I Homeschooled all three of my daughters and from the age of five they were using the KJV and they continue to do so. They are currently 20,17, and 16.
My parents were both Sunday School teachers and studied the bible with me at home. We used the KJV, as did our church. ❤ I still prefer the KJV, and also the NKJV.
Thanks for having both this conversation with Dan Haifley and Mark Ward. It’s good to hear both sides in a manner that lends itself to everyone listening to the points, opinions and thoughts of each both men. I like Dan though there are a few things he says that I have to think about. I appreciate you talking to both of them. I watched their debate and all of the follow up and they both give a lot of food for thought. Thanks for your videos with both of them.
If the issue is "who 'won' the debate?" then the better rhetorician won, as they always will. I prefer to see the debate as a success. Two men who love God and love his word cordially discussed a touchy issue without any of the juvenile and uncharitable accusations which usually accompany this topic. Both agree that an update would be beneficial. One says the time is now, one says it is not yet. The mighty ship of KJV-onlyism won't change course overnight, but if this question can be discussed from time to time, an update acceptable to all could come about.
I'm an admin in the group Haifley mentioned. The reason we shut down those debates are because people are unwilling to speak on the issues in substantive ways. The KJV debate always devolves into the KJVO guys calling people heretics.
@@davidchupp4460 Good morning David. Well I think we agree that God doesn't lie. Not sure where that came from. As well, folks on both "sides" of this debate agree with that as well. However, there are some understandable differences in understanding "how" God preserves His Word. KJVO say that it's preserved through an inspired English translation (Only 15% of the world's population speak English, btw). Others would say it was preserved through our abundance of riches with the manuscript evidence. I'm happy to continue this discussion if you tone down the rhetoric. Otherwise, have a good weekend ahead.
@ what I say or you say is irrelevant. As an intelligent individual we all know people have opinions about everything. Thats why we need to trust God. The argument against only 15% English speaking is quite irrelevant actually. It’s either the primary or secondary language in most countries. God didn’t preserve the Old Testament in the surrounding countries of Israel but kept it primarily in one language. The argument is fallacious that he has to preserve his word in all other languages which confines him to your mandate and you and my mandates mean NOTHING. Your argument is with God. According to you and critical text scholars HIS WORD is just scattered across all known manuscripts and therefore can’t really have it in its entirety with certainty but just almost. That’s the end point of this entire debate. It starts and ends on WHERE IS HIS WORD and did God keep his promise. Nothing else matters.
I'm more closely aligned with Pastor Haifley, but he lost the second he started by saying he was going to "elevate" the conversation and then trying to conflate the understandability of words with the understandability of hard concepts. He went there three times and misused scripture to do so.
I work with and teach children from the ages of 10-20+ (Sunday school through older youth groups), and have been doing so for the past 20 years. I started out with the KJV and the Russian Synodal versions, and used them for most of the time. Most young people in my classes were bilingual, generally did well to very well in school, and their comprehension and reading ability w.r.t. the KJV was (and for most still is) at a level that is above "abysmal" but significantly below "uninterrupted, fluid comprehension." I did interpret and explain passages, but I found that so much time was being used for word definitions and translation that it didn't make sense to not just use an intelligible translation altogether. Public schools do no prepare your children to understand the KJV. I would even argue that most college degrees don't. It takes a person whose goal it is to learn and understand the KJV in particular, to spend the time. I don't see many people doing that. It's like learning to read in brail; yes the language is the same but the time it takes to get up to speed is a huge investment. I don't want to tell people how to use their time, but the time we have is limited. Is the KJV Bible so thoroughly, dramatically better than other translations that the colossal time commitment is warranted?
Yes, the KJV is worth the time. It will set them up for a lifetime of success. With that said, the time is limited, maybe you can try the Simplified King James. It's closer to the King James than the NKJV is.
Yes because of doctrinal changes which are important. I’d rather get some of those meaningless words wrong than have actual doctrine affected in my bible.
Good discussion. Dr. Ward never said that the KJV is "completely unreadable" as was alleged by Dr. Haifley in the 1st video. In fact, he's pushed back on that accusation and has used it in his devotions for 1 1/2 years. His position is that it's "sufficiently unintelligible" for it to be the primary translation in Christian institutions. Dr. Haifley also erred in stating that he would have won the debate if Dr. Ward has acquiesced on the "sin" statement. Dr. Ward won every other point in the debate; by no means would he have lost it on this one. In fact, I disagree with him on this issue but still feel that he won hands down. One primary reason Dr. Ward doesn't want to debate the text issue is that he has stated that he would give up any sort of insistence on the critical text and support a TR-based KJV update if his opponents would sign on in order to make it more understandable for the plowboy. Rather than being criticized, Dr. Ward should be lauded, as he is much more gracious and flexible on this issue than are his opponents. Dr. Haifley discounts the impact of "false friends", yet, in a more recent video by Dr. Ward on ones that begin with "D", there's a sermon clip by Dr. Halfley himself where he completely misinterprets the phrase "making a difference" in Jude 22, expounding on how we should make a difference in others' lives. That use of the phrase did not come into our vernacular until the 20th century. The NKJV corrects it while still retaining the cadence and order of the KJV by rendering it "making a distinction". The MEV is maybe better: "using discernment". Even the most intelligent KJVO's invariably get tripped up on its antiquated language.
Good evening. Not an issue as I see it. Not as long as it’s modern English. If we don’t know a word, we look it up. You’re mixing narratives since most KJVO say that modern versions “dumb down” our English. I don’t see BSB or LSB throwing away “propitiation” just because it’s a big Bible word and don’t want them to.
TH-cam is filled with Christians disobeying the scriptures on speaking evil of others, Christian or not. Paul said repeatedly to speak evil of no one, let alone brethren. And Jesus said to call no one raca, or fool. I wrote to a major TH-camr some months ago because he constantly called people by the phrase "clowns and fools." He said he would examine himself but I don't know if he has removed this favorite vocabulary of his. People are so busy studying the Bible on certain speculative or theological issues that they read past the more important issues, you know, the ones that all are rooted in the two great commandments. 49% of the book of proverbs speaks on the tongue, either directly or concerning attitudes which necessarily involve the tongue. I guess they're not reading that book.
Interesting. Brother Dan (rightly) quoted "raca", in Matthew 5:22. But he CITED Matthew 5, 6, and 7. Hmm. Several times, I have thought brethren who are being attacked by "strife of tongues", might profit by reading Matthew 7, (the WHOLE chapter). ........ Speaking of "tongues", yes 1 Cor 14 is regulating that gift in public worship. Sadly, there are churches which do not practise this great gift, and miss so much blessing!
I have the KJV/NKJV parallel Bible. Whatever false friends may actually exist along with archaic and extinct words, problem solved. Not to mention the 2 KJV lexicons I have for these types of words.
Plus, the NKJV gives me the majority/Byzantine text, and the critical text readings in the margin. In this KJV/NKJV Bible with the other true traditions included in the notes, the only better thing to do is go to the original, which I can if I want. In addition, my NRSV and my 1901ASV supplement with even more textual variations if I care.
Christians should ideally be taught either Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic or Koine Greek as children. There are a lot of concepts that just don't translate well into English.
This all has the feel of a collection of people who just want to say 'look how clever I am'. That is sinful. KJV, NSRV, Vulgate? All good, as long as we hear, read, absorb the Word.
I pray frequently that the Lord would keep me humble. I would invite you to pray with and for me that I wouldn't be swallowed up in pride. For the record, I'm not a KJV onlyist, but wanted to invite Dr. Haifly on to get his side of how the debate went.
@@Dwayne_Green My age and background means that until middle age, I didn't know that there were Bibles other than the KJV, I love the language it is written in but, I suggest that we get a deeper understanding by reading assorted versions simultaneously. You won't find a KJV in the Churches I attend, French Catholic Churches just don't have them. Pride is for many the 'last' residual sin, too many of us hang on to it, praying that with our Lord's help you do not fall into it is a pleasure.
Children in certain schools and homeschooling, such as classical schools, learn Latin, a language many many times harder to learn than to learn the th, eth, st, ans est endings on words and the second person pronouns. We are supposed to be teaching our children language, the English language. They can learn less than 10 distinctives of KJV English and be sent on their way. Yes, they will have to look up words for meanings, but they have to do that now. I am 65 years old and still have to do that with modern English. What's wrong with that? Why in the world would it even be hinted that giving a child a KJV is a sin? Get them started in the KJV, and then there's a whole lot they'll be able to understand of older literature, including Shakespeare, when they reach that point. I go to a church that the children that are in the 7 to 10 year old range have absolutely no problem understanding a KJV or our older prayer book. I like Mark Ward, but on this point it almost sounds anti-educational. We need to study our past if for no other reason.
While Haifley has some good things to say, I find it extraordinary that he is so unaware that he was steamrolled by Mark Ward. It's almost like there needs to be a debate/discussion between those who hold that the KJB is perfect, and Haifley, because his position is pretty weak once you start to focus on the KJB. I'm sure he'd be good at talking about the TR against modernists, but that's last century's battle.
I am struggling to understand why Mark Ward is crusading against the KJV. I’m not KJVO, but I love the KJV and don’t like it when people malign it like he does.
Good evening. I have heard and seen most of Ward’s content on TH-cam and have yet to hear him “malign” the KJV or the KJV translators. Quite the opposite. His efforts have helped us read our KJB’s more intelligently as well as push back on KJ-onlyism
One argument against the unreadability of the KJV I could raise is the testimony of Smith Wigglesworth. A man who was uneducated, a plumber, a heavy drinker with a potty-mouth, who couldn't read or write a word of English, but once he got saved, learned to read and write by reading the KJV. And that was the only Bible he used. And he believed every word of it, hence why he had such an astonishing ministry. As an aside, my first Bible at age 4 was a Good News Bible with all the drawings, but the very next Bible was a KJV. But I think Smith's testimony alone should speak for itself
It would be sinful NOT to give an English mother-tongue child an Authorised Version (1611): it is one of the best versions to give such a child, if not still the very best contemporary English version even today. It has a power about it that all of the other versions often lack. It may be good to give them a modern spelling Geneva Bible (1599) too! I would like to update the AV (1611) slightly and conform it to the Byzantine Text-Form, but the one we have, as it is, is pretty good for all, children included.
I Homeschooled all three of my daughters and from the age of five they were using the KJV and they continue to do so. They are currently 20,17, and 16.
My parents were both Sunday School teachers and studied the bible with me at home. We used the KJV, as did our church. ❤ I still prefer the KJV, and also the NKJV.
Thanks for having both this conversation with Dan Haifley and Mark Ward. It’s good to hear both sides in a manner that lends itself to everyone listening to the points, opinions and thoughts of each both men. I like Dan though there are a few things he says that I have to think about. I appreciate you talking to both of them. I watched their debate and all of the follow up and they both give a lot of food for thought. Thanks for your videos with both of them.
If only more KJVo guys had Pastor Haifley's attitude and spirit. His last statement on this video was spot on.
If the issue is "who 'won' the debate?" then the better rhetorician won, as they always will. I prefer to see the debate as a success. Two men who love God and love his word cordially discussed a touchy issue without any of the juvenile and uncharitable accusations which usually accompany this topic. Both agree that an update would be beneficial. One says the time is now, one says it is not yet. The mighty ship of KJV-onlyism won't change course overnight, but if this question can be discussed from time to time, an update acceptable to all could come about.
I'm an admin in the group Haifley mentioned. The reason we shut down those debates are because people are unwilling to speak on the issues in substantive ways. The KJV debate always devolves into the KJVO guys calling people heretics.
I wouldn’t go that far but liars isn’t too strong a word for people like Ward.
@@davidchupp4460 Good evening David. I can see you're wanting to stir the pot here. Go ahead and walk us through these lies if you're inclined.
@ you mean the lie God spoke when he said he’d preserve his word? That lie? Yeah go ahead boy.
@@davidchupp4460 Good morning David. Well I think we agree that God doesn't lie. Not sure where that came from. As well, folks on both "sides" of this debate agree with that as well. However, there are some understandable differences in understanding "how" God preserves His Word. KJVO say that it's preserved through an inspired English translation (Only 15% of the world's population speak English, btw). Others would say it was preserved through our abundance of riches with the manuscript evidence. I'm happy to continue this discussion if you tone down the rhetoric. Otherwise, have a good weekend ahead.
@ what I say or you say is irrelevant. As an intelligent individual we all know people have opinions about everything. Thats why we need to trust God. The argument against only 15% English speaking is quite irrelevant actually. It’s either the primary or secondary language in most countries. God didn’t preserve the Old Testament in the surrounding countries of Israel but kept it primarily in one language. The argument is fallacious that he has to preserve his word in all other languages which confines him to your mandate and you and my mandates mean NOTHING. Your argument is with God. According to you and critical text scholars HIS WORD is just scattered across all known manuscripts and therefore can’t really have it in its entirety with certainty but just almost. That’s the end point of this entire debate. It starts and ends on WHERE IS HIS WORD and did God keep his promise. Nothing else matters.
I'm more closely aligned with Pastor Haifley, but he lost the second he started by saying he was going to "elevate" the conversation and then trying to conflate the understandability of words with the understandability of hard concepts. He went there three times and misused scripture to do so.
I work with and teach children from the ages of 10-20+ (Sunday school through older youth groups), and have been doing so for the past 20 years. I started out with the KJV and the Russian Synodal versions, and used them for most of the time.
Most young people in my classes were bilingual, generally did well to very well in school, and their comprehension and reading ability w.r.t. the KJV was (and for most still is) at a level that is above "abysmal" but significantly below "uninterrupted, fluid comprehension."
I did interpret and explain passages, but I found that so much time was being used for word definitions and translation that it didn't make sense to not just use an intelligible translation altogether.
Public schools do no prepare your children to understand the KJV. I would even argue that most college degrees don't. It takes a person whose goal it is to learn and understand the KJV in particular, to spend the time. I don't see many people doing that. It's like learning to read in brail; yes the language is the same but the time it takes to get up to speed is a huge investment.
I don't want to tell people how to use their time, but the time we have is limited. Is the KJV Bible so thoroughly, dramatically better than other translations that the colossal time commitment is warranted?
Yes, the KJV is worth the time. It will set them up for a lifetime of success. With that said, the time is limited, maybe you can try the Simplified King James. It's closer to the King James than the NKJV is.
Yes because of doctrinal changes which are important. I’d rather get some of those meaningless words wrong than have actual doctrine affected in my bible.
Good discussion. Dr. Ward never said that the KJV is "completely unreadable" as was alleged by Dr. Haifley in the 1st video. In fact, he's pushed back on that accusation and has used it in his devotions for 1 1/2 years. His position is that it's "sufficiently unintelligible" for it to be the primary translation in Christian institutions.
Dr. Haifley also erred in stating that he would have won the debate if Dr. Ward has acquiesced on the "sin" statement. Dr. Ward won every other point in the debate; by no means would he have lost it on this one. In fact, I disagree with him on this issue but still feel that he won hands down.
One primary reason Dr. Ward doesn't want to debate the text issue is that he has stated that he would give up any sort of insistence on the critical text and support a TR-based KJV update if his opponents would sign on in order to make it more understandable for the plowboy. Rather than being criticized, Dr. Ward should be lauded, as he is much more gracious and flexible on this issue than are his opponents.
Dr. Haifley discounts the impact of "false friends", yet, in a more recent video by Dr. Ward on ones that begin with "D", there's a sermon clip by Dr. Halfley himself where he completely misinterprets the phrase "making a difference" in Jude 22, expounding on how we should make a difference in others' lives. That use of the phrase did not come into our vernacular until the 20th century. The NKJV corrects it while still retaining the cadence and order of the KJV by rendering it "making a distinction". The MEV is maybe better: "using discernment". Even the most intelligent KJVO's invariably get tripped up on its antiquated language.
Great points
And even the most intelligent person gets tripped up on some words in modern versions. Yet that’s definitely of an issue now is it?
Good evening. Not an issue as I see it. Not as long as it’s modern English. If we don’t know a word, we look it up. You’re mixing narratives since most KJVO say that modern versions “dumb down” our English. I don’t see BSB or LSB throwing away “propitiation” just because it’s a big Bible word and don’t want them to.
Yes... If one knows better...
"Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." James 4:17
What Pentecostal denomination / tradition are you?
PAOC. I'm trinitarian :)
@ similar to Assemblies of God and the church of God, Cleveland?
@@raymondrinehart5957 basically PAOC is AOG but in Canada. 🤣
TH-cam is filled with Christians disobeying the scriptures on speaking evil of others, Christian or not. Paul said repeatedly to speak evil of no one, let alone brethren. And Jesus said to call no one raca, or fool. I wrote to a major TH-camr some months ago because he constantly called people by the phrase "clowns and fools." He said he would examine himself but I don't know if he has removed this favorite vocabulary of his. People are so busy studying the Bible on certain speculative or theological issues that they read past the more important issues, you know, the ones that all are rooted in the two great commandments. 49% of the book of proverbs speaks on the tongue, either directly or concerning attitudes which necessarily involve the tongue. I guess they're not reading that book.
Interesting. Brother Dan (rightly) quoted "raca", in Matthew 5:22. But he CITED Matthew 5, 6, and 7.
Hmm. Several times, I have thought brethren who are being attacked by "strife of tongues", might profit by reading Matthew 7, (the WHOLE chapter).
........
Speaking of "tongues", yes 1 Cor 14 is regulating that gift in public worship. Sadly, there are churches which do not practise this great gift, and miss so much blessing!
I have the KJV/NKJV parallel Bible. Whatever false friends may actually exist along with archaic and extinct words, problem solved. Not to mention the 2 KJV lexicons I have for these types of words.
Plus, the NKJV gives me the majority/Byzantine text, and the critical text readings in the margin. In this KJV/NKJV Bible with the other true traditions included in the notes, the only better thing to do is go to the original, which I can if I want. In addition, my NRSV and my 1901ASV supplement with even more textual variations if I care.
I think that's a great way to use the KJV
I would be happy to debate the textual issue with Dr. Haifley, with Dwayne Green moderating.
I bet you would!
Christians should ideally be taught either Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic or Koine Greek as children. There are a lot of concepts that just don't translate well into English.
Ward 1 Haifly 0
This all has the feel of a collection of people who just want to say 'look how clever I am'. That is sinful. KJV, NSRV, Vulgate? All good, as long as we hear, read, absorb the Word.
I pray frequently that the Lord would keep me humble. I would invite you to pray with and for me that I wouldn't be swallowed up in pride.
For the record, I'm not a KJV onlyist, but wanted to invite Dr. Haifly on to get his side of how the debate went.
@@Dwayne_Green My age and background means that until middle age, I didn't know that there were Bibles other than the KJV, I love the language it is written in but, I suggest that we get a deeper understanding by reading assorted versions simultaneously. You won't find a KJV in the Churches I attend, French Catholic Churches just don't have them.
Pride is for many the 'last' residual sin, too many of us hang on to it, praying that with our Lord's help you do not fall into it is a pleasure.
Children in certain schools and homeschooling, such as classical schools, learn Latin, a language many many times harder to learn than to learn the th, eth, st, ans est endings on words and the second person pronouns. We are supposed to be teaching our children language, the English language. They can learn less than 10 distinctives of KJV English and be sent on their way. Yes, they will have to look up words for meanings, but they have to do that now. I am 65 years old and still have to do that with modern English. What's wrong with that? Why in the world would it even be hinted that giving a child a KJV is a sin? Get them started in the KJV, and then there's a whole lot they'll be able to understand of older literature, including Shakespeare, when they reach that point. I go to a church that the children that are in the 7 to 10 year old range have absolutely no problem understanding a KJV or our older prayer book. I like Mark Ward, but on this point it almost sounds anti-educational. We need to study our past if for no other reason.
A lot of the words change meaning over time or have had multiple meanings. For instance Shakespeare's used the word bedroom for room (space) on a bed.
Is it just me, or did Pastor Dwayne sound like a KJV defender? Great interview Pastor D.
Like I said... I'm not an onlyist, but I do love the KJV :)
While Haifley has some good things to say, I find it extraordinary that he is so unaware that he was steamrolled by Mark Ward. It's almost like there needs to be a debate/discussion between those who hold that the KJB is perfect, and Haifley, because his position is pretty weak once you start to focus on the KJB. I'm sure he'd be good at talking about the TR against modernists, but that's last century's battle.
I could never stand Ward, but hearing this....WOW.
I am struggling to understand why Mark Ward is crusading against the KJV. I’m not KJVO, but I love the KJV and don’t like it when people malign it like he does.
2 Peter 2
@@ST52655because he’s employed by modern bibles to sell Bible of the month versions
Good evening. I have heard and seen most of Ward’s content on TH-cam and have yet to hear him “malign” the KJV or the KJV translators. Quite the opposite. His efforts have helped us read our KJB’s more intelligently as well as push back on KJ-onlyism
@clintbean it's a push to corruption in the guise of clarity. Check it out and see if they're corrupt.
One argument against the unreadability of the KJV I could raise is the testimony of Smith Wigglesworth. A man who was uneducated, a plumber, a heavy drinker with a potty-mouth, who couldn't read or write a word of English, but once he got saved, learned to read and write by reading the KJV. And that was the only Bible he used. And he believed every word of it, hence why he had such an astonishing ministry.
As an aside, my first Bible at age 4 was a Good News Bible with all the drawings, but the very next Bible was a KJV. But I think Smith's testimony alone should speak for itself
It would be sinful NOT to give an English mother-tongue child an Authorised Version (1611): it is one of the best versions to give such a child, if not still the very best contemporary English version even today. It has a power about it that all of the other versions often lack. It may be good to give them a modern spelling Geneva Bible (1599) too! I would like to update the AV (1611) slightly and conform it to the Byzantine Text-Form, but the one we have, as it is, is pretty good for all, children included.