I thought that was a very silly point. The use of slang today doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have a modern text. Slang has always existed. They were able to write the KJV in spite of their slang back then
@dallascopp4798 Tyndale wanted the Bible to be read by the 13 year old plow boy. I want the 13 year old gamer to be able to understand the word of God. Does the language of the KJV hamper that? ABSOLUTELY. They are not reading Shakespeare in school, adding that language barrier is foolish when faithful Christian men are interpreting the Word using original documents. This is on top of what is already clear and logical arguments why KJV only is silly (This is not to say the KJV is wrong or bad).
iirc this is basically the reason given for the KJV translation in the very foreword of the 1611 KJV. people should have the word of God in the modern vernacular so they can fully understand it. that said, I certainly don't know where the idea comes from that the language now is any worse off than it was then, but okay. slang has always existed. we see more of it in print now because everyone with a smartphone can be a publisher these days, not the case a few centuries ago, so we see it more now but that's no indication it wasn't just as rampant outside of published writings at the time. i think what refutes this nonsense best is that no one is trying to write a serious entire Bible in slang. yes, i'm sure it's been done. i heard there was an emoji bible. no one is trying to put that into the hands of someone who wants to read God's word.
our friend is conflating False-Friends with "hard words". A false friend is a word that isn't a hard word, but a word that we use ALL THE TIME, but because because the meaning of that word changed over time, a modern reader is most likely going to misunderstand the text, even though, their understanding makes perfectly good sense in the sentence.
Exactly. The whole point of "false friends" is you think you know it. So you won't look it up. But because word meanings have slid over time, what you think it means doesn't match what the KJV translators meant. It's not that it's hard. It's that it's different and you have no reason to look it up.
@picksle and @shawngillogly6873 You're both right. I don't know how to say things more clearly or more often: KJV defenders, even the nice ones, nearly always (there are a tiny few exceptions) fail to represent this simple, essential point: the dictionary can't solve the problem, because false friends are words you don't know you don't know, words you don't realize you're misunderstanding.
This whole thing about the English language degrading is just pure nonsense. There have always been people who spoke language poorly with lots of slang and bad grammar. There is also always people who speak whatever language intelligently and eloquently. The NIV and ESV are not some crappy slang. They are very well done.
It's a common bias in every generation. Personally, I really love reading formal English from older times (19th century and earlier), but contemporary language works just fine.
54:19 I don’t think anyone says that all of the other gospels get their info from Mark. Just doing analysis of the text would tell us that can’t be true as there is information in the other Synoptics that are not in Mark. So this seems like almost a guilt trip to make people accept the longer ending.
John 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. I lean very closely with Josh and his conviction on the Word of God, but also his peaceful, brotherly love for those who differ. Let's keep preaching the Gospel & may God give the increase. I appreciate Pastor Keith, "my go to" Calvinist. I am not a Calvinist, but appreciate his approach, which is very close with Josh's with a peaceful, brotherly approach. Good discussion!
I’am pro Byzantium text type bible. I preach out of NKJV, KJV, and once in awhile the ESV. D.A. Waite come out with a KJV called the The Defined King James Bible that has all those archaic words in a different font with a number at the top and it’s numbered definition at the bottom of the text. Also side note almost all of the KJV translators were Calvinist. I also like Doug Wilson’s idea for a new translation. Love this video. I pray we all have an unquenchable thirst for Gods word..And this video proved that yes 2 men who are Christians can have a great polite discussion about scripture and translations. Appreciate it and God bless you both.
It strikes me as odd that a significant part of his argument is that if we don't all just agree with the KJV, other people might get scared and walk away or never come to Christ in the first place. Sure, Greek is hard and textual criticism is confusing. But fear of how people will respond seems line a poor justification to ignore it.
I loved the episode, this is a topic important to me. But I felt like the guest flipped between knowledgeable and ignorant as it suited his needs. There was a lot of presupposing the kjv was the standard as well. Lastly, I didn't like his analogy at the end about the skyscraper. He said he trusted the engineer knew how to build the building and wouldn't question it but if you take that further he should only be in skyscrapers built by that specific engineer and assume all other buildings are flawed if designed by someone else just because they trained under someone else or at a later date. 🤷🏼♂️
Interesting conversation. I wish more KJVOs were this reasonable. I have a lot of thoughts, but one thing that occurred to me was how the KJV leaves Anathema maranatha untranslated in 1 Corinthians 16:22
This young man makes the argument that if we don't understand the meaning of certain word in the KVJ we can easily look it up online now. I'll take his argument and raise it as follows: Read an online interlinear Hebrew-English or Greek-English, and you bypass the whole issue of translational issues. Plus most online interlinears alos have an associated lexicon, so the reader can get the breadth of possible meanings of a given word. I have my ESV and the Hebrew or Greek on Biblehub up side by side on my iPad all the time in church and Bible studies.
Mr. Foskey, I am really curious as to your opinion on this. I am a Reformed Baptist but for sake of conversation just say 'baptist' as a general term. As I survey my library I quickly realized that .ost of the theologians that have most impacted my doctrinal convictions are Presbyterian. Now I in no way intend to baptize babies, but I was curious if this is something you've ran into yourself as a fellow reformed baptist? I mean I think any reformed baptist I know of or listen to are all alive today (Foskey, Beaucham, White, Durbin) but everything else would seem to be Presbyterian! I don't think it's an issue, but have you encountered anything like that and if so why remain Baptist and not just pull a Jared Longshore? Without removing Hebrews 8! (James White joke)
That’s a terrific question. It may even be worthy of the video. I know at least one brother who became a Presbyterian because his pastor kept telling him to read Presbyterians lol. I think we have to remember that we do have a good heritage of solid Calvinistic Baptists, they’re just not well known. That’s why I push guys like James P Boice.
@@ConversationswithaCalvinist thank you! If I may...are there any titles of his you would recommend to consult? The biggest thing I see is "Abstracts of Systematic Theology" would this be a good place to start? In Christ, Cody
@@codywhitaker8620 Yes, I would suggest that work. But also to look into the founders and what they are publishing. The Renihans and Tom Nettles and others are discovering and publishing great historical works from our baptist forefathers.
@ConversationswithaCalvinist hey Keith I love the channel. God bless you. Is there any others that you would recommend? I'm looking into James P Boyce
The King James Bible is an excellent translation for those who are fluent in King James English and skilled in the ability to translate into modern English for those who are not fluent in King James English. I happen to be one of those guys and use the King James almost exclusively in my teaching and preaching although sometimes get lazy and let my ESV do the work!😂 I came out of the IFB crowd that was hard-core KJV only and have heard KJVO preechers where it was painfully obvious that they were not fluent in King James English and pretty much biblically illiterate on top of everything else! There are many places in the KJV that employ “Dynamic Equivalence” and it is a good thing when they do! The NASB is a far more literal translation than the KJV. Our friend seems quite intelligent and I do hope he continues and pursues further education. I am currently pursuing a Master of Theological Studies at Louisiana Baptist Theological Seminary. LBU is very affordable and flexible so he could even take classes while on the road if he is still traveling about.
I'm King James Onlyist, but do not agree with the late Peter Ruckman concerning double inspiration. I love my brother & sisters in Christ who aren't in my camp. The body of Christ is very diverse.
There are God fearing Christians who aren't militant and extremist who love Bible doctrine. It's a shame that a lot of healthy conversations aren't happening with the great debate concerning which Bible to use.
@@JamesJones-w9y I find that it’s actually a skeptical position based on fear and that’s the reason there can be no conversation. The fear is that we maybe just might not have God’s word today unless God miraculously reinspired it in 1611. Any questioning of the KJV only position for them is equivalent to suggesting that we don’t have God’s word, Christianity is a myth…etc. Ironically, the unbelievers often utilize a similar logic about God’s word (because of the variants in multiple manuscripts… therefore we don’t have God’s word). I find that logic deeply flawed.
@@classicchristianliterature If both sides knew the argument well enough there could be healthy conversation. Folks would rather argue than respectfully disagree
I recently saw a thread online where someone posted scripture from the ESV, which used the same language as the KJV, but because they included "ESV" in the address, people started calling them the spawn of Satan. I feel the same way about it that I feel about people who are anti-Calvanist. They're quick to condemn these things but when asked about their stance, I find the responses to be "It's Satanic," or "It's unbiblical," both of which are insanely insufficient answers lol. Edit: Today's guest has Redeemed Zoomer facial expressions. You should bring them on together, it'd be a treat 😂
@@josephtyldesley6116 Disagreeing with or disliking something isn't the same as calling someone "of their father, the devil" for quoting scripture from ESV which was 1:1 with KJV.
@@josephtyldesley6116 Of course. I do believe a biblical case can be made for divorce, though, and I don't believe all hetero-marriages abide by God's word/definition of marriage in Genesis. So, there's that... But also, our natural proclivity to sin and inability to fulfill the Law on our own is the very reason for our desperate need for the Messiah in the person of Christ Jesus. Also, also... This brief conversation is already more productive than the majority of the ones I have heard, read, or encountered otherwise by KJV-only folks v Everybody haha.
@@josephtyldesley6116 Regardless, the point is that statements like that without any explaination are not answers. To just claim "Calvanism is slander against God's character" without any explanation as to why that is to be believed does not a valid case make.
Looking for a place in the Bible where it says we need to have someone explain what the words mean. Rome and the Masorites made the same arguments as the KJO crowd.
@@BossBattle21 I don't think Nehemiah means what you're trying to make it mean. Nehemiah says "They read from the book, from the Law of God, clearly,[b] and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading." It isn't a command, saying something like "The Lord commanded the book to be explained so people could understand the meaning, and furthermore prohibited any individuals to read the book for themselves"
i did listened to the whole inteview and I enjoyed it! I happen to read and study the KJV. It is precious to me and I'm satisfied with how it has brought me to salvation.
There is a verse in the KJV that in a 18th or 19 century edition had 3 or 4 words mixed and changed that wasn't fixed and is still used today. I saw it on a reel. And it was nice seeing the reel after I bought an Oxford 400th Anniversary 1611 Edition.
Great podcast! I just had a conversation about the KJV usage of the Hebrew word Rahab. I use the KJV too, but to not translate that word makes no sense.
I’m simply not smart enough to read the KJV, my reading comprehension is already low. Many years ago I tried and got so tired of reading half the paragraphs twice, settled on the NKJV. Honestly to only reason I settled on the NKJV was because all my concordance’s and dictionaries were based on the KJV. I’m not sure I own a KJV, well I do own a 1611 edition. It is very difficult for me, I was just curious how different it was so I bought one.
Honestly, growing up with KJV and more recently ESV, I've been reading the NIV and it's a great translation. I flew through passages much faster than if I was even reading the ESV and with the same comprehension. Give the NIV a shot if you haven't
I love the KJV and read it very much. The argument about the necessity of the words being translated faithfully used to be my argument when I was KJVO. The first thing I always go to when addressing this is the phrase “God forbid” in the NT. That isn’t what the Greek says, in that place that is a total dynamic equivalence and I don’t have an issue with that and there are many other such places in the KJV where they go with a dynamic yet faithful translation while more modern bibles go with the more word for word. Let’s be fair brothers and sisters
"If your trusting in the right thing then there's nothing necessarily wrong with that." Let me traslate for you, "If they have a KJV then there is no need to look at anything else."
So why not be Hebrew/Greek only? Who cares if people can't understand? Why lower the standard to the inferior language of 1600 years later with crude phrases like "pisseth against the wall"? Btw, what a superb red herring to point out language that modern people have used for 5 seconds and would never have a reason to incorporate into the Bible.
I’m so confused by Josh saying he doesn’t consider himself a Protestant, he’s not catholic and he’s a Christian so he would be a Protestant. Does he know the history of the church?
@@poweredbychrist2879 -- Some do. It depends on whether one thinks there have been Baptist-like churches around since the 1st century (thus rejecting the label Protestant), or that the Baptist denomination began in the early 1600s by breaking off from English Separatists (making them a branch of Protestantism).
I am neither Catholic nor Protestant. I am a Baptist. While the full explanation is quite long it is summed up in this quote by Charles Spurgeon "We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther or Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the very days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel underground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a Government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor I believe any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man. We have ever been ready to suffer, as our martyrologies will prove, but we are not ready to accept any help from the State, to prostitute the purity of the Bride of Christ to any alliance with the government, and we will never make the Church, although the Queen, the despot over the consciences of men". (From The New Park Street Pulpit, Vol.VII, Page 225).
If you are kjv only good for you. I think overall it is a good translation, against contemporary English translations you have to look at it next to the Douhay-Reims (which is actually a few years older). But what is nails on chalkboard are those who believe being the "authorized version" is that it came down from heaven or something. It was the only translation authorized by the king of England to be used in the Church of England. And the 7 times silver argument borders on insanity. For that to be true, you have to believe that all of Christianity got scripture wrong for 1,500ish years and the Christian churches got the Bible wrong for 1,200 years until the spirit revealed the true Bible to the king of a country that didn't even exist at the time of Christ in a language that didn't exist at the time of Christ. You have to weigh any translation against the Vulgate and the septuagent. You will find variations in wording. Does it fundamentally charge the message, not really but they're are differences in the context of some passages.
The standard is not the King James. Just because a KJVO advocate says that it is the standard does not make it the standard. That is the issue. If it were not for KJVO advocates this would not be the issue that it is. This is part of the circular reasoning that KJVO'ers engage in where they assume the KJV to argue the KJV.
@@poweredbychrist2879 Yes, we do. Thankfully, due to the preservation of Scripture by God through the textual transmission of Scripture we have all the original readings in the textual tradition. Texts always swell over time and do not reduce. Therefore, the original readings are contained in the available manuscripts we have today.
You gain perspective by remembering that Scripture has been translated into over 1500 languages, and counting. In the scheme of things, how big a deal is the KJO debate?
I don’t have a preference for a particular translation ( passion book is not a translation) But Is he saying that the most learned biblical scholars where the ones who wrote the original KJV Bible this is a very bold view Surely with all the technology and the archeological discoveries our modern day Bible scholars are on par or maybe have more insight?????
As great as a conversatiom as this was.. This guy was too passive I mean he says the Holy Spirit should do the work because he doesn't care (which is wrong) and he doesn't need to say anything (also wrong) because the Holy Spirit should speak to people. We should be grieved for the lost. We should be having the greatest desire to teach people how to be saved. We are to be the hands and feet of God. Christ works through us to do His work. That's how God always worked. He always works through His people. This is an urgent thing. People are dying and going to hell everyday and we must be grieved over that and we must do the workd of Christ by teaching and pointing them back to Jesus for salvation. Come on people. My fellow millennial here needs to not be so nonchalant about this.
I know he claims to not be a KJVO'er but all of his arguments still basically come down to "KJV Only = Word of God Only" which is the only logical outcome of a KJVO argumentation. Press hard enough and talk long enough they have to end up there because what you can't do as a KJVO'er is admit that ANY translation could have possible translated something better.
Of all the extremely weak arguments I was expecting to hear, degradation of language was not one of them. Let's not forget that even those who spoke Middle English did not abide by the rules that it was often written to uphold, like strict use of Latin tense and sentence structure. Middle English was, at least in communication, a much weaker language than our own. All cultures and languages use slang, including Middle English, and the lack of slang usage in the KJV is not a reasonable argument, as it is also not used modern English translations like the NIV and ESV. Furthermore, slang is not an accurate indication of linguistic degradation as most slang comes and goes in a matter of years, lasting less than a generation, and much of that slang is humorous and sometimes phenetic, just like "hawk tua". It is a joke and will be forgotten in a year. Middle English, Latin, early Cantonese, and all other languages are subject to the same thing, we just don't know them because they died out, just like the term "ratchet" died out from our culture a few years ago. At any rate, regardless of whether someone thinks language is degrading, we need to spread the Gospel, and we need to spread it in the language people will actually understand.
The only thing of note is that every KJV only person I’ve seen discussing this on TH-cam all sound somewhat conceited in their discussion, even when they admit their limited knowledge or their great depth of knowledge. Just an observation. I read many versions when studying the word, my preference is ESV just because for me it’s easier to read. But I am good with any until you get to weird versions like the passion or message bible.
I had alot of issues with the missing verses especially in acts 8 and 1 john 5:7. But doing research i realized nkjv and mev kept the missing verses. There are other versions that are fine but i do believe the kjv is the best and most acurate. Great conversation wish kjv only was more like this guy!
@@miketisdale7341 the claim is that the earlier manuscripts found in Alexandria are more accurate. They might be older but were not in use until we get the versions like the rsv. It's been proven KJV used earlier works for a base as Tyndale and huss. So it's way earlier that 1500's. Even the people defending the critical text still say the end of Mark should still be in the Bible. All that to say I want a complete Bible not a partial one. It's not a salvation issue though. Just want to make that clear.
@@Sgomes-is4or Gotcha. I was just curious if it weighed on you during your research that Erasmus’s 1st and 2nd editions of his Greek translation did not include 1 John 5:7 (included in the 3rd when the catholic Church applied pressure). And also that no church father in the 4th century appealed to that verse as Word of God evidence in their rebuttal of the rise of Arianism. That verse would have been gold for those opposing the heresy of Arianism. As you said, not a salvation issue (and I very much appreciate you saying that), but I too want a faithful, complete, and inspired Word of God that does not include man’s marginal notes added into the text later but counted as inspired today.
The question I always like to ask which speaks to whether someone is intellectually honest or if they are just lost in their King James Onlyism is, "If you were to know absolutely that Mark did not write the longer ending would you be ok with not including it in your edition of the KJV?" I have never met a KJVO advocate that would be honest enough to say that they would be ok without including it because for them their standard is not what God inspired which is the original autograph. No, their standard is a 17th century translation.
KJV only here, though i dont limit God's ability to speak through other versions to those who do not know better. I just can't personally accept the changes in other versions, cutting down on the deity of Christ, taking out the blood, missing verses, wording things more calvinistic (oh yeah im a provisionist subscriber lol) not to mention the beauty of the language of the KJV. No other even sounds right coming out of my mouth. The KJV had the most in depth, thorough, by the best scholars translation and is purely that, without any beliefs tainting the way something was translated. Pure Scripture. ❤
How do they water down the deity of Christ? Have you considered how when you compare Titus 2:13 in the translations it is more evident that Jesus is called God in this verse because of Granville Sharp rule being implemented. It makes it clearer than the KJV that both the terms “Theos” “God” and “savior” “Soteros” are referring to Jesus and it isn’t God the Father and Jesus in the sentence, but Paul is referring to Jesus as God explicitly here.
@@maxxiong kjv was purely translated without bias, unlike the Geneva Bible. Im sure lots of kjv users are calvinistm but uts not due to the translation
It’s simply not possible to approach something without bias though. We are fallen human beings and our minds are tainted by sin and self. I promise you that the translators of the KJV were biased and that is okay. They were men, holy to be sure, but men nonetheless. Honestly, I would probably share their biases and would affirm that they ought to be biased towards truth. I just don’t see how modern translations water the deity of Christ down. It’s pretty clear that Jesus is God in the modern translations. It’s also clear in the KJV. I just want you to consider that perhaps the modern translations make it clearer in at least Titus 2:13 as I referenced.
Why some have problems with Reasoned eclecticism. I John 5:7 is found in a majority of the Latin, but not the Greek so out it goes. Good will towards men Doxology in Matthew Without cause God manifest in the flesh Are a majority in the Greek but not in the Latin, so out they go The PA and Mark 16:9-20 are a majority in both the Greek and Latin so out they go. Even the “not yet” found in the two of the earliest(P66.P75) in John 7:8 some throw out. If as an orthodox Christian you don't see a problem, what would you see as a problem?
FWIW at least 1 John 5:7 is quite debatable. The historic reformed view of preservation, at least in the Westminster and LBCF 1689, is that preservation occurs through the original languages. The only reason I think there is really a debate at all is that apparently there is a quote by Jerome that says it is omitted by unfaithful translators. I mostly favor the TR and majority readings, but for all intents and purposes it just doesn't matter what translation I use because meaningful variants are in the margin anyways.
@@maxxiong The claim is it isn't in the majority of the Greek, then the claim is the majority of the Greek is corrupt. Do you see the contradiction? Blessings.
There's a difference between slang-driven, ever-changing English (nobody says "swell" or "rad" any more) and conventional modern English like you would read in the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times.
Even if Mark was written first, and even if Mark did not contain an account of the resurrection, that is not an argument for King James Onlyism because we have 3 other gospels that do contain it and we have an entire New Testament that speaks about it and explains how we should believe in light of the resurrection.
It doesn't matter on which side of the conversation you are on the issue, I think it's foolish to have a church with members using different translation especially if you are doing verse memorisation or a Bible study and people are asked to read from the Bible.
In my church we use different translations [NKJV, ESV, NASB], and have no problems. We don't read aloud in unison, of course, but we do find being able to compare translations helps with understanding more difficult passages. It's a small church, so the sermon often turns into a discussion of the passage as the preacher asks questions, expecting answers. We are not under the illusion that there can be only one acceptable translation.
@@gregb6469 My church is small too. We use the same version.We do read aloud. What you practice seems more like a Bible study not a church service. We had ome guy come at the Bi le study with a different translation.He was asked to read amd it was strange and others didn't feel comfortable.Now we give him one of our Bibles to read from.
Wait, the short ending of Mark ends with the empty tomb and the angels proclaiming to the women that Jesus was risen. Where would anyone get that there is no resurrection in the short ending of Mark?
@@ConversationswithaCalvinistit wasn't you, it was Mr. Allen. And he was talking about how the short ending can be used to undermine the resurrection. 53:31 He says that there is no resurrection in the short ending. But that is how it ends. The angels proclaim Jesus isn't in the tomb he has risen. Yes it is an abrupt ending, but Mark moves fast to state the facts. Loved the show though. I really appreciate how you interview people from different backgrounds and are not just confronting those you might have some disagreement with. Like an interview version of Ready to Harvest's channel.
Keith did an excellent job with his answer concerning Romans 6. When pressed this does an excellent job of highlighting the inconsistency of the KJVO advocate.
I would say all three are canon. We have a 2nd century source quoting that verse. It reads the same, but after it says these three are one it ends by adding "In Jesus".
A circumstantial case for the Comma of John: In 484 A.D. the bishop of Carthage with 400 bishops quoted the comma to an Arian Vandal king. Being the bishop of Carthage, he would have had access to the Scriptures of Cyprian, and he probably had a Vulgate, maybe a first edition. Also, Gregory Nazianzus wrote on the grammar, and he had a student named Jerome. Seems strong evidence to me. Blessings.
@@jamessheffield4173 a few very late manuscripts add in heaven-the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And we have three witnesses on earth. The longer version was written in Latin several centuries after John to explain the three elements (water, blood, and Spirit) as symbols of the Trinity. This explanation found its way into some Latin editions of 1 John, including later copies of the Latin Vulgate. Eventually, Erasmus translated it into Greek and included it in what became the Textus Receptus, the “received text,” which is why it was included in the King James Version. The longer version cannot be found in any Greek manuscript prior to the 1700s and was never cited by any of the early fathers of the church. For these reasons, few modern English translations recognize the longer version as part of the authentic text.
Yeah, I am sorry but he just said in reference to the longer ending of Mark, "when you remove it." That is classic cultic King James Onlyism. One can package it to sound nice but that is still the same line of thinking.
I only read the KJV. My church only uses the KJV. When a question comes up in Bible study the wonderful internet has a plethora of translations and access to original language. Same thing for the family at home. So much is about Man's traditions and what people are comfortable with. There has been no other time since the foundation of the world that we have had this amount of access to help understand the Word. Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Have a Blessed day 🙏
When I began reading through the Bible in a year, I chose a different translation each year, having realized that there are many ways of translating a word, because there is rarely an exact word to word equivalent from language to language. (I learned that from having done a translation of a German poem into English.) in my earlier years I had learned that YAHWEH was God’s name, not LORD. For that reason, I had liked the Jerusalem Bible for devotional use. The KJV had been a favorite until I inadvertently came into a KJVO church. Because the pastor treated the KJV as the only true revealed Word, I began shutting out his messages about such passages like, “the word of God is pure”, knowing that he was saying, “the KJV words are pure”, etc. It took me about a year after leaving that church that I was able to begin again read the KJV.
Can the FormTX be supplied for every modern version? If not, why are we even having a discussion on Bible versions? If you can not tell me what the Bible Publishers listed as the "new authorship" on FormTX for which they sought copyright for, why are we even discussing translational choices?
Since the KJV was personally handed down by the Archangel Gabriel to His Majesty Pope Benjamin Wilkinson in 1930, I think I should start using it... even if I am not a native English speaker.
I am pretty sure the message of Romans 14 is the same no matter what mainstream Bible you read, including KJV. The message of Romans 14 pretty much makes this issue a non issue.
"If I'm going to give Higher Criticism, I'm going to give it to Beza, because he knew Greek more than I do". And so do literally ALL Modern Higher Critical Scholars today. If Higher Criticism is wrong, than it's wrong, no matter WHO employs it!
Keith did an excellent job of pushing back because the guest clearly holds the cultic KJVO viewpoint although he did not behave like they typical cultic KJVO'er. He clearly did not want to answer the question about whether the KJV could be improved upon or changed based on a translation error. This means that he wants to hold to the cultic view without being "known" for holding it. The King James Bible Alone = The Word Of God Alone is the cultic viewpoint and that seems to be what he is arguing for. I can answer the question because I am not a cultic KJVO'er. Yes, the trasnlation can be improved upon and yes the KJV has some translation errors and some are not even the fault of the KJV translators. There are no perfect translations. The original was perfect and any translation that is as accurate as possible to the original can be said to be the Word of God in that language.
I am KJV Only. If I go to a KJVO church I know that I will get biblically sound teaching without the nonsense of some other churches. That’s not to say that other churches are bad or that there is no merit in other translations, merely to say that I don’t have to wonder about KJVO. If I’m traveling, I can walk into any of those churches and be reasonably assured that there will not be some weird “Open and affirming “nonsense Or “female pastors “or any of the other modern heresies.
Considering the amount of heresy present in many KJVO churches like: modalism, adoptionism, weak Christology, no Eucharistic theology (which all of the KJV translators believed).
you brought up a priori for kjvo users but you didn't apply it to your position. For example, the CT position uses its own a priori bc it prioritizes sinaiticus and vaticanus, with 3000 difference between them. If it the argument is evidence, then the byzantine text is best. You failed to acknowledge your own a priori. You should read Harry Sturz, who was neither tr or ct. I recommend acknowledging each position has a priori, bc your phrasing seemed to suggest that your position had none. Perhaps just a slip of the tongue. I used to be ct until I realized the ct had a funky a priori, whilst the byzantine priority position has a very good one. Then i became a tr guy for many reasons. However i just wanted to encourage You to fairly describe your own position accurately by acknowledging Your own a priori. However, in most everything else, i believe you were very fair.
I don’t disagree that I have an a-priori commitment. And I would have readily admitted to it. But the point I was making was not regarding the commitment to the a-priori of a manuscript tradition, but rather that the kjv cannot be improved upon. That’s two different categories. Though I value the older codexes, I don’t think they are always the right answer. I think they can be corrected, and we should. The issue I have is when someone says -this 17th century English text cannot be improved upon- and that’s the point I was making. Not that we don’t all have presumptions, because I know we all do
@@ConversationswithaCalvinist ok. Thank you for the clarification. I think of you as a godly well spoken dude and i hope you continue in your efforts. Thanks again for clarifying brother.
Problem 1 with the KJVOnly view: Their view of preservation is manifestly not how God preserved the Bible. Even in the TR tradition, every type of textual variation common to the CT is found, save the discussion of Mark's ending and the woman caught in adultery. Problem 2:False Friends, which he mischaracterized as "hard words." Nope. The problem is precisely they're *not* hard. So no one looks them up. Problem3: They do to the KJV exactly what the KJV translators say in the 1611 Preface *not* to do. They claim no special inspiration. They accept the need for future revision. They accept the need for marginal notes and alternate readings. Everything the KJVOnlyists hate about the NKJV is what the KJV translators themselves said was necessary for a good translation. And so KJVOnlyists turn a good translation into a bad one, by giving it status it never was meant to have. Also, Problem 4. Despite his claim, English, as a written language at least, is not "dumber" now than in 1611. See any of the modern style guides on that subject. Slang is not linguistic standard. By definition.
KJV-onlyism is as ridiculous as ESV-onlyism and thankfully there are no ESV-onlyist. KJV is a great version of the Bible but there are a number of known issues. KJV-onlyists are so wedded to the KJV that they refuse to change a single word even if they generally agree that it's a better word.
Right only KJVOs believe they hold the word of God in their hands. Nobody else believes that. Plus nobody holding an ESV would be silly enough to claim ESVO with all the errors. That’s why there are no ESVOs, NIVOs, LSBo or NLTOs 😂
The weakness our our current language doesn't stop the need for speaking the Gospel in that language.
I thought that was a very silly point. The use of slang today doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have a modern text. Slang has always existed. They were able to write the KJV in spite of their slang back then
@dallascopp4798 Tyndale wanted the Bible to be read by the 13 year old plow boy. I want the 13 year old gamer to be able to understand the word of God. Does the language of the KJV hamper that? ABSOLUTELY. They are not reading Shakespeare in school, adding that language barrier is foolish when faithful Christian men are interpreting the Word using original documents. This is on top of what is already clear and logical arguments why KJV only is silly (This is not to say the KJV is wrong or bad).
iirc this is basically the reason given for the KJV translation in the very foreword of the 1611 KJV. people should have the word of God in the modern vernacular so they can fully understand it.
that said, I certainly don't know where the idea comes from that the language now is any worse off than it was then, but okay. slang has always existed. we see more of it in print now because everyone with a smartphone can be a publisher these days, not the case a few centuries ago, so we see it more now but that's no indication it wasn't just as rampant outside of published writings at the time. i think what refutes this nonsense best is that no one is trying to write a serious entire Bible in slang. yes, i'm sure it's been done. i heard there was an emoji bible. no one is trying to put that into the hands of someone who wants to read God's word.
And the weakness of our current language…reminds me of the weakness of the original Greek of the NT;)
KJV. If it was good enough for the apostle Paul, it’s good enough for me 😂
😂
Absolutely! 😂😂😂
Lol my grandma‘s sister put that on Facebook once. I was like “Uhhh…” 🤦♂️😂
We know it's true because it rymes🤣
Amen brother.
our friend is conflating False-Friends with "hard words". A false friend is a word that isn't a hard word, but a word that we use ALL THE TIME, but because because the meaning of that word changed over time, a modern reader is most likely going to misunderstand the text, even though, their understanding makes perfectly good sense in the sentence.
Exactly. The whole point of "false friends" is you think you know it. So you won't look it up. But because word meanings have slid over time, what you think it means doesn't match what the KJV translators meant. It's not that it's hard. It's that it's different and you have no reason to look it up.
the word "even" has tripped me up a lot. Its meaning extends to "only" or "just"
@picksle and @shawngillogly6873 You're both right. I don't know how to say things more clearly or more often: KJV defenders, even the nice ones, nearly always (there are a tiny few exceptions) fail to represent this simple, essential point: the dictionary can't solve the problem, because false friends are words you don't know you don't know, words you don't realize you're misunderstanding.
I am so glad to see this explained, I never heard of false friends before. Now I know an example of a false friend is the word "awful".
@@jesuschristiskingofkingslo2023 or "meat" referring to just about any food
This whole thing about the English language degrading is just pure nonsense. There have always been people who spoke language poorly with lots of slang and bad grammar. There is also always people who speak whatever language intelligently and eloquently. The NIV and ESV are not some crappy slang. They are very well done.
It's a common bias in every generation.
Personally, I really love reading formal English from older times (19th century and earlier), but contemporary language works just fine.
Seems like a nice guy but he completely strawmanned on that.
54:19 I don’t think anyone says that all of the other gospels get their info from Mark. Just doing analysis of the text would tell us that can’t be true as there is information in the other Synoptics that are not in Mark. So this seems like almost a guilt trip to make people accept the longer ending.
@@jonathanchaney5896 I’ve heard people say it before but I agree with you. It doesn’t add up. If anything it seems like Mark has the least info.
John 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
I lean very closely with Josh and his conviction on the Word of God, but also his peaceful, brotherly love for those who differ. Let's keep preaching the Gospel & may God give the increase.
I appreciate Pastor Keith, "my go to" Calvinist. I am not a Calvinist, but appreciate his approach, which is very close with Josh's with a peaceful, brotherly approach.
Good discussion!
I think he doesn't actually know what a false friend is, or why they are so problematic.
They will never convince me of KJV onlyism until they use the actual 1611 text, then we can start actually talking arguments
I’am pro Byzantium text type bible. I preach out of NKJV, KJV, and once in awhile the ESV. D.A. Waite come out with a KJV called the The Defined King James Bible that has all those archaic words in a different font with a number at the top and it’s numbered definition at the bottom of the text. Also side note almost all of the KJV translators were Calvinist. I also like Doug Wilson’s idea for a new translation. Love this video. I pray we all have an unquenchable thirst for Gods word..And this video proved that yes 2 men who are Christians can have a great polite discussion about scripture and translations. Appreciate it and God bless you both.
Wait…is that Hans Fiene singing your theme, or whoever does Hans’ singing for him? (Sorry if this has come up already; we’re first-time listeners.)
Yep, Hans wrote, produced and performed my theme. He is a wonderful brother and extremely talented
It strikes me as odd that a significant part of his argument is that if we don't all just agree with the KJV, other people might get scared and walk away or never come to Christ in the first place. Sure, Greek is hard and textual criticism is confusing. But fear of how people will respond seems line a poor justification to ignore it.
I loved the episode, this is a topic important to me. But I felt like the guest flipped between knowledgeable and ignorant as it suited his needs. There was a lot of presupposing the kjv was the standard as well.
Lastly, I didn't like his analogy at the end about the skyscraper. He said he trusted the engineer knew how to build the building and wouldn't question it but if you take that further he should only be in skyscrapers built by that specific engineer and assume all other buildings are flawed if designed by someone else just because they trained under someone else or at a later date. 🤷🏼♂️
Good conversation. Bottom line: I want to know what God said = what was originally written.
Legacy standard Bible 👍
This was a great discussion! Good work gentlemen.
Agreed!
Interesting conversation. I wish more KJVOs were this reasonable. I have a lot of thoughts, but one thing that occurred to me was how the KJV leaves Anathema maranatha untranslated in 1 Corinthians 16:22
This young man makes the argument that if we don't understand the meaning of certain word in the KVJ we can easily look it up online now.
I'll take his argument and raise it as follows:
Read an online interlinear Hebrew-English or Greek-English, and you bypass the whole issue of translational issues. Plus most online interlinears alos have an associated lexicon, so the reader can get the breadth of possible meanings of a given word.
I have my ESV and the Hebrew or Greek on Biblehub up side by side on my iPad all the time in church and Bible studies.
Dr. White is correct. The issue when it comes to what is inspired is what did the original author actually write.
Mr. Foskey,
I am really curious as to your opinion on this. I am a Reformed Baptist but for sake of conversation just say 'baptist' as a general term. As I survey my library I quickly realized that .ost of the theologians that have most impacted my doctrinal convictions are Presbyterian. Now I in no way intend to baptize babies, but I was curious if this is something you've ran into yourself as a fellow reformed baptist? I mean I think any reformed baptist I know of or listen to are all alive today (Foskey, Beaucham, White, Durbin) but everything else would seem to be Presbyterian! I don't think it's an issue, but have you encountered anything like that and if so why remain Baptist and not just pull a Jared Longshore? Without removing Hebrews 8! (James White joke)
That’s a terrific question. It may even be worthy of the video. I know at least one brother who became a Presbyterian because his pastor kept telling him to read Presbyterians lol.
I think we have to remember that we do have a good heritage of solid Calvinistic Baptists, they’re just not well known. That’s why I push guys like James P Boice.
@@ConversationswithaCalvinist thank you! If I may...are there any titles of his you would recommend to consult? The biggest thing I see is "Abstracts of Systematic Theology" would this be a good place to start?
In Christ,
Cody
@@codywhitaker8620 Yes, I would suggest that work. But also to look into the founders and what they are publishing. The Renihans and Tom Nettles and others are discovering and publishing great historical works from our baptist forefathers.
@ConversationswithaCalvinist hey Keith I love the channel. God bless you. Is there any others that you would recommend? I'm looking into James P Boyce
Also check out Particular Baptist Heritage Books @@codywhitaker8620
The King James Bible is an excellent translation for those who are fluent in King James English and skilled in the ability to translate into modern English for those who are not fluent in King James English. I happen to be one of those guys and use the King James almost exclusively in my teaching and preaching although sometimes get lazy and let my ESV do the work!😂
I came out of the IFB crowd that was hard-core KJV only and have heard KJVO preechers where it was painfully obvious that they were not fluent in King James English and pretty much biblically illiterate on top of everything else!
There are many places in the KJV that employ “Dynamic Equivalence” and it is a good thing when they do! The NASB is a far more literal translation than the KJV.
Our friend seems quite intelligent and I do hope he continues and pursues further education. I am currently pursuing a Master of Theological Studies at Louisiana Baptist Theological Seminary. LBU is very affordable and flexible so he could even take classes while on the road if he is still traveling about.
There may be friendly people who use only the KJV, still waiting for a friendly ruckmanite
I'm King James Onlyist, but do not agree with the late Peter Ruckman concerning double inspiration. I love my brother & sisters in Christ who aren't in my camp. The body of Christ is very diverse.
@@JamesJones-w9y many in the Ruckman camp would say you aren’t a real Bible believer if you believe that those who use NIV…etc are saved.
There are God fearing Christians who aren't militant and extremist who love Bible doctrine. It's a shame that a lot of healthy conversations aren't happening with the great debate concerning which Bible to use.
@@JamesJones-w9y I find that it’s actually a skeptical position based on fear and that’s the reason there can be no conversation. The fear is that we maybe just might not have God’s word today unless God miraculously reinspired it in 1611. Any questioning of the KJV only position for them is equivalent to suggesting that we don’t have God’s word, Christianity is a myth…etc. Ironically, the unbelievers often utilize a similar logic about God’s word (because of the variants in multiple manuscripts… therefore we don’t have God’s word). I find that logic deeply flawed.
@@classicchristianliterature If both sides knew the argument well enough there could be healthy conversation. Folks would rather argue than respectfully disagree
I recently saw a thread online where someone posted scripture from the ESV, which used the same language as the KJV, but because they included "ESV" in the address, people started calling them the spawn of Satan. I feel the same way about it that I feel about people who are anti-Calvanist. They're quick to condemn these things but when asked about their stance, I find the responses to be "It's Satanic," or "It's unbiblical," both of which are insanely insufficient answers lol.
Edit: Today's guest has Redeemed Zoomer facial expressions. You should bring them on together, it'd be a treat 😂
@@josephtyldesley6116 Disagreeing with or disliking something isn't the same as calling someone "of their father, the devil" for quoting scripture from ESV which was 1:1 with KJV.
@@josephtyldesley6116 Of course. I do believe a biblical case can be made for divorce, though, and I don't believe all hetero-marriages abide by God's word/definition of marriage in Genesis. So, there's that... But also, our natural proclivity to sin and inability to fulfill the Law on our own is the very reason for our desperate need for the Messiah in the person of Christ Jesus.
Also, also... This brief conversation is already more productive than the majority of the ones I have heard, read, or encountered otherwise by KJV-only folks v Everybody haha.
Maybe if Calvinism wasn't slander against God's character...
@@gustavusadolphus4344 That is just as insufficient an answer as "it's unbiblical."
@@josephtyldesley6116 Regardless, the point is that statements like that without any explaination are not answers. To just claim "Calvanism is slander against God's character" without any explanation as to why that is to be believed does not a valid case make.
Looking for a place in the Bible where it says we need to have someone explain what the words mean. Rome and the Masorites made the same arguments as the KJO crowd.
Nehemiah 8:1-8
@@BossBattle21 I don't think Nehemiah means what you're trying to make it mean. Nehemiah says "They read from the book, from the Law of God, clearly,[b] and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading."
It isn't a command, saying something like "The Lord commanded the book to be explained so people could understand the meaning, and furthermore prohibited any individuals to read the book for themselves"
I was raised in a KJV only Baptist church. KJV only ism Is literally one of the dumbest beliefs possible. and the people cannot be reasoned with.
Agreed, it’s almost a cultist obsession.
I used to be KJV preferred but I'm liking ESV more and more as I get older.
i did listened to the whole inteview and I enjoyed it! I happen to read and study the KJV. It is precious to me and I'm satisfied with how it has brought me to salvation.
I’m pretty sure Gods Gospel bought your salvation not a particular translation of His word.
There is a verse in the KJV that in a 18th or 19 century edition had 3 or 4 words mixed and changed that wasn't fixed and is still used today. I saw it on a reel. And it was nice seeing the reel after I bought an Oxford 400th Anniversary 1611 Edition.
Talked to a guy in a comment section the other day that said "when we get full salvation".
"Being" supports his view.
Interesting..
Wow what a great conversation. Would love to hear from more KJV brothers in Christ.
Great podcast! I just had a conversation about the KJV usage of the Hebrew word Rahab. I use the KJV too, but to not translate that word makes no sense.
I’m simply not smart enough to read the KJV, my reading comprehension is already low. Many years ago I tried and got so tired of reading half the paragraphs twice, settled on the NKJV.
Honestly to only reason I settled on the NKJV was because all my concordance’s and dictionaries were based on the KJV.
I’m not sure I own a KJV, well I do own a 1611 edition. It is very difficult for me, I was just curious how different it was so I bought one.
Honestly, growing up with KJV and more recently ESV, I've been reading the NIV and it's a great translation. I flew through passages much faster than if I was even reading the ESV and with the same comprehension. Give the NIV a shot if you haven't
@@FriedMetroid -- NIV is too interpretive/paraphrasy. NKJV is the best choice among modern translations.
I love the KJV and read it very much. The argument about the necessity of the words being translated faithfully used to be my argument when I was KJVO. The first thing I always go to when addressing this is the phrase “God forbid” in the NT. That isn’t what the Greek says, in that place that is a total dynamic equivalence and I don’t have an issue with that and there are many other such places in the KJV where they go with a dynamic yet faithful translation while more modern bibles go with the more word for word. Let’s be fair brothers and sisters
Thinketh I, that if one wilt defend KJV Only whilst grumbling about the degradation of the King's English, verily he must speaketh the King's English.
1:36:54 including the work through the manuscript tradition? The critical text? other translations?
"If your trusting in the right thing then there's nothing necessarily wrong with that." Let me traslate for you, "If they have a KJV then there is no need to look at anything else."
So why not be Hebrew/Greek only? Who cares if people can't understand? Why lower the standard to the inferior language of 1600 years later with crude phrases like "pisseth against the wall"?
Btw, what a superb red herring to point out language that modern people have used for 5 seconds and would never have a reason to incorporate into the Bible.
I’m so confused by Josh saying he doesn’t consider himself a Protestant, he’s not catholic and he’s a Christian so he would be a Protestant. Does he know the history of the church?
Protestant is a reformation term. Charismatics for instance would not be Protestant. Holiness churches either. There are more.
Baptists don't consider themselves to be Protestant.
@@poweredbychrist2879 -- Some do. It depends on whether one thinks there have been Baptist-like churches around since the 1st century (thus rejecting the label Protestant), or that the Baptist denomination began in the early 1600s by breaking off from English Separatists (making them a branch of Protestantism).
I am neither Catholic nor Protestant. I am a Baptist. While the full explanation is quite long it is summed up in this quote by Charles Spurgeon
"We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther or Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the very days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel underground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a Government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor I believe any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man. We have ever been ready to suffer, as our martyrologies will prove, but we are not ready to accept any help from the State, to prostitute the purity of the Bride of Christ to any alliance with the government, and we will never make the Church, although the Queen, the despot over the consciences of men". (From The New Park Street Pulpit, Vol.VII, Page 225).
If you are kjv only good for you. I think overall it is a good translation, against contemporary English translations you have to look at it next to the Douhay-Reims (which is actually a few years older). But what is nails on chalkboard are those who believe being the "authorized version" is that it came down from heaven or something. It was the only translation authorized by the king of England to be used in the Church of England. And the 7 times silver argument borders on insanity. For that to be true, you have to believe that all of Christianity got scripture wrong for 1,500ish years and the Christian churches got the Bible wrong for 1,200 years until the spirit revealed the true Bible to the king of a country that didn't even exist at the time of Christ in a language that didn't exist at the time of Christ. You have to weigh any translation against the Vulgate and the septuagent. You will find variations in wording. Does it fundamentally charge the message, not really but they're are differences in the context of some passages.
The standard is not the King James. Just because a KJVO advocate says that it is the standard does not make it the standard. That is the issue. If it were not for KJVO advocates this would not be the issue that it is. This is part of the circular reasoning that KJVO'ers engage in where they assume the KJV to argue the KJV.
God Exist because God Exist, now you know how Atheist feel
What, pray tell, is the standard?
@@poweredbychrist2879 The original autographs.
@@GodCenteredTheology so you don't have a standard today, correct?
@@poweredbychrist2879 Yes, we do. Thankfully, due to the preservation of Scripture by God through the textual transmission of Scripture we have all the original readings in the textual tradition. Texts always swell over time and do not reduce. Therefore, the original readings are contained in the available manuscripts we have today.
The double speak got to me and I didn’t finish. I tried.
You gain perspective by remembering that Scripture has been translated into over 1500 languages, and counting. In the scheme of things, how big a deal is the KJO debate?
If people can't be polite to both James White and Leighton Flowers at the same time, they certainly can't be polite about Bible translations.
Great conversation. I enjoyed listening.
I don’t have a preference for a particular translation ( passion book is not a translation)
But Is he saying that the most learned biblical scholars where the ones who wrote the original KJV Bible this is a very bold view
Surely with all the technology and the archeological discoveries our modern day Bible scholars are on par or maybe have more insight?????
As great as a conversatiom as this was..
This guy was too passive
I mean he says the Holy Spirit should do the work because he doesn't care (which is wrong) and he doesn't need to say anything (also wrong) because the Holy Spirit should speak to people.
We should be grieved for the lost.
We should be having the greatest desire to teach people how to be saved.
We are to be the hands and feet of God.
Christ works through us to do His work.
That's how God always worked.
He always works through His people.
This is an urgent thing.
People are dying and going to hell everyday and we must be grieved over that and we must do the workd of Christ by teaching and pointing them back to Jesus for salvation.
Come on people.
My fellow millennial here needs to not be so nonchalant about this.
I know he claims to not be a KJVO'er but all of his arguments still basically come down to "KJV Only = Word of God Only" which is the only logical outcome of a KJVO argumentation. Press hard enough and talk long enough they have to end up there because what you can't do as a KJVO'er is admit that ANY translation could have possible translated something better.
Of all the extremely weak arguments I was expecting to hear, degradation of language was not one of them. Let's not forget that even those who spoke Middle English did not abide by the rules that it was often written to uphold, like strict use of Latin tense and sentence structure. Middle English was, at least in communication, a much weaker language than our own. All cultures and languages use slang, including Middle English, and the lack of slang usage in the KJV is not a reasonable argument, as it is also not used modern English translations like the NIV and ESV.
Furthermore, slang is not an accurate indication of linguistic degradation as most slang comes and goes in a matter of years, lasting less than a generation, and much of that slang is humorous and sometimes phenetic, just like "hawk tua". It is a joke and will be forgotten in a year. Middle English, Latin, early Cantonese, and all other languages are subject to the same thing, we just don't know them because they died out, just like the term "ratchet" died out from our culture a few years ago.
At any rate, regardless of whether someone thinks language is degrading, we need to spread the Gospel, and we need to spread it in the language people will actually understand.
Would love to see James White debate this guy😅
I would love to debate/discuss with Dr. White. I found him to be a brilliant and sincere individual.
The only thing of note is that every KJV only person I’ve seen discussing this on TH-cam all sound somewhat conceited in their discussion, even when they admit their limited knowledge or their great depth of knowledge. Just an observation. I read many versions when studying the word, my preference is ESV just because for me it’s easier to read. But I am good with any until you get to weird versions like the passion or message bible.
I had alot of issues with the missing verses especially in acts 8 and 1 john 5:7. But doing research i realized nkjv and mev kept the missing verses. There are other versions that are fine but i do believe the kjv is the best and most acurate. Great conversation wish kjv only was more like this guy!
What were your thoughts when in your research you found out that there is no Greek manuscript before ~1500 that includes 1 John 5:7? Just curious
@@miketisdale7341 the claim is that the earlier manuscripts found in Alexandria are more accurate. They might be older but were not in use until we get the versions like the rsv. It's been proven KJV used earlier works for a base as Tyndale and huss. So it's way earlier that 1500's. Even the people defending the critical text still say the end of Mark should still be in the Bible. All that to say I want a complete Bible not a partial one. It's not a salvation issue though. Just want to make that clear.
@@Sgomes-is4or Gotcha. I was just curious if it weighed on you during your research that Erasmus’s 1st and 2nd editions of his Greek translation did not include 1 John 5:7 (included in the 3rd when the catholic Church applied pressure). And also that no church father in the 4th century appealed to that verse as Word of God evidence in their rebuttal of the rise of Arianism. That verse would have been gold for those opposing the heresy of Arianism. As you said, not a salvation issue (and I very much appreciate you saying that), but I too want a faithful, complete, and inspired Word of God that does not include man’s marginal notes added into the text later but counted as inspired today.
The question I always like to ask which speaks to whether someone is intellectually honest or if they are just lost in their King James Onlyism is, "If you were to know absolutely that Mark did not write the longer ending would you be ok with not including it in your edition of the KJV?" I have never met a KJVO advocate that would be honest enough to say that they would be ok without including it because for them their standard is not what God inspired which is the original autograph. No, their standard is a 17th century translation.
KJV only here, though i dont limit God's ability to speak through other versions to those who do not know better. I just can't personally accept the changes in other versions, cutting down on the deity of Christ, taking out the blood, missing verses, wording things more calvinistic (oh yeah im a provisionist subscriber lol) not to mention the beauty of the language of the KJV. No other even sounds right coming out of my mouth.
The KJV had the most in depth, thorough, by the best scholars translation and is purely that, without any beliefs tainting the way something was translated. Pure Scripture. ❤
How do they water down the deity of Christ? Have you considered how when you compare Titus 2:13 in the translations it is more evident that Jesus is called God in this verse because of Granville Sharp rule being implemented. It makes it clearer than the KJV that both the terms “Theos” “God” and “savior” “Soteros” are referring to Jesus and it isn’t God the Father and Jesus in the sentence, but Paul is referring to Jesus as God explicitly here.
Isn't the KJV more likely to be Calvinistic than the NKJV given the Church of England was going through somewhat of a reformed phase at the time?
@@Llamaman1492 just do a sincere look into it, completely unbiased, like I did. It's quite a fascinating study.
@@maxxiong kjv was purely translated without bias, unlike the Geneva Bible. Im sure lots of kjv users are calvinistm but uts not due to the translation
It’s simply not possible to approach something without bias though. We are fallen human beings and our minds are tainted by sin and self. I promise you that the translators of the KJV were biased and that is okay. They were men, holy to be sure, but men nonetheless. Honestly, I would probably share their biases and would affirm that they ought to be biased towards truth.
I just don’t see how modern translations water the deity of Christ down. It’s pretty clear that Jesus is God in the modern translations. It’s also clear in the KJV. I just want you to consider that perhaps the modern translations make it clearer in at least Titus 2:13 as I referenced.
This was fascinating! I hope that you can always get this high of quality of guests!
Why some have problems with Reasoned eclecticism.
I John 5:7 is found in a majority of the Latin,
but not the Greek so out it goes.
Good will towards men
Doxology in Matthew
Without cause
God manifest in the flesh
Are a majority in the Greek but not in the Latin,
so out they go
The PA and Mark 16:9-20 are a majority in both the Greek
and Latin so out they go.
Even the “not yet” found in the two of the earliest(P66.P75) in John 7:8
some throw out.
If as an orthodox Christian you don't see a problem,
what would you see as a problem?
FWIW at least 1 John 5:7 is quite debatable. The historic reformed view of preservation, at least in the Westminster and LBCF 1689, is that preservation occurs through the original languages.
The only reason I think there is really a debate at all is that apparently there is a quote by Jerome that says it is omitted by unfaithful translators.
I mostly favor the TR and majority readings, but for all intents and purposes it just doesn't matter what translation I use because meaningful variants are in the margin anyways.
@@maxxiong The claim is it isn't in the majority of the Greek, then the claim is the majority of the Greek is corrupt. Do you see the contradiction? Blessings.
There's a difference between slang-driven, ever-changing English (nobody says "swell" or "rad" any more) and conventional modern English like you would read in the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times.
There must be a better standard for contemporary English than the WSJ
You should have a conversation with Nick Sayers about Revelation 16:5. He literally wrote a book on it and enjoys having these kinds of talks.
Even if Mark was written first, and even if Mark did not contain an account of the resurrection, that is not an argument for King James Onlyism because we have 3 other gospels that do contain it and we have an entire New Testament that speaks about it and explains how we should believe in light of the resurrection.
It doesn't matter on which side of the conversation you are on the issue, I think it's foolish to have a church with members using different translation especially if you are doing verse memorisation or a Bible study and people are asked to read from the Bible.
In my church we use different translations [NKJV, ESV, NASB], and have no problems. We don't read aloud in unison, of course, but we do find being able to compare translations helps with understanding more difficult passages. It's a small church, so the sermon often turns into a discussion of the passage as the preacher asks questions, expecting answers. We are not under the illusion that there can be only one acceptable translation.
@@gregb6469 My church is small too. We use the same version.We do read aloud. What you practice seems more like a Bible study not a church service. We had ome guy come at the Bi le study with a different translation.He was asked to read amd it was strange and others didn't feel comfortable.Now we give him one of our Bibles to read from.
@@pjetri24 -- It's a church service--we also sing, pray, observe Lord's Supper, et al.
Wait, the short ending of Mark ends with the empty tomb and the angels proclaiming to the women that Jesus was risen. Where would anyone get that there is no resurrection in the short ending of Mark?
No appearance of the resurrected Christ, not that there is no resurrection. If I said that, it was a mistake
@@ConversationswithaCalvinistit wasn't you, it was Mr. Allen. And he was talking about how the short ending can be used to undermine the resurrection. 53:31 He says that there is no resurrection in the short ending. But that is how it ends. The angels proclaim Jesus isn't in the tomb he has risen. Yes it is an abrupt ending, but Mark moves fast to state the facts. Loved the show though. I really appreciate how you interview people from different backgrounds and are not just confronting those you might have some disagreement with. Like an interview version of Ready to Harvest's channel.
Keith did an excellent job with his answer concerning Romans 6. When pressed this does an excellent job of highlighting the inconsistency of the KJVO advocate.
1John 5:7 is not canon, the longer ending of Mark, and the reading of John 7:53-8:11, are canon.
I would say all three are canon.
We have a 2nd century source quoting that verse.
It reads the same, but after it says these three are one it ends by adding "In Jesus".
A circumstantial case for the Comma of John: In 484 A.D. the bishop of Carthage with 400 bishops quoted the comma to an Arian Vandal king. Being the bishop of Carthage, he would have had access to the Scriptures of Cyprian, and he probably had a Vulgate, maybe a first edition. Also, Gregory Nazianzus wrote on the grammar, and he had a student named Jerome. Seems strong evidence to me. Blessings.
@@jamessheffield4173 a few very late manuscripts add in heaven-the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And we have three witnesses on earth. The longer version was written in Latin several centuries after John to explain the three elements (water, blood, and Spirit) as symbols of the Trinity. This explanation found its way into some Latin editions of 1 John, including later copies of the Latin Vulgate. Eventually, Erasmus translated it into Greek and included it in what became the Textus Receptus, the “received text,” which is why it was included in the King James Version. The longer version cannot be found in any Greek manuscript prior to the 1700s and was never cited by any of the early fathers of the church. For these reasons, few modern English translations recognize the longer version as part of the authentic text.
@@darrelbolen5908 If you translate the Latin of I John 5:7 into Greek, you solve a problem in the Greek grammar. Amazing.
@@jamessheffield4173 lol if you can make that work.😂
King James Onlyists have done more to turn me away from the KJV than anyone that is not a KJVO'er.
Yeah, I am sorry but he just said in reference to the longer ending of Mark, "when you remove it." That is classic cultic King James Onlyism. One can package it to sound nice but that is still the same line of thinking.
I only read the KJV. My church only uses the KJV. When a question comes up in Bible study the wonderful internet has a plethora of translations and access to original language. Same thing for the family at home.
So much is about Man's traditions and what people are comfortable with. There has been no other time since the foundation of the world that we have had this amount of access to help understand the Word.
Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Have a Blessed day 🙏
Buc-ee's!
Bussees
When I began reading through the Bible in a year, I chose a different translation each year, having realized that there are many ways of translating a word, because there is rarely an exact word to word equivalent from language to language. (I learned that from having done a translation of a German poem into English.) in my earlier years I had learned that YAHWEH was God’s name, not LORD. For that reason, I had liked the Jerusalem Bible for devotional use. The KJV had been a favorite until I inadvertently came into a KJVO church. Because the pastor treated the KJV as the only true revealed Word, I began shutting out his messages about such passages like, “the word of God is pure”, knowing that he was saying, “the KJV words are pure”, etc. It took me about a year after leaving that church that I was able to begin again read the KJV.
Can the FormTX be supplied for every modern version? If not, why are we even having a discussion on Bible versions? If you can not tell me what the Bible Publishers listed as the "new authorship" on FormTX for which they sought copyright for, why are we even discussing translational choices?
Since the KJV was personally handed down by the Archangel Gabriel to His Majesty Pope Benjamin Wilkinson in 1930, I think I should start using it... even if I am not a native English speaker.
I am pretty sure the message of Romans 14 is the same no matter what mainstream Bible you read, including KJV. The message of Romans 14 pretty much makes this issue a non issue.
"If I'm going to give Higher Criticism, I'm going to give it to Beza, because he knew Greek more than I do". And so do literally ALL Modern Higher Critical Scholars today. If Higher Criticism is wrong, than it's wrong, no matter WHO employs it!
Keith did an excellent job of pushing back because the guest clearly holds the cultic KJVO viewpoint although he did not behave like they typical cultic KJVO'er. He clearly did not want to answer the question about whether the KJV could be improved upon or changed based on a translation error. This means that he wants to hold to the cultic view without being "known" for holding it. The King James Bible Alone = The Word Of God Alone is the cultic viewpoint and that seems to be what he is arguing for.
I can answer the question because I am not a cultic KJVO'er. Yes, the trasnlation can be improved upon and yes the KJV has some translation errors and some are not even the fault of the KJV translators. There are no perfect translations. The original was perfect and any translation that is as accurate as possible to the original can be said to be the Word of God in that language.
Did you rip Ephesians 5:3 out of your Bible?
The shorter ending of Mark does not bother me at all because I believe it is actually what Mark wrote.
I am KJV Only. If I go to a KJVO church I know that I will get biblically sound teaching without the nonsense of some other churches. That’s not to say that other churches are bad or that there is no merit in other translations, merely to say that I don’t have to wonder about KJVO. If I’m traveling, I can walk into any of those churches and be reasonably assured that there will not be some weird “Open and affirming “nonsense Or “female pastors “or any of the other modern heresies.
KJV-onlyism IS nonsense! There are quite a few non-'open and affirming' churches that use a more recent translation, and don't have women preachers.
Considering the amount of heresy present in many KJVO churches like: modalism, adoptionism, weak Christology, no Eucharistic theology (which all of the KJV translators believed).
Ask for a pompous person, and I will show you a KJV onlyist
KJVOnlyism is not a reason to hate someone. It’s funny!- but it’s not a reason to hate.
Huh?🤔
Not a Protestant? 🤔
Probably believes in Baptist Successionism.
You can have a friendly conversation about kjv onlyism. Problem is, if you do you will likely become kjv only.
First😊
What insight.
you brought up a priori for kjvo users but you didn't apply it to your position. For example, the CT position uses its own a priori bc it prioritizes sinaiticus and vaticanus, with 3000 difference between them. If it the argument is evidence, then the byzantine text is best. You failed to acknowledge your own a priori. You should read Harry Sturz, who was neither tr or ct. I recommend acknowledging each position has a priori, bc your phrasing seemed to suggest that your position had none. Perhaps just a slip of the tongue. I used to be ct until I realized the ct had a funky a priori, whilst the byzantine priority position has a very good one. Then i became a tr guy for many reasons. However i just wanted to encourage You to fairly describe your own position accurately by acknowledging Your own a priori. However, in most everything else, i believe you were very fair.
I don’t disagree that I have an a-priori commitment. And I would have readily admitted to it. But the point I was making was not regarding the commitment to the a-priori of a manuscript tradition, but rather that the kjv cannot be improved upon. That’s two different categories. Though I value the older codexes, I don’t think they are always the right answer. I think they can be corrected, and we should. The issue I have is when someone says -this 17th century English text cannot be improved upon- and that’s the point I was making. Not that we don’t all have presumptions, because I know we all do
@@ConversationswithaCalvinist ok. Thank you for the clarification. I think of you as a godly well spoken dude and i hope you continue in your efforts. Thanks again for clarifying brother.
Every serious Bible scholar knows that “th” is a letter in the Hebrew alphabet.
Literally means to sit idle
Problem 1 with the KJVOnly view: Their view of preservation is manifestly not how God preserved the Bible. Even in the TR tradition, every type of textual variation common to the CT is found, save the discussion of Mark's ending and the woman caught in adultery.
Problem 2:False Friends, which he mischaracterized as "hard words." Nope. The problem is precisely they're *not* hard. So no one looks them up.
Problem3: They do to the KJV exactly what the KJV translators say in the 1611 Preface *not* to do. They claim no special inspiration. They accept the need for future revision. They accept the need for marginal notes and alternate readings. Everything the KJVOnlyists hate about the NKJV is what the KJV translators themselves said was necessary for a good translation.
And so KJVOnlyists turn a good translation into a bad one, by giving it status it never was meant to have.
Also, Problem 4. Despite his claim, English, as a written language at least, is not "dumber" now than in 1611. See any of the modern style guides on that subject. Slang is not linguistic standard. By definition.
Comparing Steven Anderson with James White is a wild take
It wasn’t a comparison. He was saying that he talked to the most extreme KJV only nutcase and the most scholarly opponent kjv onlyism.
Interview Nick Sayers.
KJV-onlyism is as ridiculous as ESV-onlyism and thankfully there are no ESV-onlyist. KJV is a great version of the Bible but there are a number of known issues. KJV-onlyists are so wedded to the KJV that they refuse to change a single word even if they generally agree that it's a better word.
Right only KJVOs believe they hold the word of God in their hands. Nobody else believes that. Plus nobody holding an ESV would be silly enough to claim ESVO with all the errors. That’s why there are no ESVOs, NIVOs, LSBo or NLTOs 😂