in them.
Not being a scholar or historian, I am just guessing that possibly millions of followers of Jesus Christ have willingly given their lives as martyrs, not based on translations or interpretations of scripture, but because of a very real and vibrant relationship with Father, Son and Spirit.
Scholarship is needed and presents some interesting things to consider, but as I said, the top scholars of Jesus day, religious scholars, did not even know God.
Our bibles are great, but worthless apart from the Spirit of Truth that is our teacher.
Please interact with the arguments made in the video.
Boo to ESV
Ye have god said ? Why are you attacking the word of God , you still haven’t said which bible god preserved?
God has worked through various versions of the Bible throughout history, even if those Bibles don't agree with every reading. While it would be nice to know the exact correct wording for every passage, the minor differences in the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Syriac, and other texts have not stopped the gospel message from spreading.
He hasn’t worked through the new version, this guy fails to recognise English as a universal language for the end times , fails to put the Kjv is authority, he is just pied piper what he was taught in seminary destroying faith,
As long as the message stays true , you can alter Verses about the deity of Christ under the pre tense of being to archaic
This guy doesn’t even believe in the bible if he DID he’d tell which one is GODS holy word
Just a waste of time , worker of the devil , twice dead wicked heretic, will be a lot to answer for at the judgment seat of Christ
@@alex-fw1bl I would strongly suggest you review Christ's statements from the ending of Mark chapter 3 (re: blaspheming the Holy Spirit by claiming that the Spirit's power is actually demonic power) before you start claiming with certainty that God is not working through the new versions. I'm a member of a church that uses modern versions, and I fully trust that it is God who is working through that church to accomplish the Great Commission.
Anybody that can get behind the NIV omitting 63000 words , ought to really have a deep think , question the pastor for poisoning the congregation.
Modern apostates say as long as the message is there , we can omit / change / why ? Would a bastion of the faith do that ?
The doctrines have been mutated so that you wouldn’t be able to cross reference the passages , the scumbags lied when they said it was a better translation.
It’s off the westcort and Hort gnostic text from Alexandria Egypt a real child of God avoids anything to do with Egypt as bible calls it a type of the world.
You are using a corrupt bible , it’s satanic and mark should be called out and those fake seminaries going against the Holy infallible KJV which is better than the originals
Do you think God is for these changes in the NKJV
Omitted words
Lord 66 times
God 51 times
Heaven 50 times
Repent 44 times
Blood 23 times
Hell 22 times
Jehovah removed completely
New Testament removed completely
Damnation removed completely
Devils removed completely
2 Corinthians 13 5
Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
God is for this , spiritual revival ? No
Hebrew scholars like James White and Greek scholar, Pastor Chris Rosebrough, would disagree with you. An all-around scholar is retired pastor, Daryl Rahfeldt. While there are many rich verses in the KJV, telling people KJV is the only interpretation that's true is ignorant. There are quite a few verses that are not word-to-word interpretations in the KJV. Both men have videos on just this topic. You should go watch them.
Did you watch the video, my friend?
@@markwardonwords😂
Can I tell her?
Mark Ward's channel is full of videos that say exactly what you're suggesting. Perhaps you should go watch them.
Sincere in ancient Greek also means,unmixed, unadulterated, pure, the one who does not lie.
If the words of God must be pure, and if in fact the King James Bible contains the preserved words of God, then any other words are not the word of God. This means the NIV, the ASV and all the others are not the right seed, because they are not incoruptable. 1st Peter 2:2 kjv says:
" As newborn babes, desire the SINCERE MILK OF THE WORD, then ye may grow thereby." So to grow in grace, we must have the SINCERE (PURE) word of God ( see Deuteronomy 4:10&36). There are several ways that the word of God are made into impure words, by translators and theologians (self styled). Revelation 22:19 kjv gives a stern rebuke. Proverbs 30: 5-6 says:
" Every Word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. " ADD THOU NOT UNTO HIS WORDS, LEST HE REPROVE THEE, AND THOU BE FOUND A LIAR"
Why is it OK for you to offer a parenthetical explanation (e.g. "SINCERE (PURE)" ) and not OK for translators to go ahead and use "pure" rather than "sincere" in their translation?
@@clarkcoleman8143 How can the Bible be the "pure" word of God, if the words have been changed and removed from the Bible. Explain.
@@Jim-jt4ps So by your definition of the "pure" word of God, no English translation can be considered the Bible, as every English translation has changed or removed words from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
Sadly there was an example of a KJVO pastor who claimed that the KJV corrects the Greek manuscripts.
@@samandkathyshelton4207 Your very wrong. The King James Bible was translated from the TEXTUS RECEPTUS ( Recived Text) the world language at the time which was Greek. English became and still is the world language.It was translated to English by many scholars and checked over and over. A very painstaking time consuming job. The only changes made with the King James were a few minor spelling changes and font changes. Words were not changed completely and words were not removed. In the late 19th century Wescott & Hort butchered the Bible with there so called Revised Edition. They used a completely different manuscript too. Which was written in Greek and came from EGYPT. It was a corrupt manuscript. There is also major speculation that it's fraudulent. Wescott & Hort were occultist ( Hermies Club and Ghostly Guild) They were into conjuring up spirits. This is documented in in a life and letters book. All modern Bible versions are based off their work which used the Alexandrian Manuscript from Egypt. They also changed and removed words while they were re- writing the Bible. The 1800s was a time of occult infiltration into society. Check out Alice Baily and Helena Blavatsky of the THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY. Modern Bibles also attack The deity of Christ and so much more, such as a FALSE PLAN of salvation.The trend still continues with modern Bible versions. Since all modern Bible versions have a copyright, they have to change words. Its about money. The King James has no copyright because it's the real Words. What's the first thing Satan is gonna go after? Gods Word. The whole, it's hard to read and it's archaic talk about the King James is nonsense.
God gave you the KJB in his perfect word and you throw it away for roman catholic bibles that change it in over 30,000 places, created out of two grossly corrupt forgeries ( siniaitucus vaticanus) that include the apocrypha as inspired canon and feign ignorances claiming a hobby horse, and make yourselves god by messing around with dead languages;
John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him
Proverbs 8:8-9 8 All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them.
They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.
God has magnified his word above his name (psalm 138:2) and to deny his promises of preservation of his word (psalm 12:6-7, matthew 24:35, isaiah 40:8, Isaiah chapter 34, psalm 119:160, john 10:35, 1 Peter 1:23), he can create the world but he can't preserve us a book for us?
jeremiah 32:27
Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?
God warned you about messing with his SPOKEN WORDS not the capital W Word who is Jesus
Proverbs 30:5-6
Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Revelation 22:18-19
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:
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.
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.
Repent, These perverted roman catholic perversions that none of you will dare "analyze the greek" of although it's freely online to analyze yourself, are straight out of the pit of hell
( codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx)
The KJV is an excellent translation-but if you're going to read it exclusively, you need to understand that it was translated into a form of English no one quite speaks or writes anymore. So there are going to be some places where you think you understand but, because of language change, you're going to miss the intent of the KJV translators. For help discerning when this is the case, I encourage you to check out my "Fifty False Friends in the KJV" series on TH-cam for help reading the KJV! th-cam.com/play/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc.html
John 14 23 is telling us to abide in God's teachings. To be a doer of the word and not just a hearer. It is not saying that you have to strictly follow a translation from 1611.
Me, reading different translations, including kj, to get the spirit of the translation and a proper understanding of the scripture is not disobeying John 14 23.
Me, being dishonest about a car I'm selling is not keeping with John 14 23.
@@markwardonwords It feels disingenuous to assume that the kind of English "no one quite speaks or writes anymore" that's available in the KJV was given as reading to older generations in public school curriculum only a couple decades ago. If those children weren't speaking Ye old English, how were they able to understand stuff like Shakespeare (works way harder to understand) for example with no access to online resources, who were speaking in a radically different way. I think it's an insult to people's intelligence, that during the information age despite having all information is at our fingertips that younger people are unable to decipher what the true word of God is trying to say to the point where we have to completely change the book to be more understandable. It's the same language and time time gap between KJV and now is historically a very small period. This isint hebrew we're talking about here. It feels like we're framing the KJV as a foreign alien language that no one has ever seen before when the opposite is true
@@WatchingUntiltheEnd Oh really? spirit of the translation huh? okay so how about the jesuit rheims reading in Mark one of the ESV?
Mark 1:1-3 ESV
1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.[a]
2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet,[b]
“Behold, I send my messenger before your face,
who will prepare your way,
3 the voice of one crying in the wilderness:
‘Prepare[c] the way of the Lord,
make his paths straight,’”
Please explain to what the spirit of the reading is, in regards to the text, where in the Authorized version we read " PROPHETS" but the ESV reads " ISAIAH", ISAIAH DID NOT SAY VERSE 2, that was MALACHI. Why does it say Isaiah said it, did God bumble like an idiot and forget his own prophecy he spoke through the prophet?
How about this one, lets look at the amplified bible
Jesus is God correct? Eternally the Word correct? explain to me the spirit of the translation in the amplified bible agreeing with roman catholic idolatry
John 1:18 AMP " No one has seen God [His essence, His divine nature] at any time; the [One and] only begotten God [that is, the unique Son]"
Explain to me how jesus is not the begotten son, but a begotten god agreesing with jehovah witnesses and every gnostic that ever lived. Go on I'm waiting, There are THOUSANDS of these errors, in every translation, explain to me the biblical revelation the Holy Ghost supposedly gave you by examining perverted roman catholic bibles I'll wait
@@TehCheeezyPoofz How are people supposed to look up words they don't realize they're misunderstanding? That's what a false friend is.
I've asked this question now dozens of times. The only straight answer I've ever gotten is that people just need to look up every single word in the KJV.
Romans 13:13 (KJV): Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying.
Response:
1. "Chambering" resonates much better with those who speak the King's English rather than with the uncouth tongue of colonial upstarts.
2. Merriam-Webster definition of chambermaid (noun): a maid who makes beds and does general cleaning of bedrooms (as in a hotel)
[Merriam Webster Com /dictionary/chambermaid]
3. Because of the prurient nature of the words "chambering and wantonness" in the 17th century, which I assume meant 'dissolute bed hopping', I am sympathetic to a more diffuse understanding in the 21st century that shades the reader with a veneer of modesty and reticence.
4. Perhaps this subtlety is part of the KJV appeal in that what once was explicit in the text now has become smoothed over with the passage of time.
5. Other translations that use "chambering" in Romans 13:13: American Standard Version, Douay-Rheims Bible, English Revised Version, Webster's Bible Translation, Young's Literal Translation
[Bible Hub Com /romans/13-13.htm]