ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ก.ย. 2024
- MAJOR NERD WARNING
📃 Entire paper, including promised spreadsheet: bit.ly/3Zxar3J
🎁 Help Mark Ward bring the Bible to the plow boy in his own English!
✅ / @markwardonwords
✅ / mlward
✅ buymeacoffee.c...
👏 Many, many thanks to the TH-cam channel members, Patreon supporters, and other givers who make this work possible!
▶ TH-cam:
Randy Wheeler, Andrew Brady, David Beiswenger, Michelle Lewis, ThatLittleBrownDog, Ole Madsen, Steve Becker, Drew Koske, Michael Foust, Matt Stidham, Russell Edwards, Gregg Bell, Applied Word with Dan Weston, David Shockley, wrjsn231, Matthew Mencel, Javier Caballero, Municipal Money Matters, SEL 65545, Dale Buchanan, Jeanine Drylie, Larry Castle, Christopher Scaparo, Jesse and Leigh Davenport, Meghan Brown, Justin Bellars, Lynn Hartter, Alan Milnes, Karen Duncan, Gregory Brown, David Podesta, Frank Hartmann, Tricia Maddox Behncke, Caleb Richardson, PAClassic87 95, James Duly, Todd Bryant, M.A. Moreno, whubertx, Joel Richardson, Orlando Vergel Jr, OSchrock, Eric Couture, Bryon Self, Average Gun Guy, Brad Dixon, Derek Ralston, Brent Zenthoefer, Reid Ferguson, James Goering, David Saxon, Travis Manhart, Josiah Dennis, judy couchman, Kimberly Miller, Jonathan Clemens, Robert Daniels, Tiny Bibles, Robert Gifford, GEN_Lee_Accepted, Lanny Faulkner, Benjamin Randolph
▶ PATREON:
Jesse Stauffer, Timothy J Hoffman, Benjamin Denison, Christopher Scaparo, Tricia Maddox Behncke, Gerald Fuentes, Kienan Maxfield, Mark Jerde, Paul Gibson, Nathan Hall, D. H. Wallenstein, Beth Benoit, Arvid D, Frank Hartmann, Thomas Jacobs, Deborah Reinhardt, Lanny M Faulkner, William McAuliff, Razgriz, James Goering, Martyn Chamberlin, Edward Woods, Thomas Balzamo, Brent M Zenthoefer, Gregory Nelson Chase, Brent Karding, James Allman, Rich Weatherly, Joshua Witt, Tim Gresham, Luc + Eileen Shannon, Luke Burgess, Joshua Bolch, David Peterson, Eric Mossman, Donna Ward, Nate Patterson, Lewis Kiger, Dustin Burlet, Jonathon Clemens
▶ BUY ME A COFFEE:
@hellofromsaints, @kynrek, @nobodyspecial1852, A_JohnBlack, Adam Boyd, Alan, Anirudh Giri, Ben, Ben, Ben, Brian Elliott, Caleb Farris, Caleb Farris, Caleb Farris, Carl Yarbrough, Cody Hughes, Cody Meuer, Dan Meredith, Darlene Dunn, DEAN ALLEY MINISTRIES, dhblue43@gmail.com, dhblue43@gmail.com, Evan Steele, Evan Steele, Frank Hartmann, Graham, Jason Annal, Jenna, Jim Morton, Jimmy, Joel Richardson, Jon McClenahan, Kayla, Kim, Matthew, Michael, Michael, Nathan Howard, Pabcphil@gmail.com, Papa D, Pastor Brett, Robert W Peck, Robert Worthington, Sam Shelton, Sarah, Scott Beard, Scott MacGregor, Anonymous 19x, Stacey, Stephen, TJ, Tom Weatherford, Zach P
Note: some links used on this channel are referral links.
Once again Mark, I must thank you so much for all the hard work you have put into this video, as well as the research paper behind it. I have downloaded the PDF and expect to study it greatly at my leisure. As I think about all of the hard work you have put into these past several years in showing the importance of the readability of God's word, I can see at least three groups of people that will benefit from this work, even after you have moved on to other projects at the end of this year:
*those seeking to more fully understand the words used by the King James translators,*
*those seeking to grow past the impedance to readability and understanding represented by the KJVO stance, and*
*those seeking to grow in God's word by comparing the English translations (including the KJV), along with Greek manuscripts.*
As I have mentioned before, your work has brought me back to including the KJV in my study; in doing so, it has also helped me to improve my rusty Greek.
Mark, thanks again!
Mark, I’ve really appreciated your sincere approach, your humble tone, and your incisive clarity on Bible translation & text-critical issues. You and Gavin Ortlund are remarkably similar in that regard. You should have him on for an interview or for a collab video!
Boy-I'd be super honored to do that. I have just the idea, too, for an interview.
But do you have one? What would you suggest we talk about?
@@markwardonwords I'd be interested in hearing you guys talk about how figures in church history interacted with certain textual variants, like maybe the pericope adulterae or the longer ending of Mark, or maybe even just how they commented on the phenomena of variants in general and how that should inform our bibliology.
Excellent ideas.
@@ParkerRRea I like this. Thank you for your thoughts.
Great information, thank you!!
So many Christians are afraid of textual criticism, and therefore avoid the subject.
Every KJV only person I’ve ever talked to doesn’t understand the issue at all. They fall for all the fast talking, well intentioned pastors. Those individuals who undermine confidence in the Bible, even as they try to argue for that same confidence. It’s actually heartbreaking, if you stop to think about it.
And I've stopped to think about it for about seven years now. =( You're so right.
I am looking forward to reading that paper as well as all the Greek data! Thanks, Mark, for your work!!
✔ My pleasure! Surprised people are enjoying this! It's pretty intense!
@markwardonwords I recently started diving into the original languages, so this is right up my alley right now! plus I really enjoy textual studies regarding KJ and the other translations.
I served under Major Nerd Warning in the Safety Brigade of Ferrara Division.
Great video, thank you!
So thankful for you, Dr. Ward, and other Biblical scholars who do the work in assuring us our Bible translations are trustworthy! Your work is necessary and spreads the Gospel. I’m too old now, but I find all this fascinating & makes me wish I had learned Hebrew & Greek, especially Greek since there continues to be so much badmouthing from some about Sinaiticus, etc. 🤦🏼♀️
You are very welcome!
Scrivener's Full Collation of Sinaiticus against Stephanus is immensely valuable.
I am the first to admit this topic is way over my head. But I appreciated listening to the whole thing. The information in that final quote is always my biggest concern. At least from my limited understanding, it doesn't seem anything major is changed by these various, uh, variants. The fact that people can study all these things at levels I can never do and still come back to the same basic understanding points to its divine origin. It should give us more confidence in God's Word, not less.
Right!!
Well said! I'm glad you did the work. I don't have that much persistence.
Great information - I comprende'd about half of it! That's not meant to be an insult either. It's challenging me to enrich my biblical education. Thanks for this info, brother!
It has been said; A true scholar and teacher of a given subject is both able to inform and hold the attention of his audience. You my brother are just that! I watched your entire presentation straight through at 3amish with a cup of coffee and a pad of paper! What I got from it; I trust His Word more and more, whether it be the KJV, CSB, ESV, NKJV (my personal love) , or the NASB to which I own all of these. How blessed am I amusement men!?! Now if I may take a moment to explain; before finding your channel, I was guilty of comparing bibles and asking; is that correct...? I would get caught up on the knot hole in the fence rather than broadening my view and letting the Scripture breath... The effect of your ministry on me; I now read and trust them all! I only compare them seeking to have greater understanding and not to question if it be true... I am praying for you brother Mark, for we live in such a time of over abundance of useless information that there can be no doubt God has raised you up to cut through it for His sheep... Thank you for your faithful cross bearing walk, and sacrifice to His glory and our edification...
Thank you
You're welcome!
Today I suffered through an hour and a half “teaching” from Robert Breaker on kjv only that he uploaded yesterday. I time stamped my comments and provided the truth of false claims he makes throughout the video. Just outright falsehoods, lies, historical revisions, etc. Your channel has given me a lot of much-needed truth in order to combat the lies of KJVonlyism. Thanks brother.
My pleasure. I haven't interacted with Breaker because I believe it is the course of integrity and charity to interact with the best representatives of KJV-Onlyism. However, it's true that the best representatives aren't always the most influential, and sometimes I have engaged with fringe figures because of their influence. I don't think I'll ever get around to directly engaging Breaker. I do hope indeed that my work was a help as you did so!
I am very grateful for your work, brother. Thank you again.
A note of word usage, as you are concerned and careful about such. Nothing is "comprised of." Comprise is a rough equivalent of include. Things may comprise, or be "composed of." However, things are not "included of" or "comprised of," despite the common misuse of comprise (more so in the US than in Great Britain).
Outnerding the nerd!
And all the descriptivists in the room proceeded to viciously split an infinitive to jokingly spite you.
Fantastic video! This is very helpful. I'll be using this in the near future.
Welcome to IL! I hope weather in the 'burbs has been as gorgeous as Chicago has been the past couple of days!
I think this type of video is more needful and more apprehensible than your modesty may allow you to admit. People need to have access to this excellent type of thorough explanation of the foundations of scripture. I grew up KJVO, and taught it, but your videos have deepened my understanding and strengthened my confidence in how God has preserved his word. Thank you!
Thanks for sharing these thoughts. This is valuable for me.
Thank you! I have no formal training in textual criticism and know only what I picked up in college and seminary. However, I have sometimes wondered about the presuppositions that critics take when examining/evaluating various texts - and I have been a little concerned that the evangelical academic community as a whole gives them a little too much deference. And while this channel focuses on KJV issues, there is a wider presuppositional issue with the LXX vs the Masoretic text that I would like to see you address - the entire early church right up until the Vulgate used the LXX which differs considerably with the Hebrew text we use today. Care to address this one? ;-)
Thank you so much. I can't finish it right now, but I'll be back. God bless you.
Mark, you are such a blessing. Thank you for all your hard work and effort! I owe you! This stuff is way over my head, but for some reason, I can follow your fast-paced arguments perfectly and know exactly what you are saying, even in the middle of the night (it’s 4:05 a.m. when I finished this and hung onto the end so I would get the full impact of your surprising conclusions). God has certainly equipped you for what you are doing.
Secondly, besides the Lord using you to free me from KJ Onlyism several years ago, the Lord has also freed me from other false beliefs that hindered my relationship with him. I’m not going to go into detail, but Dispensationalism is another one. The reason I bring this up is because I see the hand of God in providentially maintaining and protecting his words from Satan’s obvious desire to pervert them. It’s as if he hasn’t touched them. Accordingly, that first rider that goes forth on the white horse in Revelation 6, goes forth victoriously with the gospel from the day of Pentecost up until this very day. Likewise, if Revelation tells the same story with differing emphases seven times between his first coming and his second coming, which makes perfect sense for the comfort and encouragement of the saints during this time, and the 1000 years is therefore symbolic of this undetermined amount of time, Satan has certainly been bound from stopping its quick spread throughout the world up until this very day. But watch out! He will be loosed for a little season at the end when he will be permitted to finally overcome the saints for a short while and do what he’s been kept from doing this whole time by killing the two witnesses of all the earth (the gospel) right before our Lord’s great and glorious return.
P.S. The first video that changed my view several years ago was accidentally clicked on, and, ironically, this one also was. I’m free now so I don’t have to watch your videos anymore, and your nerd warning definitely would have kept me from watching if I had initially seen it, but another slip of my finger on my iPad started it, and I couldn’t stop watching. Admittedly, this argument about the two streams of manuscripts, with one being bad and one being good, still bothered me, but no more!
My parents are Mormon (I used to be). I asked mom where her breakdown was regarding the Bible (to the passersby, Mormons believe the Bible to be corrupted to a certain degree). She said she believes the Bible in the original Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic. This is an interesting dive into the original language! Thank you!
Just added this to my Sinaiticus Controversy controversy playlist. Thank you! 😊
If you don't mind me asking, based on my quick perusal of your website, do you consider this debate an in-house one. I ask because of your mention of Gail Ripliner ( I don't know if I spelled it right).
@@simsjones1977 What do you mean by "in-house"? 🤔 That spelling works 😄 but it's Riplinger.
@BibleVersionConspiracy In hindsight, this wasn't a fair question to you. I meant that the debate over bible translations is a debate among Christians of like-minded faith. I asked this because Gail Riplinger has been described as an extremist, among other less harsh things. What little I have seen of her work tends to turn me off to her.
@simsjones1977 I do not believe pigeonholing someone as an extremist should exclude their research from fair consideration. Gail has received more than her fair share of fair and unfair over the years imho. Honestly, I would say it is a debate among all Christians....but, yes, some do not be involved in the discussion. Sadly, I am coming more and more to the realization that she has little or nothing or use or value to say on the matter.
I have supported her for a long time and I wish her well, but after looking into a number of her claims for myself (claims made in a rather obscure part of her first book), I believe I am one of the few KJV-only Christians who have encountered her dark side. It has all come very suddenly in the last few months and has escalated greatly over the last two days. 😞 I have a lot of difficult choices to consider shortly, and I appreciate all prayers for wisdom.
Thanks for asking! It's been great to make your acquaintance. 😁
@BibleVersionConspiracy The pleasure is mine. Thank you for the response, conversation, and constructive criticism. I will pray that God blesses you with grace and wisdom on your journey. And you've made me curious to check out some of the videos on your channel..
Amen!
I like your style, My Brother.
I appreciate that! You must be a nerd! 🤓
One thing I learned was how to pronounce pericope. I've been saying it wrong for years and this is the first time I have ever heard it pronounced. :) I always thought para-cope or pari-cope in my mind.
Ha! Love it! This has happened to all of us book-readers!
I know someone who was surprised the first time she heard the name Penelope pronounced. For many years she had used a similarly mistaken (but reasonable) mispronunciation in her mind when encountering that name in novels.
Great job brother. You do great work.
Thank you for taking this approach. The real battle is the dependence of Westcott and Hort on Vaticanus. Sinaiticus is idiosyncratic/Western in the first 8 chapters of John, which may have impacted your numbers. There would be more places where Sinaiticus disagrees with both the TR and critical editions. Did Tischendorf follow Sinaiticus more in John than later editors?
Fantastic video! You are truly doing the Lord’s work.
There is a reasonably good chance that I am not understanding but I think you may have misspoken around the 18:35-18:45 point. You said that removing Sinaiticus would lessen but not remove support for 186 TR readings. Was that a verbal flub or is the data on the screen flipped or am I totally misunderstanding the point you were making?
Thank you for consistently dedicating an incredible amount of time and energy into these concerns.
Probably a flub. The chart on screen is to be trusted over my spoken words! Good catch.
It’s an interesting tension. I understand and affirm your heart in saying you would go to the NKJV to keep people from stumbling. On the other hand , I am not aware of many, if any people using CT based versions insisting that people using TR versions move to a CT based version. They are free to keep their TR based version. No one is taking it away from them. Perhaps the best solution is to leave the choice of which version people use in the hands of individuals and churches. I own both CT and TR versions and use them both even though my primary translation is CT based. If someone is convinced, for whatever reason, the TR is best, they should use it. Your analysis tells me that whichever decision a person makes, they will be reading God’s word. That all that really matters.
I have heard one or two CT advocates speak dismissively about the NKJV, I think it was something like "NKJV is the worst of both worlds because it's not enough of an update and sticks with a poor textual basis". You're right though, I haven't heard nearly the insistence against the NKJV from CT advocates as from TR advocates.
I agree with Caleb. But I think we all agree that this kind of dismissive comment utterly pales in comparison to the vast forest of lies and slanders that are directed against contemporary CT-based Bibles.
@@markwardonwords And maybe the reason I don’t feel the same urgency is that I came to Christ later through a church where this was not an issue and have attended or served in churches and ministries where this is not an issue. So, for me, this falls in the third-rank category where for others it night rise to second-rank (Ortlund).
@@erichoehn8262 Right. Good analysis. The false doctrine of KJV-Onlyism affects people I love and has strained and broken relationships I'd like to have with specific Christians whose names I'm thinking now.
Hearing you say sigh-nay-IT-eh-cehs over and over, I now understand the British pronunciation of Sinai. Thank you 🙏
Before I thought they were just illiterate 🤭
Your closing remarks, about needless changes to the text not being pastorally wise, remind me of a question often raised by KJVO folks: why do we need yet another translation? It's a question to which I'm more than a little sympathetic. I can certainly see value in having one good translation that's toward the formal end of the spectrum, and another near the dynamic. But (to pick on just one) what does the CSB really bring to the table? Sure, it's a fine translation. But what does it do for the body that the ESV and/or NIV (well, NIV84, anyway) don't? I'd ask the same question of the NET Bible, though their textual notes IMO add quite a bit of value. Or, perhaps, the NASB2020 vs. NASB95? Or maybe even the ESV vs. the NASB95? There's nothing (in the big picture) *wrong* with any of these, but I'm not convinced they add a great deal of value either. And while I think many KJVO defenders greatly exaggerate the confusion resulting from multiple translations, they aren't just inventing the issue.
It's sort of a Goldilocks problem. Once the backlash toward the RSV started in 1952, there was a move by a number of individuals and groups to offer an alternative, but with every new translation, there was a subset of readers who were dissatisfied with it in one way or another. Thus, we had one wave after another as people tried to produce one that was neither too hot nor too cold, but just right. (One might say that such a version would actually be lukewarm, but I digress.)
Life might have been easier if more people would've just accepted the Berkeley Version of 1959, which was already doing most of what the NIV would do ~20 years before the NIV was completed. It was even released by Zondervan! So too, the New Testaments of the Living Bible and the Good News Bible (both of which appeared in the late 1960s) could've been avoided if everyone had settled for The New Testament in Modern English from 1958, a perfectly good paraphrastic work by J.B. Phillips. You don't have to go to the dawn of the 21st century to find translation redundancy.
27:45 I am not going to be surprised if Lutherans use this to argue that Christ's humanity can be physically present in communion. Even then, this debate went down in the TR era so the text wasn't the issue in that debate.
Right! I should look at the history of interpretation of that verse.
Hey Mark, semi-unrelated but I was curious if you could recommend any books on exegesis. I've been learning a lot from TH-cam but I'd love to sit down and just read through some resources on studying the Bible.
My favorite is this: amzn.to/4gnTtKW
Regarding the Pericope of Adultery, I find it funny that pastors just can’t resist speculating on what Christ wrote in the sand! We may or may not know if the story is authentic God-breathed Scripture, but one thing we do know - regardless of your position - is that God did NOT reveal what Christ wrote in the sand. My opinion, though, is that Jesus wrote the following:
“Some manuscripts do not contain this passage on the woman taken in adultery.”
Ha! ;) Yes, I've always been content to be ignorant of that kind of stuff!
HA!
Good one.
Forgive my intrusion, but according to the visions of 20th century mystic Maria Valtorta, whose writings are not officially approved by the Catholic Church, is the following:
Jesus is writing. He writes and cancels with His sandal-shod foot what He has written and writes farther on, turning around
slowly to find more room. He looks like a little boy playing. But what He writes are not playful words. He has written successive
ly: «Usurer», «False», «Irreverent son», «Fornicator», «Murder er», «Desecrator of the Law», «Thief», «Libidinous», «Usurp
er», «Unworthy husband and father», «Blasphemer», «Rebellious to God», «Adulterer». The words are written over and over
again while new accusers speak.
«Well, Master! Your opinion. The woman is to be judged. She must not contaminate the Earth with her weight. Her breath is
poison that upsets hearts. »
Jesus stands up. Good gracious! What a face! His eyes flash like lightning striking the accusers. He holds His head so up
right that He looks even taller. And He is so severe and solemn that He seems a king on his throne. His mantle has fallen off
one shoulder forming a short train behind Him. But He does not mind that. With stern countenance and not even the least trace
of a smile on His lips or in His eyes, He glares with such eyes at the crowds which withdraw as they would before two sharp
blades. He stares at them one by one. With such searching intensity that frightens. Those who are stared at try to withdraw into
the crowd and hide there. The circle thus widens and breaks up as if it were mined by an occult power.
He finally speaks: «If there is one of you who has not sinned, let him be the first to throw a stone at her. » And His voice sounds
like thunder while His eyes flash even more brightly. Jesus has folded His arms across His chest and remains thus: as straight as a judge, awaiting. His eyes give no peace: they search, penetrate and accuse.
First one, then two, then five, then in groups, all the people present go away with lowered heads. Not only the scribes and
the Pharisees, but also those who were previously around Jesus, and others who had approached Him to hear His opinion and the sentence, and both the former and the latter had (earlier) joined together to abuse the guilty woman and demand her lapidation.
Jesus is left alone with Peter and John. I do not see the other apostles.
Jesus has resumed writing, while the flight of the accusers is taking place, and He now writes: «Pharisees», «Vipers», «Sepulchres of rottenness», «Liars», «Traitors», «Enemies of God», «Revilers of His Word»...
When the court is completely empty and there is a solemn silence in it - only the rustling of the wind and the murmur of a little fountain in a corner can be heard - Jesus raises His head and looks. His countenance is now placid. He is sad, but no longer angry. He casts a look at Peter, who has moved away a little, leaning against a column, and one at John, who almost behind Jesus looks at Him with his loving eyes. Jesus smiles slightly looking at Peter and more brightly when He looks at John. Two different smiles.
He then looks at the woman, still prostrated and weeping at His feet. He gets up, He adjusts His mantle as if He were about to
set off. He beckons to the two apostles to go to the exit. When He is alone He calls the woman. «Woman, listen to Me.
Look at Me. » He repeats His order because she dare not look up. «Woman, we are alone. Look at Me. »
The poor wretch raises her face that tears and dust have turned into a mask of dejection.
«Woman, where are now those who were accusing you? » Jesus is speaking in a low voice, with gravity full of pity. His head
and body are lightly bent forward, toward so much misery, and His eyes are full of an indulgent restoring expression. «Did no
one condemn you? »
The woman replies sobbing: «No one, Master. »
«Neither do I condemn you. Go. And do not sin anymore. Go home. And behave in such a way that you may be forgiven by
God and by the man you offended. And do not trespass on the benignity of the Lord. Go. »
And He helps her to get up taking her by the hand. But He does not bless, neither does He greet her with the greeting of
peace. He looks at her going away, her head lowered and slightly staggering in her shame, and when she disappears, He sets off
Himself with the two disciples.
(Quoting from 'The Gospel As Revealed To Me' by Maria Valtorta, Volume 7, No. 494.2-4; Pages 406-498, PDF 495-497 of 529)
[Memaria Net/eBooks/Maria_Valtorta_vol_7_English.pdf]
This sounds as if only Sinaiticus has the readings you mention, whereas those readings are shared variously by A, B, C, D, etc. I appreciate that it is a KJVO move to blame Sinaiticus (although more attention is more rightly focused on Vaticanus).
I need to know how you define, "difference in meaning." At around 22:50, you say that 'Jesus' and 'Lord' represent a difference in meaning ("at some level"). I'm not sure what that level is, but more significantly, I don't see a difference in meaning. If I address you as 'Mark,' 'Dr. Ward,' or 'Herr Professor Doktor,' I've used different words but the meaning is the same (it's you). So what am I missing with 'Lord' vs 'Jesus'?
Great video. I downloaded the paper for some weekend fun. 🙂
If someone were willing to call him "Mark," but not "Doctor," that could suggest that the speaker considers his doctorate to hold no authority. The question then becomes whether the author of the gospel calls Jesus "Lord" elsewhere. If so, then it's a meaningless variant. If not, then it could have implications.
Great, thank you, sir. But on level four, is there anything about the personification of the Holy Spirit to take into regard?
I understand this is connected to the Critical Text of the Gospel of John, but concerning Mark's Gospel and the commission in 16:16, 17, is there anything interesting in connection to "in my name" that might surprise the believers who are salvation baptized?
Thank you Mark for a very interesting presentation. It occurred to me to ask where do readings such as Luke 2.14 ‘on whom he is pleased or favour rests’ sit? I read that this is due to a revised grammar interpretation rather than a text one. It could be said that the TR supports a universal salvation, whereas the CT implies only believers. I hope this is not a silly question.
It is based on the difference between εὐδοκία (TR) and εὐδοκίας (CT). That little ς at the end changes it from nominative to genitive. To render it as literally as possible, you'd have "peace to people [and] goodwill" vs. "peace to people [of] goodwill," with the supplied words indicating the effect of the sigma's presence or absence. How you make sense of the grammar beyond that point is interpretive, yes.
@@MAMoreno Thank you. 🙏
Good video. Your comments related to the angel pool variation made me wonder: Is there significant overlap in KJO circles between those who think the translation of the KJB was inspired and those who are cessationist? -Since those views would appear to contradict.
There is a subset of Charismatics/Pentecostals who are KJV Only or TR Only. (The latter group tends to tolerate the NKJV and MEV.) Their arguments are often harder to address because they deprioritize rational arguments about language or scholarship in favor of more speculative and supernatural reasoning. You can't really win a debate if you just dismiss the other side as superstitious, especially since both sides presuppose a world that cannot simply be explained through naturalism.
@@MAMoreno Not quite what I had asked about, but good considerations nonetheless. I had an encounter with someone who was promoting certain KJO Oneness Pentecostal teachings, and I figured early on that, with such a group, rather than trying to argue for modern translations it would be better to argue from the KJB for sound doctrine.
Do you include all who hold to the TR as being KJV only? If so, please make a distinction in the future.
I am very, very careful with this. I speak empirically, and on two levels:
1. In my experience, 99.99% of those who prefer the TR also insist on the exclusive use of the KJV.
2. In my experience, 95% of those who prefer the TR don't know that there are multiple TR editions that differ, and among the 5% who do, almost all of them prefer Scrivener's TR-which is the KJV.
Your incidental comment about most KJV-onlyists being cessationists has made me wonder how Ruckmanists can possibly justify believing both things. Ruckmanism necessarily means that the gift of prophecy was still being given in the 17th century (regardless of whether you have a continuationist or cessationist understanding of precisely what that gift entails).
Right!
Did I hear you say correctly that there was a NET Bible Greek New Testament? I am well familiar with the NET Bible, but I did not know or was aware that there was a Greek New Testament.
Yes, I've seen the NET Greek NT sold at Accordance (digital biblical studies software). So the New Testament of the NET Bible would be based on the textual decisions they made throughout i.e. based upon the NET Greek NT.
_Probably_ every major NT translation has a Greek base text based upon the textual decisions they made. - The NKJV, ESV, CSB, NIV, LSB, et al. But that doesn't mean that it is available to the public.
Funny how a young kid can be pierced in the heart for their sins by just reading one quote from Jesus as I was. That told me I knew what was truth. It's human nature to want more. And I don't mind others searching. I have the updated Josh McDowell Evidence that demand a verdict. His son Sean collaborated on with many others. Good read and good reference. We'll always have differences between sects. But we only have one truth. And I got that truth when young. By reading one fascinating truth the world ignores. What we think in our hearts already condemns us. When I read that I knew I was guilty and feared God.
i think he could have stopped at the word "truthful".. truth is sometimes edifying but also convicting. but great video
1. Beginning just before 10:00, with the orderly design of the numbers in the x/y diagram, it appears, Dr. Ward, that you've applied a periscope to a pericope.
2. Dr. Ward at 40:36 - 41:04: "Now I wish to close with the assessment of the New Testament provided by a man who spent decades in the data far more than I've done, the man whose name appears on the very addition of the TR that I've used in this video, F.H.A. Scrivener: 'Be the various readings in the New Testament what they may, they do not in any way alter the complexion of the whole book, or lead us to modify a single sentence which theologians have gathered from the common text, as it is now extant in our Authorized Version,' that's the King James."
Response:
A. Besides being a New Testament textual critic, F.H.A. Scrivener (1813 - 1891) was also an Anglican clergyman who most likely was ordained before 1865. From 1571 to 1865, clergy of the Church of England were required to subscribe to the 39 Articles of Religion that were contained in the Book of Common Prayer, the official national liturgical text and from which Rev. Scrivener would officiate in his clerical duties.
B. Therefore, it would seem most likely that F.H.A. Scrivener worked in NT textual criticism with Anglican theological presuppositions rooted in the 39 Articles of Religion. These presuppositions would prevent him from considering the modification of a single sentence, specifically the conjunction in the subject clause of 1 Corinthians 11:27 which subsequently was changed in the 1881 Revised New Testament Version of the King James Bible.
C. "The Revised Version (RV) or English Revised Version (ERV) of the Bible ... is the first (and remains the only) officially authorized and recognized revision of the King James Version in Great Britain."
[Wikipedia Org /wiki/Revised_Version]
3. 1 Corinthians 11:27 (KJV) = "Level 5 - A significant difference in meaning is present that substantially affects Christian theology."
There are variants in 1 Corinthians 11.27, but I see none that affect doctrine. The big dispute over "eat the bread or drink the cup" vs. "eat the bread and drink the cup" isn't textual, but interpretive. Either way, it's bound to the interpretation of the conjunction ἢ, which is present in both the TR and the WH.
"There are variants in 1 Corinthians 11.27, but I see none that affect doctrine."
Response:
It is a textual variant, not interpretive, according to the website 'Variations Between the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible' in the following quotes:
"The table below shows a complete list of differences between the text that underlies the King James version and the texts of Stephanus 1550 and Beza 1598 Textus Receptus. Readings that do not support the KJV are marked with a cross."
"For each item, where the reading of the KJV is not supported by both the Stephanus 1550 and the Beza 1598, the source column indicates at least one of the following sources that supports the KJV reading: Complutensian Polyglot 1522, Clementine Vulgate 1592, Erasmus New Testament 1516, Tyndale Bible 1534, Bishops' Bible 1568, Geneva Bible 1560."
Reference Variant Stephanus Variant Beza Support
1 Cor 11:27. X X Geneva
Read "or drink" instead of "and drink."
[Textus Receptus Bibles Com /Variations_Between_TR_and_KJV]
Comment:
1. The 1516 Erasmus Greek Testament also does not support the textual variant. There are no Greek manuscripts anywhere that have the conjunction "and" in the subject clause. The two previous English translations, 1560 Geneva Bible and the 1568 Bishops' Bible, support the textual variant. These two and the 1611 AV KJV are products of the Protestant Reformation.
2. These three vary from the the three earliest English Bible translations, that of the 1382 Wycliff, the 1535 Tyndale, and the 1539 AV Great Bible, which all translate the 1 Cor 11:27 subject clause conjunction as "or drink." Most likely Miles Coverdale was aware of this textual variant, since he was the primary translator of King Henry VIII's Great Bible and then later worked on the Geneva Bible where he was subject to John Calvin's theocracy.
3. The King James Bible was translated with several goals in mind:
A. Preserve the monarchy.
B. Preserve the episcopacy.
C. Support Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer that included his 39 Articles of Religion composed in 1553. These articles were made mandatory for all Church of England clergy by convocation decree in 1571, followed later by royal proclamation.
4. In particular, the KJV's 1 Cor 11:27 translation variant supported Cranmer's Articles 28, 30 and 31 that were specifically composed and intended as anti-Roman in nature.
5. If you are interested in an explanation of No. 4, I can provide you a lengthy exposition, God willing.
15:02 we watch your videos Mark 😆
Ha! I guess someone has to!
38:07 that kernel of truth is the biggest reason I’m still “kjvo”. I see the discrepancies, but I still hold the kjv is the most reliable. I do believe it needs updated. However, I believe there needs to be unity in (at least the local) church.
Wait...did you just imply that you're a cessationist?
Sorry, that really threw me off the main subject of this video but it was quite a turn!
Yes, Jesus was on earth and in Heaven at the same time. Well... rather, let me say that the idea is present in Orthodox hymns. But that's a good way to read all the scriptures, frankly. (As opposed to viewing the bible as a big pile of propositions which must be reconciled lest the whole thing lose its value. That's never been where the value is.)
Please be aware, my comments are typed with all the graciousness the keyboard and my heart can offer. The last thing I want to do is to cause anyone's faith to 'waver' even the slightest. I use and enjoy many bible translations in my studies, privately and in groups. I was pleased with this video 100%. Though I am not a trinitarian, I can readily agree with and have no problem with those variants Mark discusses, even while using my copy of the New World Translation. Praise to God we can know the bible is accurate, now more than ever.
Codex Sinaiticus has more corrections and rewrites and is more than likely a forgery and it should have stayed in the 🗑 wherefore it came from.
Have you ever read any of Sinaiticus?
"a conference for Bible scholars" - can we get 1% of them to be women? What has to change in education for someone marginally different to be interested in this stuff?
We welcome female attendees and had just a few this year. One was retired; the other is a professor at the host school we were at.
Thank you for giving me more reasons to trust the KJV or the TR and Critical text. Though I do agree that some very careful editing of the KJV for readability purposes would be advisable but I would not use either of the TR or Critical text to do so. I know that both the TR and Critical text are compilations of the evidence and the choices that scholars make in reference to the evidence. I personally would love to see numerous compilations of the manuscript evidence but most scholars are stuck on either the TR side or the Critical Text side and what a shame that none of them have the freedom to question both groups equally. No wonder this debate is unending between these to kids or teenagers. It to me is like my book is better than yours, or my writing is better than yours. I am so glade I did not have to depend on any Bible to be saved by Jesus because if I did I would still be lost. You Mark Ward are not thinking clearly because you assume that no one on Earth could be influenced to try and manipulate and parts of the evidence in favor a particular world view.
If you're wanting someone to edit the KJV for readability purposes without making any real effort to consult the original languages in the editing process, you can go with the Simplified KJV from Barbour Publishing.
It all starts by questioning what God said. We have two authorities, because ALL modern Bible versions originate from one of two sources ( the Textus Receptus or the Alexandrian Text) Having more than one authority requires a third authority (human scholarship) to determine which of the first two authorities are correct. This elevates man to the level of being his own "god". Satan fully knew this when he introduced a "NEW" ancient Greek text to the world through Brook Wescott and Fenton Hort in 1881. Only the trustworthy King James Bible upholds the Godhead, diety of Jesus and His preminence. The NIV for example has over 64000 words removed or changed.
Your argument makes explicit that YOU think yourself to be equal to God (to know that only the KJB is trustworthy).
@@davidchilds9590 You make no sense at all. Do some research.
Which version of the KJB is it that you consider to be the sole trustworthy one? The original 1611 text, or the 1769 revision which is the basis of almost all printings that exist today? And how do you determine that question?
And what makes you think that modern translations do not uphold the Godhead, deity of Jesus, and his preminence? The differences between any KJV revision and any mainstream modern translation on these issues is how strong or weak a handful of the relevant prooftexts are (and, as this video demonstrates, there are examples where textus receptus based translations use a weaker text than critical text based ones).
@@stephengray1344 The only thing changed with the King James since its inception is minor spelling corrections. The NEW KING JAMES is cut from the same cloth as all the other modern versions, it is not the same as the King James. Do some research on the NIV. Do some research on Wescott and Hort.
Yes sir! After watching this video two times, I still say the 1611 KJB is still the most reliable. My second favorite is the 1995 NASB. I have a:
1537 Matthew's Bible
1560 Geneva Bible
1611 KJV
1966 RSVCE
Xxxx NRSV (forgot the year)
1995 NASB
1977 NIV
2001 ESV
2008 Orthodox Study Bible
1996-2011 Artscroll Tanach
& a Complete Jewish Study Bible
(Along with other bibles)
My favorite 1611 KJB, NASB95, 1966 RSVCE, and the 2008 OSB.
The Tanach & CJB are for my linguistic studies. And I keep the pocket-sized rsvce to have smaller version of my 1611 (which the acception of it still being a different translation) But you should definitely keep a 1611 KJB for cross reference if you have any modern versions. I suggest others get a Parallel Bible (KJV/NASB/NIV/AMP).
Seeing that i have a 1611, I still want to check out the CSB to check for accuracies. I also want the Didache Bible, Douay Rheims, Knox Bible, New Revised Jerusalem Bible, and an Interlinear Bible (Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic). I think the Geneva Bible and the Interlinear Bible are the only others that come close the KJB as far as formal text (as well as the NASB/NABRE). I love my kjv the most but I'm always collecting/reading different version.