"It takes a preacher to explain the meaning." Isn't that kinda the whole reason Tyndale started translating the Bible into English in the first place? So the plowboy didn't have to rely on the clergy? Mark, you did a great job, but the arguments from the other side really just defeated themselves tonight.
That's what I was gathering from the opening statement, too: it doesn't matter if any of us laypeople can understand the Bible ourselves, because we'll always have our priests and clergy to rightly explain it to us. What a reassuring message to receive from someone who understands the original biblical languages! Who needs any English translation of the Bible as long as we have preachers? 🙄
I was frustrated by the opening statement, where he said little about readability except "it's okay if common people can't understand it all", and couldn't help but take potshots at underlying text. Regardless, I was thrilled that the discussion was characterized by grace! An answer to many prayers, I am certain! Now if only the comment section could follow suit... 😬
It’s also crazy at the hour and 39 minute mark he said don’t take a preacher’s or dictionaries word on what something means. So basically, he’s saying we cannot be certain about God’s word.
Dan's rebuttal to Dr. Ward's opening statement is spot on and absolutely proves the need for contemporary English Bible translations. He mentioned that Dr. Ward helped the audience to understand the King James Bible, which was true. The reason they now understand the KJV is because of those modern translations. Its a good thing they exist. All of these trusted Bibles help us to take the WORD and put it in our hearts and meditate on the WORD. Let's not throw away the KJV, but let's not also reject contemporary translations so that we miss out on the WORD being fully understood the best we can.
I went to watch this same debate over on the King James Bible research council youtube channel and was very disheartened by the comments. King James Onlyism breaks my heart as a Christian. It’s crazy how Satan can use people’s stubbornness and preferred translations to confuse and divide us.
After seeing this post, I went to have a brief read through on the comments on the Bible research council TH-cam page and I've concluded that KJV only folks can't be reasoned with.
@@femiwilliams7906The Very Online KJVOs frequently/usually cannot be. But individual KJV-Only brothers spoke to me courteously in person after the debate.
@@markwardonwords Glad to hear you were warmly received after the debate. In general, it seems people online tend to be more unkind than are in person... Sadly, I've recently decided to move on from a KJV only-ish church after attending for over a year. It has been really hard to stay committed there because of other issues, but the KJV only-ism issue was a major stumbling block.
Mark, your heart was abundantly clear in this debate. I think there are more than a few people who walked away from hearing this debate not a little more edified about the KJV and the blessings of modern English translations. You have my utmost respect by your clarity, careful use of words, and your desire to maintain Christ-like peace.
Brother Mark, my wife and I prayed for you prior to and throughout your debate. What a fantastic job you did with the Spirit's help! This was a rare opportunity to limit the scope of the discussion away from the TC debate. God bless you for hard work and years!
I enjoyed this so much, and it spoke my heart. For years, so many things, at times, I have never understood in the KJV Bible, but growing up on it, I feel like I am sinning when I go to another Bible. I really do. This has made me laugh. I am thankful to know it is ok, to look at other versions after hearing Pastor Mark Ward. But the Debate itself, was so informative. Both Pastors were wonderful. I am thankful for the opportunity to have seen this. Thank you
Mark, great job. I'm still listening...but gasped at 48:00 ish mark, when he applauded how clear you were in explaining a few false friends, and then declared, "see, now you know your King James Bible....it takes a preacher to know the sense......because there are words that there is no easy way to communicate....." Very concerning.
I met for a while with international students doing bible studies, it was difficult enough at times explaining words in an easier to read traslation like the NLV, it would've been almost Impossible to do so with the KJV, thank you for your work in helping others be confident they can read the bible in modern english and that it has been properly translated
Aaaaw, "Shout to the Lord" at the end! Glad I could finally search it out. I remembered the tune but not the words. Sheesh, I must be getting old. We sang it a million times at my old church!
My goodness, while this was a calm and well-mannered debate, Haifley kept moving the goalposts (or adding new ones) by mentioning the "missing verses". Textual criticism wasn't part of this debate, but he just simply couldn't let it go.
Many are making comments about who won the debate but I think this misses the point. If you’ve ever known someone who is stuck in KJV jail the fear of touching a more understandable Bible can be overwhelming not to mention the guilt if you did try one. If you’re married to a staunch KJVonlyist and you’re not allowed to read another Bible for yourself or to your children the unnecessary control is damaging for you and your kids. Please, commenters, try to see this as something beyond an academic debate. To the men out there, please try to see this from a woman’s perspective. The goal is an understandable Bible and freedom from jail. This goes beyond the academics. Thank you and God bless. Well done Mark. Thank you.
God be thanked for this debate, both of you did will. It helps us navigate through all the complexities of word of God. Thank you bothin my eye you both won.
Very cordial and informative debate. I will say, thanks to Mark’s work I became more interested in the KJV, and just finished my first full read-through of it a few weeks ago. I was using a bible that had many of the archaic words and false friends marked in the footnotes, but I’m sure I missed many others. There were sections where I really struggled, and others where I felt like the meaning was jumping out to me more than it had before. Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed the KJV. I don’t plan on using it as my main translation, but will continue to use it for comparisons to other translations and daily devotional.
I wish the debate format would have allowed for more interaction, but I still think Mark was able to counter the few points made by the other side. BTW, it is not just vocabulary that makes the KJV difficult, it is the very awkward sentence structure that you find throughout the text. Difficult phraseology, obsolete words, and false friends all make for a very intimidating and difficult reading experience that largely makes the plowboy dependent on the preacher to understand their Bible. The congregation will remain simple in their understanding of God's word and very few will be true Bereans. Part of my goal as a teacher is to help those who listen to me learn how to study the Bible for themselves. The way I work through a passage or a topic is something I hope my listeners will be able to do on their own for whatever topic or passage they are interested in. The first step in all that, is understanding the words and thoughts of the text.
Dr. Haifley, as a fellow KJV man who has been in a leadership position in a KJV church for over 20 years, I must tell you that you didn’t only lose this debate. You also showed that your position is very wrong. First, you committed the same error that modern version defenders use: you actually argued against the importance of “every word” of God. You said that the gospel was understandable in the KJV even if every word was not. That’s their argument for the NIV! You also made a dynamic equivalence argument. I could not believe my ears. Then, you confused sense with reference as it pertains to understanding. God hides truth from those who will not study his words. He doesn’t hide it from those who will can’t study a lexicon or an outdated (1828) dictionary. There is a massive difference. Archaic words and false friends *are a foreign language to modern readers.* The KJV is perfect; but because of language change has become filled with what is exactly equivalent to foreign words. They are perfectly correct foreign words. But foreign to us. There is no excuse for us to demand that foreign words be left untranslated for modern readers. We can’t claim that God wanted it that way. We can’t claim that God is hiding these words from people who don’t want to study. We can’t claim that God wants people to rely on teachers to translate them one by one. We can’t claim that we should need a lexicon in order to translate the Bible as we read. These are wrongheaded arguments. The truth is much simpler and you alluded to it at the end. We stopped updating the text in 1769 because modern versionists lost our trust. They started perverting the words of God, and in response we dug in our heels. We held to the old book, rightfully so. But now we must do more than hold to it. We must continue the work of good translation. I have argued directly to Ward that his group has the access to publishing that our group does not, and therefore his group is at fault for not updating the KJV. He has rejected that idea. But he did say last night that he would lend his publishing and editing access and connections to an edition that we are in charge of making. I cannot think of a better resolution to this stalemate. We get to make the updates and their group will help get it published by major houses? That is a win, brother. We must take this opportunity. We who believe the KJV must take the charge of translating these foreign words within our own Bible, or else we will end up demanding that each successive generation read an increasingly foreign language. And they will start rejecting that demand more and more, until our group slowly dies off. Then we will stand before God and give account for burying our talent in the dirt for fear of his austerity. I agree that the MEV and NKJV and even Simplified KJV went too far. I will not use them. We need to coordinate an incredibly modest translation and edition group. One that only translates completely dead words and false friends. And one that does not break the keys. There will be less than .001% change. Probably less than 2 or 3 words per book. It should be so minor a change that it does not cause good KJV people to trip over their conscience while reading it. And we should make a schedule to do this kind of update every 25 years or so. But WE should set the standard for language updates instead of only digging in our heels at 1769. Or else we will lose this battle, one funeral at a time.
As a non-KJV onlyist, I applaud this. I’m afraid you might find more than 3 or 4 needed updates per book, though, especially in the first revision. 3 or 4 would seem more likely if you were only accounting for 25 or 50 years of language change, not 250. On the other hand, making more changes will alienate our KJV brothers. If we can gather a sizable sector of those who love the KJV to rally around a revision of it that only makes, say, 200 updates across the entire translation, with plans to continue regular revisions in the future, that would still be such a win for biblical intelligibility. I know that I would be honored to support such an endeavor, and I think Mark would probably agree. We want our brothers to understand God’s Word!
@@markwardonwords I am a long time friend with Gipp and all of the other influential leaders in our circle. If you can get the West Coast crowd on board (Shakour, etc.), and Dr. Haifley's crowd involved, I will risk my position and reputation with my Ruckmanite crowd to push them to also get on board. If you remember our conversations, I have never argued that the KJV doesn't have dead words. I've argued that there's nothing we can do about it now. I don't have the pull myself to update it. And every attempt has overstepped. And new versions are just causing more division, which I've weighed as more problematic than the dead words. But if there is a real possibility of a conservative "edition" style update, that can be done with unity and won't simply result in more division, then I am on board. But remember, as strongly as you believe that readability is a command, I believe that unity of translation is a command. I don't want to head down a road that kills off the KJV as the final authority. Rather, I want our churches to have a final authority that is readable.
@@KJV-Ruckmanite My friend, do you really believe that it's even possible for Sam Gipp, at this stage in his life, to consider this possibility? I'm asking sincerely, of course.
Great debate! You obviously won hands down. I loved how kind you both were but honestly, you stuck to the topic at hand and made sensible points while your opponent has to fill his time with jokes or other topics. Even when he did speak to the topic, his arguments fail at the slightest examination. I am shocked that he used the argument that Jesus spoke in parables so therefore the Bible today should be in a confusing language?! Jesus concealed his identity so he could go to the cross to pay for our sins at Passover, and not be forcibly made king on one hand nor be killed prematurely on the other. Jesus said when he was lifted up on the cross, then he could draw all men, and no longer hide his identity. He told his apostles after his resurrection and Pentecost to preach the gospel everywhere and even gave then supernatural power to speak the various languages of the peoples so they could understand (not so they could be confused). I was surprised that he tried to use Philip and the eunich as an argument that preachers need to also be on the spot Bible translators. Philip explained the Scripture to the eunich; he was not translating it from even more ancient to contemporary language for him. I thought it was a tangent when he said the plow boy couldnt read. What's his point? That lay people should not read the Bible for themselves but should only listen to expert preachers at church? He says people need to be educated but then insinuates the plow boy doesn't need the Bible in his language becuase he cant read anyway (and I guess he never will?) Once the plow boy could read, then he needed a Bible in his language not just the Vulgate. Most English speaking teens and adults today can read. Our language. Our dialect. He says we should just trust preachers, but go study the Bible for ourselves. Yet he contradicts himself as he wants to deny people the tools to study for themselves, namely a translation into their own language. I understand the temptation for a KJVO to keep attacking the underlying text of most modern versions which are shorter especially by a couple large sections. I understand your desire to set that aside entirely. But on the other hand, to the passage you quoted, the Bible itself says it's better to speak 5 intelligible words than a thousand in an unknown tongue. The modern versions are the "5 words"- shorter but intelligible- while the KJV is the "thousand words in an unknown tongue.
It's also not just a question of whether the plow boy might learn to read, but also of if he hears the Bible read in the evening by his sister who can read, will he be able to understand the words? For Protestants in particular, it's an important tenet that the Word of the Lord be comprehensible to everybody, because the Gospel is capable of being understood by even the simplest if it is only put into words they can grasp. (I see that as an argument in favor of even colloquial versions designed for reading out loud, so long as they are used for their proper purpose and not treated as deep study tools.)
Great job Mark and Dan….great discussion. I appreciate the venue, college, moderator…. And the spirit in which this discussion was had. Very fruitful in my opinion.
It grieves me that in 2024 -- with all the burgeoning societal issues challenging the Church in the West -- that folks like Mark are still having to contend with topics like this. Anxiety and suicide are on the rise. The identity crisis has never been more apparent. And we have an entire generation which is trading off meaning and purpose for technological convenience. Lord, help us get past our pride so we can deal with weightier matters together.
I will never understand why people feel like they can only read one translation of the bible. There are so many good ones out there and readily available for free online and on bible apps like you version. Pick two or three and enjoy comparing them.
This was great and the Body of Christ would be all the better if we had more of this. I would LOVE to hear a debate on how Bibliology affects and influences each viewpoint. You can’t argue with God.
I've heard other preachers say that the whole Bible was not meant to be understood. I find that to be a horrifying thought. It's like God is messing with our minds. The Bible communicates God's word to us, and we must listen and learn.
It just about blew my mind in the very first opening statement when the pastor Dan H conflated Jesus' concealing truth from the lost with Christians, who have the Holy Spirit, not understanding the Bible. I don't think he even realized what it sounded like he was saying, there. He did make clarifying statements later about the Spirit growing Christians' understanding as they mature, but still... the initial comments were jarring.
Dr. Ward, congrats on a well-spoken, well-reasoned, respectful, and professional debate! I don't know what the response from the other side of the aisle will be, but to me it seemed clear that God aided you to communicate well through any nervousness, hit your main points right on target, and avoid red herrings. I know there were many prayers going up for this debate, and I hope you can relax briefly now. 😊
I just finished watching the debate. I don't believe that my observations are particularly important, yet I have a few thoughts nonetheless: 1. This was a very cordial debate, notably so when compared to some of those conducted by other Christians on this subject in the past. 2. The TH-cam chat could have been better and more charitable on both sides, which was disappointing. 3. Dr. Haifley used a lot of anecdotal evidence and pathos-centric argumentation, which can have a great effect when speaking to the average Joe but is less effective when debating formally. 4. While Dr. Ward's debate survey had clear validity issues, as noted by Dr. Haifley, it was more effective in the debate at establishing a base of mutual understanding of the problem. 5. Dr. Ward used a more precise and logical flow of argumentation, which helped get his point across. 6. Dr. Ward stayed on topic more often than Dr. Haifley. 7. Dr. Haifley did bring up a good point of internal consistency and linguistic continuity within scripture. Dr. Ward did not have adequate time to address this point, although I suspect he has a rebuttal. 8. Dr. Haifley admitting to giving a KJV to a new believer is shocking. He later turned it around on Dr. Ward to search for a careful retraction of his previous remarks, which was disappointing. It showed a need for more awareness on Dr. Haifley's part, and I was pleased to see Dr. Ward stand his ground. Although this comment is long, I want to acknowledge the lovingkindness both men took into the debate. This was a fantastic example of two brothers in Christ cleanly disagreeing and presenting their side. Although I am partial, Dr. Ward won the debate, if not by the salience of his argument, then by its delivery. Dr. Haifley did a great job, too! I pray he continues his diligent ministry and work at the KJB Research Council to bring God's word and the Gospel to those in need.
#7. Are you saying it's wrong to give a KJV to a new believer? Also I assume you're talking about the question for Mark about him saying it's a sin to give a KJV to a child. What's your thoughts on it being a sin?
@@validcore I am saying that giving the KJV to a new believer is wrong, especially if they're a child. I was in that boat; I wanted to know God's word but had no familial support. A KJV-o family friend gave me a Bible, and it was utterly incomprehensible as a 12 y/o new to the faith. It drove me away for years because I didn't know other options existed. Once I started reading a modern translation (the ESV) and attending a church (Lutheran) as a teenager, I was finally opened to the faith. I don't know if it's a sin in the strictest sense, but at the very least, giving new believers the KJV as their only translation option is irresponsible. That's my two cents anyway. Although I must say, as an adult, I love the KJV! It's just not appropriate for children and those new to the faith.
This was an outstanding debate, kind and courteous. Congratulations. I think you won this pretty handily. Dr. Haifley seemed completely unprepared, but it may be the weakness of the position. I think some of the points are defensible, but he didn't succeed. He seems like the KJVOs I've met in the past (outside the internet). They were all kind and considerate. It doesn't make the position stronger, but it makes him quite likable.
Brother Ward - thank you for your effort and care in this endeavor. Are you open to another future debate on this topic? I would be interested in seeing someone who is more organized and articulate meet your points head on, versus what happened here. Granted, I would be much more interested in both sides working together to prepare a KJV update than I would be with continued debate. The recent X/Twitter exchange of Pastor Shakour's was a bit disheartening, since Joe is perhaps the most reasonable and charitable contemporary proponent of the KJV position. Yes, there is much Gospel sharing work to be done, but can we walk and chew gum at the same time? If we are going to continue insisting on the exclusive use of the choices made by the King James translators-Joe's emphasis on the choices-then we must insist on preparing an update that brings those choices into the language we currently speak.
Thank you Mark, Jim and Jim's dad were and are very close friends. While I severed in the Chicago area with Child Evangelism Fellowship, I was the treasurer for the IFCA International which Quentin Rd was a member. My wife and I were members at Cicero Bible Church were I was an elder. We used the NKJV while Dr Scudder used the KJV I liked the KJV. I used a Thomson Chain Reference, which was nice because on the chains it would give a word help in the margin that would explain some of the "false friends", but I know use the NKJV with "Olive Tree Bible App." What is nice about that is just by tapping a word I brings up the concordance definition. I do follow your channel on TH-cam but also follow the King James Research Council also. I do use other translation and am not a KJV Onlyist, but I did tend to lean heavy towards the KJV but because to you now use many translations. I do not care for the Critical Text versions so recently purchased a NKJV single column wide margin. Again thank you for this debate, have a blessed day.
I loved the debate, both brothers we're charitable and respectful.. something we should all emulate when we dialog with brothers and sisters. I really wanted pizza after I heard that timer.
He got the date wrong but he's correct in the point he's making. (I'm fairly certain you already knew the actual date and revision he was referring to. Just being cheeky.) @catpocalypsenow is clearly referring to the 1769 Blayney revision. Since this is Mark Ward's channel, I'll quickly point out that he also handles the topic in his book, 'Authorized' (Kindle loc. 1245). Btw -- Great job, Mark. 🫡
@@bibleprotector With respect, "bibleprotector", may I recommend a book titled, "Taming The Fingers" by Jeff Johnson? It might help you "protect" your _Christian witness_ on social media.
"Some things are right for you that aren't right for somebody else." This is exactly why we have authoritative references on definitions, because there is a correct meaning for words in context. Otherwise language is just a jumble of sounds and letters and by extension the bible has no true meaning or message, nor any book for that matter. I think it folly to "debate" a KJV-onlyist and an exercise in futility. KJV-onlism is irrational from the outset. If other translations are widely available and like a paraphrase, can help to clarify meaning, then they should be consulted. Moreover, if one refers to any other book for clarification such as a concordance or dictionary, then it is already proving the fact that the KJV is insufficient on its own to convey God's word in a clear and concise manner to the average contemporary reader.
49:47...this is a worn-out argument. Yes, there are SPIRITUAL TRUTHS that require the Holy Spirit. There are SPIRITUAL TRUTHS that Paul preached that were "hard to understand." But that has nothing to do with the premise of this debate. Peter wasn't sayng that Paul used vernacular that was too high for him. John wasn't declaring that the Spriit would act as an interpreter of tongues for the believer. Rather, we should remove any vernacular barriers of an aging language, as faithfully and carefully as we can. UDPATE at 54:00...Mark, you addressed this very well.....still listening
Dr. Ward you did an amazing job in this debate the only issue is that your opponent was not prepared, and so it was like there was no good rebuttal. However, could you do a video reply to Thomas Ross’s overstated assertion that “there are hundreds of lines in the NA UBS text that have no manuscript support at all.”? He is still beating away at that drum, and doesn’t engage with any further discussion. He once again started on that with his debate preview video. Thank you for shining the light of Christ.
Mark, it looks like God answered your petitions! The debate was kind and enlightening, and many people heard you. Thank you for all your hard work! I have a response to one of your questions. You asked Dan how someone can know to look up a word they don't know they don't know. He sort of said that they will be guided by the Holy Spirit (notably, he didn't say the Holy Ghost). He should have been more firm on that point. That is a powerful truth that I firmly believe. "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering." Your response to that clearly shows the practical problems with that approach. Many faithful Christians misunderstand Bible passages. And your original question remains. Whether we ask God or a dictionary, how can we know that we lack wisdom if we think we understand? As you pointed out, a Christian shouldn't need to look up every word just in case. Here is my answer that I wish Dan had said: Christians who believe that the KJV is the best (or even authoritative) translation should simply read another translation along side to help them identify the words they don't realize they misunderstand. They can then check their readings with the OED or the original languages, and they can always have the security of returning to their trusted text. If KJVO churches simply became KJV Preferred, I think this civil war would solve itself. We could have our beloved Bible translation and understand it too.
Þe Wyclyffe Bible ys þe fyrst trewe Englysch Byble. Alle moderne translaciouns (Kyng James, Newe Internascionale Versyon, Geneve, etc.) ben corrupcyouns of þe one trewe Byble. Þey speken Englysch yn þe þyrtene hundreth yere, and so don we. As þe Byble seith yn 2 Tymothe 15 "Bisili kepe to yyue thi silf a preued preisable werkman to God, with oute schame, riytli tretinge the word of treuthe." Þus schulde we ben dylygent yn usynge þe one pure and perfyte Byble, nat dymmynge Goddes Word, but heyzende oureself to ben worthy of hit. #WyOrDie #WycliffeOnly #Sarcasm Þanke þe, Mark, and God be wyth alle þe bretheren! 🕊
@@johnlopez-qq4eh A trewe disciple! Nat afeard of þe hyest forme of langage so fer aboue þe moderne tonge of Kyng James. Þe symple Oxforde Englysch Dyctyonarye ys alle þe symple-myndyd nede to vnderstonde whanne þey ben withoute a prechour.
@@MAMoreno Hayle and greetinge, my dere broþer and felowe pylgrym on þe weye to Caunterbury! Þe grete Chaucer verilye ys my owne namesake, settinge to shame þe fabled Shak-spere -- a man forged of þe deuyll!
Love it, Mark! Great job. I’ve spent many hours listening to theological and cross denominational debates and I must say, you debate well. I’ll provide a minor correction. James 4:17 is not to be used with what anyone may interpret as “good” aside from what was provided in the context of James. Otherwise, we run into the dangers of misusing the verse and condemn anyone who does not do what one may interpret as “good”, as being sinful. For example. Man 1: “If you don’t doorknock every neighborhood in the city to win souls to Christ for 8-12 hours a day, you’re disobedient to God” Man 2: “How so? We’re commanded to evangelize, but why such an extreme mandate” Man 1: “Because it’s a good thing to evangelize 8 hours a day. James 4:17.” End of illustration. Or, one can organize the passage in Titus of when someone seeks the office of a bishop, it’s called “A Good thing”. If we apply James 4:17 to anything we interpret as “Good”, you’re sinful if you don’t seek to pastor. Just a minor correction. I’ve debated that verse with several brothers and it’s just a little irk I get when it’s used outside of its intended meaning indicated within its context. Great stuff Mark! You represented well!
Haifley's opening statement is toe-curlingly off-target. Arguing that 'these things are spiritually discerned' can be applied to archaic words, and using that Tyndale quote to prove the opposite of what it does... I'm watching through my fingers.
Both sides represented their positions well, though Pastor Dan had me scratching my head more than once. I think Mark may have found his calling, he did an excellent job.
Brother Mark, thank you for your work. I wondered if there is a legitimate window to follow up on you plea to the KJVRC to do a revision with your help? You mentioned needing other buy in from KJV only groups. If the KJVRC offered would that be enough for you? I understand some of the trust issues that brother Dan mentioned, and i thought his mention of that was something that could be accepted as a starting point to build that bridge to make something like this happen.
I need multiple KJVO leaders and institutions to sign on. I don’t want to set an impossible bar, but I have to believe that PCC and West Coast, at least, need to be on board.
Your impassioned ending was fantastic. It’s obvious to all who have seen your work that you would be incredibly diligent in helping make a modern English translation that meets their high high standards. But I fear even that would not be enough to prompt change. I was almost surprised they didn’t say “we don’t need an update to the English, we can just use our lists, dictionaries and Mark’s books and now the problem of readability is gone” Just ‘study’ more. All these hoops to try to understand Gods word using the KJV when you could just read it in modern English.
I’m so impressed with how you did in this debate, Mark. The hundreds of hours of preparation are obvious. One thing that strikes me is that for the KJV-onlyist, it’s well-nigh impossible to have a conversation *just* about intelligibility without dipping into textual criticism. For my wife, it was an emotional experience. She had to get over her reticence to even consider a modern translation, because even considering it is sin to many. Thanks for holding the line and freeing consciences from extra-biblical, pharisaical, and (to be frank) idolatrous standards.
Amen, brother. Yes, I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that he could not limit himself to translation only. But he did far better than any KJVO I've ever known!
I have a few KJV bibles that have footnotes for the archaic words and false friends. Nelson KJV paragraph-style large print, another Nelson KJV center-column reference bible with apocrypha, and a Westminster KJV reference bible. The Nelson bibles seem to have more notes on these words than the Westminster. My perfect KJV bible would be one that has all the original translator's footnotes and references, explanations of archaic words and phrases, and notes on textual criticism like in the NKJV. Also, including the apocrypha. Dr. Mark Ward, if you are reading this, I'd love to hear a response from you on this idea.
Thanks, dear brother Mark. The problem is going to be when the Christian is reading the Bible for him/herself and no help is readily available. That's when he/she needs one of the good modern translations.
Contradictions: "Maybe God doesn't want everyone to understand." "Well God does want us to understand but we have to have a pastor explain it to us." "No, we shouldn't have to rely on pastors; people should read the Bible for themselves." "New translations today making the Bible easier to read are dumbing down the Bible." "Actually the KJV is already easier to read than the NKJV but that's not dumbing down the Bible." 😆
I am glad that Daniel said it's dangerous to give your kid a Bible. It seems so lost on many evangelicals that young ones need to be mentored and guided through Scripture.
I appreciate the spirit and tone of the debate. It reminded me much of the famous John MacArthur and RC Sproul debate on baptism. In my mind, Mark you came across far more prepared than did Dr. Haifley. He seemed to constantly fumble with his notes only to trot out the same tired and worn out talking points. As well, Dr. Haifley seems to talk out of "both sides of his mouth"; he says "Yes, if there were agreed upon terms, we could allow for an update of the KJV." However, it was also very frustrating, when pressed he basically said "but I don't trust anyone who agrees on those terms to do it." Dr. Haifley, which is it sir? Mark challeged the KJBRC to do the job then graciously offered his help. If you don't want his help, fine, do it on your own then. You seem to want to play lip service to a potential update while also "hedging your bet" that it could be done properly. This comes across as an "uncertain trumpet" and "clanging cymbal." "How long halt ye between two opinions?
I’m at 10:25 and Dr.Dan already ‘lost’ the debate. We’re not moving anything to a different level. The literal debate is if it’s readable. What Dr.Dan is doing is what people do when they know they have a losing position.
I’m at 10:25 and he already ‘lost’ the debate. We’re not moving anything to a different level. The literal debate is if it’s readable. What Dr.Dan is doing is what people do when they know they have a losing position.
Giving a KJV to a child might be seen as a sin: You explained how you got there, but is the term "sin" unavoidable? Could that be an inflammatory word choice, as is sometimes seen with KJO'ers?
Mark really could have been pressed upon this issue if the opposing side were not King James Only. Here are two very different questions: 1. Is it a sin to give a child the KJV all by itself? 2. Is it a sin to give a child the KJV alongside other translations? In my experience, at least, it's the former that ends up happening, and whether or not it qualifies as an all-out "sin," it is an action that reflects odd priorities. What's more important to teach the child: the meaning of the Bible or the value of tradition?
At 1:16:00 DrDan responds to DrWard’s question in total Kamala Harris style. He answered it by not answering it but about talking about his upbringing.
DEBATE: Is the King James Readable? 1. As I listened to Rev. Dan's opening statement, I imagined I was experiencing the presence of a hay flea and began to itch. 2. Dr. Ward at 1:29:15-26: "What is more precious, what is worth more than the things that our Creator says to us? The things that He instructs us? The commands that He gives us? The promises He gives us?" Response: The only thing I can think of is Jesus Christ Himself: A. Gospel of John 6:53-56 (1526 Tyndale Bible): 53Then Iesus sayde vnto them: "Verely verely I saye vnto you except ye eate ye flesshe of ye Sonne of Man and drinke His bloude ye shall not have lyfe in you. 54Whosoever eateth My flesshe and drinketh My bloude hath eternall lyfe: and I will rayse him vp at the last daye. 55For My flesshe is meate in dede: and My bloude is drynke in dede. 56He that eateth My flesshe and drynketh M bloude dwelleth in Me and I in him." B. 1 Corinthians 11:27 (1526 Tyndale Bible): Wherfore whosoevere shall eate of this bred OR drynke of the cup vnworthely shalbe giltie of the body AND bloud of the Lorde. 3. And if the 1526 Tyndale Bible was good enough for St. John and St. Paul ...
Hello Dr Ward and fellow nerds (: I come in good faith and whilst being KJV only, I agree very much that charity/love should be our top priority, not that the flesh doesn't inhibit me in this at times. I have a genuine curiosity: Do you think that the average Hebrew and Greek reader (i.e. it's their first language) would be better off mainly reading from texts that are closest to the originals in the Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament respectively? Or do you think they would be better served diligently working with a contemporary Greek and Hebrew faithfully 'updated' reading and forgoing the originals? Or perhaps using both would be most expedient according to your points of view? This question popped up in my head and I presume that these languages have both undergone dramatic change in the millennia since these scriptures were first written. I don't come to bait any answer so I will confess to believing the KJV is perfect although won't pretend to have a scholarly defense to this position such that I would enter into a keyboard war with anyone over this here. I have also watched many hours of Mark's content so I do understand most of his arguments against the KJVO position and will have to just say that I respectfully disagree. I don't pretend to understand God's dispensation of knowledge or his leash on Satan's capacity to sow error and confusion (Rom. 11:33).
I think the last point mentioned in the debate is key. Why not read multiple translations? I think modern Greek speakers should read the original Greek AND a modern Greek translation. Mark may hold to his assertion that churches should have a modern translation as the pulpit standard. I take a softer stance on that. I have no problem with King James Version Preferred churches (I am a member of one). But why tell Christians that they shouldn't study other translations? If you want to consider the KJV as authoritative, fine. You can always check your understanding against that standard. Reading modern English translations of the Bible has helped me better understand the KJV. I can't get enough of God's word!
@@HelloFromSaints Mmm but in this case it's not a translation but an update. It seems to me to come down to either choosing harder to read and (close to) perfect vs. easier to read and imperfect text. To me, I think wrestling with the originals seems like the wiser position and perhaps using the updated texts as a last resort when you really can't figure something out. Just curious what Mark would suggest in this case. Maybe he lacks the knowledge of modern Greek/Hebrew to make a call on this (which would be fair enough as I'm sure his study is focused on understanding the ancient forms of these languages).
A modern Greek would struggle heavily with the original Greek. Both in the vocabulary, the shifting meaning and grammatical changes. They have to learn the original Greek as a similar but distinct language. Same with modern Hebrew.
Mark Ward won this debate for several reasons. First, he more clearly advocated for the idea the concern that God's children should understand the Scripture. Second, he was focused, on target/message and stuck to the specific field of discussion and was able to be concise. Third, he gave convincing natural/logical arguments which would lead one to assume that a new/less educated person using the KJB alone could be difficult. However, Mark Ward succeeded in these points actually because of the weakness of his opponent. I believe that his opponent gave some really excellent points, and particularly in his first long statement brought out some really good teachings. In relation to the first point above, the opponent was weaker because he did not sufficiently or at all argue about God's use of English in the KJB, the exactness of the KJB and God's ability and desire for people to come to that exactness in English. In relation to the second point, the opponent was ill-served by cloudy thinking, fumbling, sneezing and straying content. In relation to the third, the opponent either accepted the natural arguments (dispirited, surrendering), or if trying to make a counter argument, seemed to be in a houghed fashion, instead of a charge with spiritual principles (e.g. seeing by faith). The opponent said some very good things, but not with enough strength. I suspect in his smart way Mark Ward chose a "low hanging fruit" kind of KJB defender that was more a "KJB preferred" and "KJB is best but not perfect" kind of foil, to be able to poke his holes into, and so easily deflate. I call Mark Ward "smart" because it's not fully deceptive, it's not conspiratorially evil, it's a Matthew 10:16 issue, among brethren. Ultimately, this whole thing is not good because a contrived victory is a propaganda coup and gives morale to those who think the KJB is teetering at the edge of conceptual oblivion.
@@JR-lg7fd I am being honest. If we are to judge rightly we need to appreciate the situation. Luke 14:31 Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?
@@bibleprotector what's more likely is you just wanted the chance to write an essay from a self appointed authoritative viewpoint to make yourself feel like you have clarified everything with your wise analysis.
@@MAMoreno there was a time when Latin was the universal language. Now it’s dead and God has moved on from it by giving us the greatest literary accomplishment in the history of mankind in English.
@@fordhughes Jacobean English is not the universal language, either. Considering that many faithful, soul-winning Christian churches use translations other than the KJV, perhaps you're assuming that God's movement has stopped when it hasn't.
@@fordhughesdo we have to wait for Jacobson English to be entirely dead before it’s allowed to be translated into a more “universal” language? How many hundreds of years of no one being to understand it is good? Like it was said, reheated Latin argument.
My friend, the New King James Version and the Modern English Version both use the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts as the King James. And they translate those texts into fully intelligible contemporary English, which means they meet the principle of 1 Corinthians 14, edification requires intelligibility. I recommend the NKJV and MEV to you.
Hi Mark! G'day from Australia! I did enjoy this amicable debate, and many good points and ideas were brought up by both sides of the debate. One good idea, which you both discussed, is that both sides should come together and do an update of the KJV to readable English, without changing meaning or core doctrines involved, and possibly doing so with making as little changes as is necessary, which would be difficult for both sides to agree on at all times. You also brought up modern updates, the NKJV and the MEV, both fairly readable. What I would have an issue with concerning any future update is, for example, how they would treat Daniel 9:26. The KJV has that the Messiah would be cut off, 'but not for himself'. The NKJV follows the KJV reading, whereas the MEV doesn't (maybe that could change, who knows?) The KJV does have a marginal translation note at this verse which says that it could also be translated as 'but shall have nothing'. The KJV translators acknowledged that there was another possible reading, but chose the reading that made the most sense in light of the NT. Part of the problem is that modern textual scholarship has tended to go away from KJV renderings, which creates problems in such a Messianic verse. The NET translators say in a textual note: The expression have nothing is difficult. Presumably it refers to an absence of support or assistance for the anointed one at the time of his “cutting off.” The KJV rendering “but not for himself,” apparently suggesting a vicarious death, cannot be defended. They claim that it can't be defended, but is that true? The issue here is with the word 'low' (I've transliterated this as I will with other Hebrew words). Now, if you take a look at Leviticus 16:11, you will see two Hebrew words translated as 'for himself', 'low' and 'ba·‘ă·ḏōw'. Low is translated with slight differences in some of the modern translations, but all with a similar meaning. Most translate both as 'for himself'. So I would contend that this would be the correct reading also at Daniel 9:26, and any update of the KJV would need to reflect that decision which the KJV translators themselves had made. Bless you
Hi fellow Australian. I was glad the night ended up with talk of a modern revision of the KJV. It is a good way to improve our Bible reading future. My concern is, could it be done in a way that most KJO people would approve of it? The Bible is a big book with lots of places where people can find disagreements if they want to. I suspect that even if the original translators came back and gave their approval there would be some modern people who would reject it
@@Asher0208Hi mate! Yes, there could be many places where there are disagreements throughout the text, but if the translation philosophy remains consistent and takes all of revealed Scripture as context, which I believe the KJV translators did, then there wouldn't be that many disagreements. For example, the reference to 'meats' vs 'food' in regards to 1 Timothy 4:3 which was also discussed in the debate, if we look at Romans 14 in the KJV, it distinguishes what is being eaten, 'meats' or 'flesh' vs 'herbs', which other translations render all things or foods and meat vs vegetables. Are not vegetables food? So obviously he isn't referring to all foods throughout the chapter (though different Greek words are used in relation to all things and meats and flesh), and there is something else happening in this context that modern translations miss. I mean, if they were forbidding eating of food altogether, then it wouldn't take long for that heresy to end. The adherents of the heresy would all soon be dead. Plus, from the KJV rendering in 1 Corinthians 8:13 of the Greek words broma and krea, they seem to consider the words meat and flesh to be synonymous, hence their rendering of bromaton as meats in 1 Timothy 4:3. That's why I think meats is more appropriate in an overall context
In fact, I think the legalistic heresy adressed in 1 Timothy 4 probably came from a misunderstanding of what Paul also wrote in 1 Corinthians 8:13 and 1 Corinthians 7 regarding marriage and staying celibate etc
So, I do see your point, it would be a difficult task. Example, chambering which was also discussed in the debate. Nowadays we might call it clubbing, as in hitting nightclubs but with the intent of doing what happens in a lot of nightclubs. But clubbing, which is a modern term, could also cause confusion. Are people going around with clubs and clubbing people? Anyway, bless you mate
@@glennomac7499 You have given these things much more attention than I have, so I do not have to say either way without further study. However, if the KJV was to be updated in a way that was acceptable to most KJV-only people, then most of the changes would need to be small. In that case, it may be better to leave more difficult places like Daniel 9:26 as they are. You also mentioned 1 Tim 4:3. I had not considered a possible connection with 1 Cor 8:13 and similar verses. Again it is something I would have to think about. But I think the more general food would be the better choice. Why? a) It seems to me that 1 Cor 8 is referring to a specific practice whereas 1 Tim 4 is talking about a variety of practices that people are refraining from so they can appear to be "super spiritual". Now, most forbidden foods then and today would probably be meat-based, but it is possible to have a forbidden plant-based food. The word food will then cover all food-based religious restrictions. b) I also note that the Greek word appears to be a more general word for food. Yes, Paul probably had examples of meat-based foods on his mind, but he did use a more general word and I think so should we.
My first Bible was the NASB. I then got the NIV - bad mistake. Next was me being invited to a very good church in FL that used the KJ. WOW! What was this - what did this word, conviction mean and what was happening with my heart and soul!! For the first time in my life I was being convicted by the Holy Spirit and after 4 years of being under God’s word, I was gloriously Born Again! I love God’s word, the KJV. It was beautifully written and if I don’t understand something I look it up, ask someone or pray. It’s not hard to read or understand. The Holy Spirit speaks to me and gives me understanding and a desire to know more of my Saviour, Jesus Christ. I do not appreciate the last speaker saying that the pulpit that he’s speaking behind needs to stop using the KJ and all the schools. You sir, are deeply mistaken and are leading people astray. His comment on that was around the 1 hour section. I will continue to listen but I do not like your stand.
What a weird debate topic. Protestants are so obsessed with different English translations of the bible. They all are more or less readable and essentially say the same thing. For all this time and effort (and money) put into various English translations, they should just learn the Greek. (Yes, I know some do, and they are to be commended.)
Mark was better prepared and handled the debate well. I don’t agree with Mark, but he is a skillful debater. One issue with the debate that I see is that there was no formal definition of KjVonly. There’s a lot of positions in that camp. From Marks comments he seems to believe that a KjVonly won’t read any other translation; that they won’t read commentaries and dictionaries. In short, that they are at the mercy of the outdated KJV and its false friends. Well, I disagree with that definition. Some us do word studies using Strongs, dictionaries and other translations. We also sometimes come to different conclusions as to meanings of words and phrases. Mark, it’s arrogant of you to think you’re always right. Some of us, despite being familiar with other translations, only trust the KJV as the preserved word of God in English.
I would call your position "King James Preferred" or, at most, "King James Priority." In my youth, there was no talk of consulting the other versions for clarity, even though the issue was supposedly about the missing verses and whatnot. It's not that the KJV was seen as perfect, but that the other options were seen as untouchable. These versions were accused of dumbing down the language, and if you needed the language dumbed down, then you clearly weren't studying hard enough. And since Bible study was how we supposedly received God's approval, the greatest of all good works, it was not our place to make the task easier on ourselves.
With these false friends, he is straining out nats, painting the KJV as if it is an entirely different language. The KJV is fine and understandable. I do agree we should not impose it on others who want the NIV or whatever, but it is rediculous to say that it is not sufficiently intelligible.
Considering how often KJV Only pastors misinterpret the text, it must not be sufficiently intelligible in isolation. Note that the KJV can be sufficiently intelligible when supported by a number of helps, including definitions in the margin (as seen in some Thomas Nelson editions) and comparisons against other translations.
The thesis against the KJV is that as the culture changes, the words of God should be changed or deleted to accommodate the people. But the result of modern perVersions, is that people are falling away rather than being lifted up. Today, one needs not to be able to spell as the computer finishes spelling words. Imagine future bible translations would be replete with slanguage, pictograms, emojis, and memes as comprehension declines. Would this not be an abomination in the sight of Almighty God? God has promised to preserve his words: “Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” (Ps 12:7 KJV) Will you fight against God? So as people are less literate, knowledge and understanding decline, and vocabularies are shrinking, the gold standard, KJV should be discarded? Absolutely not. The KJV is even more relevant and needed today than ever.
I guess I'm too ignorant to understand what "ad hominem" means, but Mark is an idiot arguing over his own arrogance and self-importance. His arguments have nothing to do with "readability" or comprehension. A deceiver that plucks the seeds of biblical truth out of the hearts of young people.
@@johnlopez-qq4eh I understood it without your simpleton explanation. I'm not a Bible college student that gets impressed by condescension. I went to UW and had to defend my faith and positions against daily attacks.
You have some gall calling someone else "idiot" and complaining about "arrogance and self-importance." Understand that you WILL give account to Christ for your filth spewed here. Know that. But thanks for being a textbook example of ad hominem! ad hominem 1 of 2 adjective ad ho·mi·nem (ˈ)ad-ˈhä-mə-nəm -ˌnem 1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect an ad hominem argument 2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made made an ad hominem personal attack on his rival
![The Power of His Presence - Bishop T.D. Jakes [November 17, 2019]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_DxtXuRASV4/mqdefault.jpg)
![โรงเรียนห้ามรัก โดนจับได้ตาย...!! [เอิร์นไดเม่]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4u02Sbr556Q/mqdefault.jpg)
You did outstanding Mark. You're a true pro. May eyes be opened.
Laughable.
Thank you, brother.
@@WiscoMike Don’t laugh at yourself, friend. It’s sad.
Great Job. All church debaters should acts this civil with each other . Thanks for debate .
Great job brothers. Thank you both for handling this matter with grace.
That was the most polite debate, I have ever seen. Setting a good example for the rest of us.
Dr. Ward, you did an outstanding job. Very well done.
Thank you kindly!
"It takes a preacher to explain the meaning."
Isn't that kinda the whole reason Tyndale started translating the Bible into English in the first place? So the plowboy didn't have to rely on the clergy?
Mark, you did a great job, but the arguments from the other side really just defeated themselves tonight.
That's what I was gathering from the opening statement, too: it doesn't matter if any of us laypeople can understand the Bible ourselves, because we'll always have our priests and clergy to rightly explain it to us. What a reassuring message to receive from someone who understands the original biblical languages! Who needs any English translation of the Bible as long as we have preachers? 🙄
I agree. This is what prompted my opening question to Dr. Haifley
Loved this! Until I left KJVOism I hadn't realized how many times I misunderstood God's Word because of the language of the KJV.
If God had not preserved His Word but here and there and everywhere and not completely, we would be without hope.
@@jonathanmelton9801people were without hope completely before 1611?
I was frustrated by the opening statement, where he said little about readability except "it's okay if common people can't understand it all", and couldn't help but take potshots at underlying text.
Regardless, I was thrilled that the discussion was characterized by grace! An answer to many prayers, I am certain!
Now if only the comment section could follow suit... 😬
I must agree about the surprise.
It’s also crazy at the hour and 39 minute mark he said don’t take a preacher’s or dictionaries word on what something means. So basically, he’s saying we cannot be certain about God’s word.
@@markwardonwordsat the risk of sounding uncharitable, I’m not the least bit surprised coming from someone who is KJVO.
Dan's rebuttal to Dr. Ward's opening statement is spot on and absolutely proves the need for contemporary English Bible translations. He mentioned that Dr. Ward helped the audience to understand the King James Bible, which was true. The reason they now understand the KJV is because of those modern translations. Its a good thing they exist. All of these trusted Bibles help us to take the WORD and put it in our hearts and meditate on the WORD. Let's not throw away the KJV, but let's not also reject contemporary translations so that we miss out on the WORD being fully understood the best we can.
I went to watch this same debate over on the King James Bible research council youtube channel and was very disheartened by the comments. King James Onlyism breaks my heart as a Christian. It’s crazy how Satan can use people’s stubbornness and preferred translations to confuse and divide us.
My wife said the same.
After seeing this post, I went to have a brief read through on the comments on the Bible research council TH-cam page and I've concluded that KJV only folks can't be reasoned with.
@@femiwilliams7906The Very Online KJVOs frequently/usually cannot be. But individual KJV-Only brothers spoke to me courteously in person after the debate.
@@markwardonwords Glad to hear you were warmly received after the debate. In general, it seems people online tend to be more unkind than are in person... Sadly, I've recently decided to move on from a KJV only-ish church after attending for over a year. It has been really hard to stay committed there because of other issues, but the KJV only-ism issue was a major stumbling block.
Mark, your heart was abundantly clear in this debate. I think there are more than a few people who walked away from hearing this debate not a little more edified about the KJV and the blessings of modern English translations. You have my utmost respect by your clarity, careful use of words, and your desire to maintain Christ-like peace.
I'm very excited to watch this! Thank you so much for participating in this debate Dr. Ward.
Well done, Mark! Clear and God glorifying.
Thank you kindly!
Brother Mark, my wife and I prayed for you prior to and throughout your debate. What a fantastic job you did with the Spirit's help!
This was a rare opportunity to limit the scope of the discussion away from the TC debate.
God bless you for hard work and years!
I enjoyed this so much, and it spoke my heart. For years, so many things, at times, I have never understood in the KJV Bible, but growing up on it, I feel like I am sinning when I go to another Bible. I really do. This has made me laugh. I am thankful to know it is ok, to look at other versions after hearing Pastor Mark Ward. But the Debate itself, was so informative. Both Pastors were wonderful. I am thankful for the opportunity to have seen this. Thank you
What a beautiful debate! This was so refreshing! Neither of you got angry, mean, frustrated or nasty. All debates should be like this.
That was one of my specific prayer requests. Dan was a genuine and sincere gentleman, and I pray I was the same!
Well done, Mark. You did an excellent job in this debate. I pray that eyes will be opened and that God will continue to bless you. 🙏🙏
Mark, great job. I'm still listening...but gasped at 48:00 ish mark, when he applauded how clear you were in explaining a few false friends, and then declared, "see, now you know your King James Bible....it takes a preacher to know the sense......because there are words that there is no easy way to communicate....." Very concerning.
I met for a while with international students doing bible studies, it was difficult enough at times explaining words in an easier to read traslation like the NLV, it would've been almost Impossible to do so with the KJV, thank you for your work in helping others be confident they can read the bible in modern english and that it has been properly translated
Thanks for sharing!
Aaaaw, "Shout to the Lord" at the end! Glad I could finally search it out. I remembered the tune but not the words. Sheesh, I must be getting old. We sang it a million times at my old church!
My goodness, while this was a calm and well-mannered debate, Haifley kept moving the goalposts (or adding new ones) by mentioning the "missing verses". Textual criticism wasn't part of this debate, but he just simply couldn't let it go.
When he went to country music I was like, “I got false friends in low places. . .” 😏
Great job, Mark! Your work helped guide me out of KJV Onlyism, and I was finally able to connect deeper with God's Word!
Many are making comments about who won the debate but I think this misses the point. If you’ve ever known someone who is stuck in KJV jail the fear of touching a more understandable Bible can be overwhelming not to mention the guilt if you did try one. If you’re married to a staunch KJVonlyist and you’re not allowed to read another Bible for yourself or to your children the unnecessary control is damaging for you and your kids. Please, commenters, try to see this as something beyond an academic debate. To the men out there, please try to see this from a woman’s perspective. The goal is an understandable Bible and freedom from jail. This goes beyond the academics. Thank you and God bless.
Well done Mark. Thank you.
Beautiful debate, loved it. Thank yall both. :)
God be thanked for this debate, both of you did will. It helps us navigate through all the complexities of word of God. Thank you bothin my eye you both won.
This was the first time I have heard a polite discussion from the KJV-only camp.
Mark, your passion and love was clear throughout the whole time.
Nicely done!
Thank you! Cheers!
Very cordial and informative debate.
I will say, thanks to Mark’s work I became more interested in the KJV, and just finished my first full read-through of it a few weeks ago.
I was using a bible that had many of the archaic words and false friends marked in the footnotes, but I’m sure I missed many others. There were sections where I really struggled, and others where I felt like the meaning was jumping out to me more than it had before. Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed the KJV. I don’t plan on using it as my main translation, but will continue to use it for comparisons to other translations and daily devotional.
I wish the debate format would have allowed for more interaction, but I still think Mark was able to counter the few points made by the other side. BTW, it is not just vocabulary that makes the KJV difficult, it is the very awkward sentence structure that you find throughout the text. Difficult phraseology, obsolete words, and false friends all make for a very intimidating and difficult reading experience that largely makes the plowboy dependent on the preacher to understand their Bible. The congregation will remain simple in their understanding of God's word and very few will be true Bereans. Part of my goal as a teacher is to help those who listen to me learn how to study the Bible for themselves. The way I work through a passage or a topic is something I hope my listeners will be able to do on their own for whatever topic or passage they are interested in. The first step in all that, is understanding the words and thoughts of the text.
Dr. Haifley, as a fellow KJV man who has been in a leadership position in a KJV church for over 20 years, I must tell you that you didn’t only lose this debate. You also showed that your position is very wrong.
First, you committed the same error that modern version defenders use: you actually argued against the importance of “every word” of God. You said that the gospel was understandable in the KJV even if every word was not. That’s their argument for the NIV! You also made a dynamic equivalence argument. I could not believe my ears.
Then, you confused sense with reference as it pertains to understanding. God hides truth from those who will not study his words. He doesn’t hide it from those who will can’t study a lexicon or an outdated (1828) dictionary. There is a massive difference.
Archaic words and false friends *are a foreign language to modern readers.* The KJV is perfect; but because of language change has become filled with what is exactly equivalent to foreign words. They are perfectly correct foreign words. But foreign to us.
There is no excuse for us to demand that foreign words be left untranslated for modern readers. We can’t claim that God wanted it that way. We can’t claim that God is hiding these words from people who don’t want to study. We can’t claim that God wants people to rely on teachers to translate them one by one. We can’t claim that we should need a lexicon in order to translate the Bible as we read. These are wrongheaded arguments.
The truth is much simpler and you alluded to it at the end. We stopped updating the text in 1769 because modern versionists lost our trust. They started perverting the words of God, and in response we dug in our heels. We held to the old book, rightfully so.
But now we must do more than hold to it. We must continue the work of good translation. I have argued directly to Ward that his group has the access to publishing that our group does not, and therefore his group is at fault for not updating the KJV. He has rejected that idea. But he did say last night that he would lend his publishing and editing access and connections to an edition that we are in charge of making. I cannot think of a better resolution to this stalemate. We get to make the updates and their group will help get it published by major houses? That is a win, brother. We must take this opportunity.
We who believe the KJV must take the charge of translating these foreign words within our own Bible, or else we will end up demanding that each successive generation read an increasingly foreign language. And they will start rejecting that demand more and more, until our group slowly dies off. Then we will stand before God and give account for burying our talent in the dirt for fear of his austerity.
I agree that the MEV and NKJV and even Simplified KJV went too far. I will not use them. We need to coordinate an incredibly modest translation and edition group. One that only translates completely dead words and false friends. And one that does not break the keys. There will be less than .001% change. Probably less than 2 or 3 words per book. It should be so minor a change that it does not cause good KJV people to trip over their conscience while reading it. And we should make a schedule to do this kind of update every 25 years or so.
But WE should set the standard for language updates instead of only digging in our heels at 1769. Or else we will lose this battle, one funeral at a time.
Wow, brother. I’m shocked. And appreciative. And sincere: I will work with Ruckmanites on this, despite our profound disagreements.
As a non-KJV onlyist, I applaud this. I’m afraid you might find more than 3 or 4 needed updates per book, though, especially in the first revision. 3 or 4 would seem more likely if you were only accounting for 25 or 50 years of language change, not 250. On the other hand, making more changes will alienate our KJV brothers. If we can gather a sizable sector of those who love the KJV to rally around a revision of it that only makes, say, 200 updates across the entire translation, with plans to continue regular revisions in the future, that would still be such a win for biblical intelligibility. I know that I would be honored to support such an endeavor, and I think Mark would probably agree. We want our brothers to understand God’s Word!
@@markwardonwords I am a long time friend with Gipp and all of the other influential leaders in our circle. If you can get the West Coast crowd on board (Shakour, etc.), and Dr. Haifley's crowd involved, I will risk my position and reputation with my Ruckmanite crowd to push them to also get on board.
If you remember our conversations, I have never argued that the KJV doesn't have dead words. I've argued that there's nothing we can do about it now. I don't have the pull myself to update it. And every attempt has overstepped. And new versions are just causing more division, which I've weighed as more problematic than the dead words.
But if there is a real possibility of a conservative "edition" style update, that can be done with unity and won't simply result in more division, then I am on board.
But remember, as strongly as you believe that readability is a command, I believe that unity of translation is a command. I don't want to head down a road that kills off the KJV as the final authority. Rather, I want our churches to have a final authority that is readable.
@@KJV-Ruckmanite My friend, do you really believe that it's even possible for Sam Gipp, at this stage in his life, to consider this possibility? I'm asking sincerely, of course.
Thanks Mark!
My pleasure!
Great debate! You obviously won hands down. I loved how kind you both were but honestly, you stuck to the topic at hand and made sensible points while your opponent has to fill his time with jokes or other topics. Even when he did speak to the topic, his arguments fail at the slightest examination.
I am shocked that he used the argument that Jesus spoke in parables so therefore the Bible today should be in a confusing language?! Jesus concealed his identity so he could go to the cross to pay for our sins at Passover, and not be forcibly made king on one hand nor be killed prematurely on the other. Jesus said when he was lifted up on the cross, then he could draw all men, and no longer hide his identity. He told his apostles after his resurrection and Pentecost to preach the gospel everywhere and even gave then supernatural power to speak the various languages of the peoples so they could understand (not so they could be confused).
I was surprised that he tried to use Philip and the eunich as an argument that preachers need to also be on the spot Bible translators. Philip explained the Scripture to the eunich; he was not translating it from even more ancient to contemporary language for him.
I thought it was a tangent when he said the plow boy couldnt read. What's his point? That lay people should not read the Bible for themselves but should only listen to expert preachers at church? He says people need to be educated but then insinuates the plow boy doesn't need the Bible in his language becuase he cant read anyway (and I guess he never will?) Once the plow boy could read, then he needed a Bible in his language not just the Vulgate. Most English speaking teens and adults today can read. Our language. Our dialect.
He says we should just trust preachers, but go study the Bible for ourselves. Yet he contradicts himself as he wants to deny people the tools to study for themselves, namely a translation into their own language.
I understand the temptation for a KJVO to keep attacking the underlying text of most modern versions which are shorter especially by a couple large sections. I understand your desire to set that aside entirely. But on the other hand, to the passage you quoted, the Bible itself says it's better to speak 5 intelligible words than a thousand in an unknown tongue. The modern versions are the "5 words"- shorter but intelligible- while the KJV is the "thousand words in an unknown tongue.
It's also not just a question of whether the plow boy might learn to read, but also of if he hears the Bible read in the evening by his sister who can read, will he be able to understand the words? For Protestants in particular, it's an important tenet that the Word of the Lord be comprehensible to everybody, because the Gospel is capable of being understood by even the simplest if it is only put into words they can grasp. (I see that as an argument in favor of even colloquial versions designed for reading out loud, so long as they are used for their proper purpose and not treated as deep study tools.)
What a blessing to see the grace given both ways in this debate. Truly iron sharpening iron.
Great job Mark and Dan….great discussion. I appreciate the venue, college, moderator…. And the spirit in which this discussion was had. Very fruitful in my opinion.
It grieves me that in 2024 -- with all the burgeoning societal issues challenging the Church in the West -- that folks like Mark are still having to contend with topics like this.
Anxiety and suicide are on the rise. The identity crisis has never been more apparent. And we have an entire generation which is trading off meaning and purpose for technological convenience.
Lord, help us get past our pride so we can deal with weightier matters together.
I will never understand why people feel like they can only read one translation of the bible. There are so many good ones out there and readily available for free online and on bible apps like you version. Pick two or three and enjoy comparing them.
Great debate. It went as i expected. Well done, Mark.
Great performance Mark!
Many thanks, Samuel Johnson!
Great respectful debate between two brothers in Christ.
Excellent work, Mark. Well done.
Many thanks!
Thank you for this. I was blessed and edified by this debate. Blessings!
I'm so glad!
OK, Dr. Ward...I want a gospel album (38:01). That's an impressive baritone!
This was great and the Body of Christ would be all the better if we had more of this.
I would LOVE to hear a debate on how Bibliology affects and influences each viewpoint. You can’t argue with God.
That was an amazing discussion and a good summary of both sides. Something I will refer people to when having a similar discussions. Thanks Mark!
I've heard other preachers say that the whole Bible was not meant to be understood. I find that to be a horrifying thought. It's like God is messing with our minds. The Bible communicates God's word to us, and we must listen and learn.
It just about blew my mind in the very first opening statement when the pastor Dan H conflated Jesus' concealing truth from the lost with Christians, who have the Holy Spirit, not understanding the Bible. I don't think he even realized what it sounded like he was saying, there. He did make clarifying statements later about the Spirit growing Christians' understanding as they mature, but still... the initial comments were jarring.
Dr. Ward, congrats on a well-spoken, well-reasoned, respectful, and professional debate! I don't know what the response from the other side of the aisle will be, but to me it seemed clear that God aided you to communicate well through any nervousness, hit your main points right on target, and avoid red herrings. I know there were many prayers going up for this debate, and I hope you can relax briefly now. 😊
Great job Mark..You're absolutely right.
I just finished watching the debate. I don't believe that my observations are particularly important, yet I have a few thoughts nonetheless:
1. This was a very cordial debate, notably so when compared to some of those conducted by other Christians on this subject in the past.
2. The TH-cam chat could have been better and more charitable on both sides, which was disappointing.
3. Dr. Haifley used a lot of anecdotal evidence and pathos-centric argumentation, which can have a great effect when speaking to the average Joe but is less effective when debating formally.
4. While Dr. Ward's debate survey had clear validity issues, as noted by Dr. Haifley, it was more effective in the debate at establishing a base of mutual understanding of the problem.
5. Dr. Ward used a more precise and logical flow of argumentation, which helped get his point across.
6. Dr. Ward stayed on topic more often than Dr. Haifley.
7. Dr. Haifley did bring up a good point of internal consistency and linguistic continuity within scripture. Dr. Ward did not have adequate time to address this point, although I suspect he has a rebuttal.
8. Dr. Haifley admitting to giving a KJV to a new believer is shocking. He later turned it around on Dr. Ward to search for a careful retraction of his previous remarks, which was disappointing. It showed a need for more awareness on Dr. Haifley's part, and I was pleased to see Dr. Ward stand his ground.
Although this comment is long, I want to acknowledge the lovingkindness both men took into the debate. This was a fantastic example of two brothers in Christ cleanly disagreeing and presenting their side. Although I am partial, Dr. Ward won the debate, if not by the salience of his argument, then by its delivery. Dr. Haifley did a great job, too! I pray he continues his diligent ministry and work at the KJB Research Council to bring God's word and the Gospel to those in need.
#7. Are you saying it's wrong to give a KJV to a new believer? Also I assume you're talking about the question for Mark about him saying it's a sin to give a KJV to a child. What's your thoughts on it being a sin?
@@validcore I am saying that giving the KJV to a new believer is wrong, especially if they're a child. I was in that boat; I wanted to know God's word but had no familial support. A KJV-o family friend gave me a Bible, and it was utterly incomprehensible as a 12 y/o new to the faith. It drove me away for years because I didn't know other options existed. Once I started reading a modern translation (the ESV) and attending a church (Lutheran) as a teenager, I was finally opened to the faith. I don't know if it's a sin in the strictest sense, but at the very least, giving new believers the KJV as their only translation option is irresponsible. That's my two cents anyway. Although I must say, as an adult, I love the KJV! It's just not appropriate for children and those new to the faith.
This was an outstanding debate, kind and courteous. Congratulations.
I think you won this pretty handily. Dr. Haifley seemed completely unprepared, but it may be the weakness of the position. I think some of the points are defensible, but he didn't succeed. He seems like the KJVOs I've met in the past (outside the internet). They were all kind and considerate. It doesn't make the position stronger, but it makes him quite likable.
I agree. I came away liking him more. We had kind fellowship at a wonderful dinner (he paid for!) before the debate.
Mark! That was amazing!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Brother Ward - thank you for your effort and care in this endeavor. Are you open to another future debate on this topic? I would be interested in seeing someone who is more organized and articulate meet your points head on, versus what happened here.
Granted, I would be much more interested in both sides working together to prepare a KJV update than I would be with continued debate. The recent X/Twitter exchange of Pastor Shakour's was a bit disheartening, since Joe is perhaps the most reasonable and charitable contemporary proponent of the KJV position. Yes, there is much Gospel sharing work to be done, but can we walk and chew gum at the same time? If we are going to continue insisting on the exclusive use of the choices made by the King James translators-Joe's emphasis on the choices-then we must insist on preparing an update that brings those choices into the language we currently speak.
I fully agree. Joe is tops. And I’m open to more debate.
Thank you Mark, Jim and Jim's dad were and are very close friends. While I severed in the Chicago area with Child Evangelism Fellowship, I was the treasurer for the IFCA International which Quentin Rd was a member. My wife and I were members at Cicero Bible Church were I was an elder. We used the NKJV while Dr Scudder used the KJV I liked the KJV. I used a Thomson Chain Reference, which was nice because on the chains it would give a word help in the margin that would explain some of the "false friends", but I know use the NKJV with "Olive Tree Bible App." What is nice about that is just by tapping a word I brings up the concordance definition. I do follow your channel on TH-cam but also follow the King James Research Council also. I do use other translation and am not a KJV Onlyist, but I did tend to lean heavy towards the KJV but because to you now use many translations. I do not care for the Critical Text versions so recently purchased a NKJV single column wide margin. Again thank you for this debate, have a blessed day.
I loved the debate, both brothers we're charitable and respectful.. something we should all emulate when we dialog with brothers and sisters. I really wanted pizza after I heard that timer.
Good job, Mark.
Most people read the 1789 revised KJV and not the 1611 original version, so even the KJV onlyists don't read the original KJV.
There is no "1789" revised KJV.
He got the date wrong but he's correct in the point he's making. (I'm fairly certain you already knew the actual date and revision he was referring to. Just being cheeky.)
@catpocalypsenow is clearly referring to the 1769 Blayney revision. Since this is Mark Ward's channel, I'll quickly point out that he also handles the topic in his book, 'Authorized' (Kindle loc. 1245).
Btw -- Great job, Mark. 🫡
@@bibleprotector With respect, "bibleprotector", may I recommend a book titled, "Taming The Fingers" by Jeff Johnson? It might help you "protect" your _Christian witness_ on social media.
"Some things are right for you that aren't right for somebody else." This is exactly why we have authoritative references on definitions, because there is a correct meaning for words in context. Otherwise language is just a jumble of sounds and letters and by extension the bible has no true meaning or message, nor any book for that matter. I think it folly to "debate" a KJV-onlyist and an exercise in futility. KJV-onlism is irrational from the outset. If other translations are widely available and like a paraphrase, can help to clarify meaning, then they should be consulted. Moreover, if one refers to any other book for clarification such as a concordance or dictionary, then it is already proving the fact that the KJV is insufficient on its own to convey God's word in a clear and concise manner to the average contemporary reader.
49:47...this is a worn-out argument. Yes, there are SPIRITUAL TRUTHS that require the Holy Spirit. There are SPIRITUAL TRUTHS that Paul preached that were "hard to understand." But that has nothing to do with the premise of this debate. Peter wasn't sayng that Paul used vernacular that was too high for him. John wasn't declaring that the Spriit would act as an interpreter of tongues for the believer. Rather, we should remove any vernacular barriers of an aging language, as faithfully and carefully as we can. UDPATE at 54:00...Mark, you addressed this very well.....still listening
Great job!
Thanks!
Man, you’re a humble genius.
Dr. Ward you did an amazing job in this debate the only issue is that your opponent was not prepared, and so it was like there was no good rebuttal. However, could you do a video reply to Thomas Ross’s overstated assertion that “there are hundreds of lines in the NA UBS text that have no manuscript support at all.”? He is still beating away at that drum, and doesn’t engage with any further discussion. He once again started on that with his debate preview video. Thank you for shining the light of Christ.
Mark, it looks like God answered your petitions! The debate was kind and enlightening, and many people heard you. Thank you for all your hard work!
I have a response to one of your questions. You asked Dan how someone can know to look up a word they don't know they don't know. He sort of said that they will be guided by the Holy Spirit (notably, he didn't say the Holy Ghost). He should have been more firm on that point. That is a powerful truth that I firmly believe. "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering."
Your response to that clearly shows the practical problems with that approach. Many faithful Christians misunderstand Bible passages. And your original question remains. Whether we ask God or a dictionary, how can we know that we lack wisdom if we think we understand? As you pointed out, a Christian shouldn't need to look up every word just in case.
Here is my answer that I wish Dan had said: Christians who believe that the KJV is the best (or even authoritative) translation should simply read another translation along side to help them identify the words they don't realize they misunderstand. They can then check their readings with the OED or the original languages, and they can always have the security of returning to their trusted text.
If KJVO churches simply became KJV Preferred, I think this civil war would solve itself. We could have our beloved Bible translation and understand it too.
Þe Wyclyffe Bible ys þe fyrst trewe Englysch Byble. Alle moderne translaciouns (Kyng James, Newe Internascionale Versyon, Geneve, etc.) ben corrupcyouns of þe one trewe Byble. Þey speken Englysch yn þe þyrtene hundreth yere, and so don we.
As þe Byble seith yn 2 Tymothe 15 "Bisili kepe to yyue thi silf a preued preisable werkman to God, with oute schame, riytli tretinge the word of treuthe."
Þus schulde we ben dylygent yn usynge þe one pure and perfyte Byble, nat dymmynge Goddes Word, but heyzende oureself to ben worthy of hit.
#WyOrDie #WycliffeOnly #Sarcasm
Þanke þe, Mark, and God be wyth alle þe bretheren! 🕊
The 'thorn' which looks like the letter 'p' is pronounced "th". Now you can read it. Case closed.
@@johnlopez-qq4eh A trewe disciple! Nat afeard of þe hyest forme of langage so fer aboue þe moderne tonge of Kyng James. Þe symple Oxforde Englysch Dyctyonarye ys alle þe symple-myndyd nede to vnderstonde whanne þey ben withoute a prechour.
I do enjoy reading a little Middle English.
@@MAMoreno Hayle and greetinge, my dere broþer and felowe pylgrym on þe weye to Caunterbury! Þe grete Chaucer verilye ys my owne namesake, settinge to shame þe fabled Shak-spere -- a man forged of þe deuyll!
Well put!!
Love it, Mark! Great job.
I’ve spent many hours listening to theological and cross denominational debates and I must say, you debate well.
I’ll provide a minor correction.
James 4:17 is not to be used with what anyone may interpret as “good” aside from what was provided in the context of James.
Otherwise, we run into the dangers of misusing the verse and condemn anyone who does not do what one may interpret as “good”, as being sinful.
For example.
Man 1: “If you don’t doorknock every neighborhood in the city to win souls to Christ for 8-12 hours a day, you’re disobedient to God”
Man 2: “How so? We’re commanded to evangelize, but why such an extreme mandate”
Man 1: “Because it’s a good thing to evangelize 8 hours a day. James 4:17.”
End of illustration.
Or, one can organize the passage in Titus of when someone seeks the office of a bishop, it’s called “A Good thing”. If we apply James 4:17 to anything we interpret as “Good”, you’re sinful if you don’t seek to pastor.
Just a minor correction. I’ve debated that verse with several brothers and it’s just a little irk I get when it’s used outside of its intended meaning indicated within its context.
Great stuff Mark! You represented well!
Haifley's opening statement is toe-curlingly off-target. Arguing that 'these things are spiritually discerned' can be applied to archaic words, and using that Tyndale quote to prove the opposite of what it does... I'm watching through my fingers.
Really civilised debate
Both sides represented their positions well, though Pastor Dan had me scratching my head more than once.
I think Mark may have found his calling, he did an excellent job.
Dr Mark, What KJV Bible are you reading from? Looks like a premium but wondering which one. You did an amazing job!
An Allan Longprimer! Not my favorite, honestly! I have a top 5 KJV editions video you can look for!
🤣 Paul was for our 2nd amendment rights, Amen? Well played, Sir.
The audience’s laugh showed that they followed my reasoning and were willing to listen sympathetically. That was a key moment for me.
Brother Mark, thank you for your work. I wondered if there is a legitimate window to follow up on you plea to the KJVRC to do a revision with your help? You mentioned needing other buy in from KJV only groups. If the KJVRC offered would that be enough for you? I understand some of the trust issues that brother Dan mentioned, and i thought his mention of that was something that could be accepted as a starting point to build that bridge to make something like this happen.
I need multiple KJVO leaders and institutions to sign on. I don’t want to set an impossible bar, but I have to believe that PCC and West Coast, at least, need to be on board.
Your impassioned ending was fantastic. It’s obvious to all who have seen your work that you would be incredibly diligent in helping make a modern English translation that meets their high high standards. But I fear even that would not be enough to prompt change.
I was almost surprised they didn’t say “we don’t need an update to the English, we can just use our lists, dictionaries and Mark’s books and now the problem of readability is gone” Just ‘study’ more.
All these hoops to try to understand Gods word using the KJV when you could just read it in modern English.
I’m so impressed with how you did in this debate, Mark. The hundreds of hours of preparation are obvious. One thing that strikes me is that for the KJV-onlyist, it’s well-nigh impossible to have a conversation *just* about intelligibility without dipping into textual criticism.
For my wife, it was an emotional experience. She had to get over her reticence to even consider a modern translation, because even considering it is sin to many.
Thanks for holding the line and freeing consciences from extra-biblical, pharisaical, and (to be frank) idolatrous standards.
Amen, brother. Yes, I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that he could not limit himself to translation only. But he did far better than any KJVO I've ever known!
I have a few KJV bibles that have footnotes for the archaic words and false friends. Nelson KJV paragraph-style large print, another Nelson KJV center-column reference bible with apocrypha, and a Westminster KJV reference bible. The Nelson bibles seem to have more notes on these words than the Westminster. My perfect KJV bible would be one that has all the original translator's footnotes and references, explanations of archaic words and phrases, and notes on textual criticism like in the NKJV. Also, including the apocrypha. Dr. Mark Ward, if you are reading this, I'd love to hear a response from you on this idea.
Thanks, dear brother Mark. The problem is going to be when the Christian is reading the Bible for him/herself and no help is readily available. That's when he/she needs one of the good modern translations.
Just to add: for how long will the KJV be a viable option as English develops further and further away from its 400 year-old counterpart?
Contradictions:
"Maybe God doesn't want everyone to understand."
"Well God does want us to understand but we have to have a pastor explain it to us."
"No, we shouldn't have to rely on pastors; people should read the Bible for themselves."
"New translations today making the Bible easier to read are dumbing down the Bible."
"Actually the KJV is already easier to read than the NKJV but that's not dumbing down the Bible."
😆
I am glad that Daniel said it's dangerous to give your kid a Bible. It seems so lost on many evangelicals that young ones need to be mentored and guided through Scripture.
I appreciate the spirit and tone of the debate. It reminded me much of the famous John MacArthur and RC Sproul debate on baptism. In my mind, Mark you came across far more prepared than did Dr. Haifley. He seemed to constantly fumble with his notes only to trot out the same tired and worn out talking points. As well, Dr. Haifley seems to talk out of "both sides of his mouth"; he says "Yes, if there were agreed upon terms, we could allow for an update of the KJV." However, it was also very frustrating, when pressed he basically said "but I don't trust anyone who agrees on those terms to do it." Dr. Haifley, which is it sir? Mark challeged the KJBRC to do the job then graciously offered his help. If you don't want his help, fine, do it on your own then. You seem to want to play lip service to a potential update while also "hedging your bet" that it could be done properly. This comes across as an "uncertain trumpet" and "clanging cymbal." "How long halt ye between two opinions?
Starts at 17:50
I’m at 10:25 and Dr.Dan already ‘lost’ the debate.
We’re not moving anything to a different level. The literal debate is if it’s readable.
What Dr.Dan is doing is what people do when they know they have a losing position.
Spot on exposition of Acts 8:30-35. This passage is so often misapplied.
Is this debate posted on another channel?
Two others.
I’m at 10:25 and he already ‘lost’ the debate.
We’re not moving anything to a different level. The literal debate is if it’s readable.
What Dr.Dan is doing is what people do when they know they have a losing position.
KJV IS THE PURE PRESERVED WORD OF GOD✝️🔥
Culturally America is not the only country. KJV is not the standard here in South Africa.
Giving a KJV to a child might be seen as a sin: You explained how you got there, but is the term "sin" unavoidable? Could that be an inflammatory word choice, as is sometimes seen with KJO'ers?
Mark really could have been pressed upon this issue if the opposing side were not King James Only. Here are two very different questions:
1. Is it a sin to give a child the KJV all by itself?
2. Is it a sin to give a child the KJV alongside other translations?
In my experience, at least, it's the former that ends up happening, and whether or not it qualifies as an all-out "sin," it is an action that reflects odd priorities. What's more important to teach the child: the meaning of the Bible or the value of tradition?
At 1:16:00 DrDan responds to DrWard’s question in total Kamala Harris style.
He answered it by not answering it but about talking about his upbringing.
Some things might be right for you that aren't right for someone else. Dan Haifley, could you give us something a bit more concrete than this gem?
Make an updated English translation with the help of KJV-only translators!
They tried that with the NKJV. Some KJVOs were consulted. From what I've heard, it didn't go well.
DEBATE: Is the King James Readable?
1. As I listened to Rev. Dan's opening statement, I imagined I was experiencing the presence of a hay flea and began to itch.
2. Dr. Ward at 1:29:15-26: "What is more precious, what is worth more than the things that our Creator says to us? The things that He instructs us? The commands that He gives us? The promises He gives us?"
Response: The only thing I can think of is Jesus Christ Himself:
A. Gospel of John 6:53-56 (1526 Tyndale Bible):
53Then Iesus sayde vnto them: "Verely verely I saye vnto you except ye eate ye flesshe of ye Sonne of Man and drinke His bloude ye shall not have lyfe in you. 54Whosoever eateth My flesshe and drinketh My bloude hath eternall lyfe: and I will rayse him vp at the last daye. 55For My flesshe is meate in dede: and My bloude is drynke in dede. 56He that eateth My flesshe and drynketh M bloude dwelleth in Me and I in him."
B. 1 Corinthians 11:27 (1526 Tyndale Bible):
Wherfore whosoevere shall eate of this bred OR drynke of the cup vnworthely shalbe giltie of the body AND bloud of the Lorde.
3. And if the 1526 Tyndale Bible was good enough for St. John and St. Paul ...
Hello Dr Ward and fellow nerds (:
I come in good faith and whilst being KJV only, I agree very much that charity/love should be our top priority, not that the flesh doesn't inhibit me in this at times. I have a genuine curiosity:
Do you think that the average Hebrew and Greek reader (i.e. it's their first language) would be better off mainly reading from texts that are closest to the originals in the Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament respectively? Or do you think they would be better served diligently working with a contemporary Greek and Hebrew faithfully 'updated' reading and forgoing the originals? Or perhaps using both would be most expedient according to your points of view?
This question popped up in my head and I presume that these languages have both undergone dramatic change in the millennia since these scriptures were first written. I don't come to bait any answer so I will confess to believing the KJV is perfect although won't pretend to have a scholarly defense to this position such that I would enter into a keyboard war with anyone over this here. I have also watched many hours of Mark's content so I do understand most of his arguments against the KJVO position and will have to just say that I respectfully disagree. I don't pretend to understand God's dispensation of knowledge or his leash on Satan's capacity to sow error and confusion (Rom. 11:33).
I think the last point mentioned in the debate is key. Why not read multiple translations? I think modern Greek speakers should read the original Greek AND a modern Greek translation. Mark may hold to his assertion that churches should have a modern translation as the pulpit standard. I take a softer stance on that. I have no problem with King James Version Preferred churches (I am a member of one). But why tell Christians that they shouldn't study other translations? If you want to consider the KJV as authoritative, fine. You can always check your understanding against that standard. Reading modern English translations of the Bible has helped me better understand the KJV. I can't get enough of God's word!
@@HelloFromSaints Mmm but in this case it's not a translation but an update.
It seems to me to come down to either choosing harder to read and (close to) perfect vs. easier to read and imperfect text. To me, I think wrestling with the originals seems like the wiser position and perhaps using the updated texts as a last resort when you really can't figure something out. Just curious what Mark would suggest in this case. Maybe he lacks the knowledge of modern Greek/Hebrew to make a call on this (which would be fair enough as I'm sure his study is focused on understanding the ancient forms of these languages).
A modern Greek would struggle heavily with the original Greek. Both in the vocabulary, the shifting meaning and grammatical changes. They have to learn the original Greek as a similar but distinct language. Same with modern Hebrew.
Mark Ward won this debate for several reasons.
First, he more clearly advocated for the idea the concern that God's children should understand the Scripture.
Second, he was focused, on target/message and stuck to the specific field of discussion and was able to be concise.
Third, he gave convincing natural/logical arguments which would lead one to assume that a new/less educated person using the KJB alone could be difficult.
However, Mark Ward succeeded in these points actually because of the weakness of his opponent. I believe that his opponent gave some really excellent points, and particularly in his first long statement brought out some really good teachings.
In relation to the first point above, the opponent was weaker because he did not sufficiently or at all argue about God's use of English in the KJB, the exactness of the KJB and God's ability and desire for people to come to that exactness in English.
In relation to the second point, the opponent was ill-served by cloudy thinking, fumbling, sneezing and straying content.
In relation to the third, the opponent either accepted the natural arguments (dispirited, surrendering), or if trying to make a counter argument, seemed to be in a houghed fashion, instead of a charge with spiritual principles (e.g. seeing by faith). The opponent said some very good things, but not with enough strength.
I suspect in his smart way Mark Ward chose a "low hanging fruit" kind of KJB defender that was more a "KJB preferred" and "KJB is best but not perfect" kind of foil, to be able to poke his holes into, and so easily deflate. I call Mark Ward "smart" because it's not fully deceptive, it's not conspiratorially evil, it's a Matthew 10:16 issue, among brethren. Ultimately, this whole thing is not good because a contrived victory is a propaganda coup and gives morale to those who think the KJB is teetering at the edge of conceptual oblivion.
dude. stop declaring winners and losers.
@@JR-lg7fd I am being honest. If we are to judge rightly we need to appreciate the situation. Luke 14:31 Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?
@@bibleprotector It sounds like you're more worried about it being trophy competition than a honing of ideas for personal and public edification.
@@bibleprotector what's more likely is you just wanted the chance to write an essay from a self appointed authoritative viewpoint to make yourself feel like you have clarified everything with your wise analysis.
@@JR-lg7fd It is a battle of ideas, so it's more than a "competition".
I don’t think the questions is can God speak your English but can you speak his?
This is just a reheated leftover from the Catholic "Latin is the holy language" argument.
@@MAMoreno there was a time when Latin was the universal language. Now it’s dead and God has moved on from it by giving us the greatest literary accomplishment in the history of mankind in English.
@@fordhughes Jacobean English is not the universal language, either. Considering that many faithful, soul-winning Christian churches use translations other than the KJV, perhaps you're assuming that God's movement has stopped when it hasn't.
@@fordhughesdo we have to wait for Jacobson English to be entirely dead before it’s allowed to be translated into a more “universal” language? How many hundreds of years of no one being to understand it is good?
Like it was said, reheated Latin argument.
Where is preservation in your theology? Seems to be nonexistent.
My friend, the New King James Version and the Modern English Version both use the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts as the King James. And they translate those texts into fully intelligible contemporary English, which means they meet the principle of 1 Corinthians 14, edification requires intelligibility. I recommend the NKJV and MEV to you.
But I do believe the Bible teaches/assumes preservation.
Hi Mark! G'day from Australia!
I did enjoy this amicable debate, and many good points and ideas were brought up by both sides of the debate.
One good idea, which you both discussed, is that both sides should come together and do an update of the KJV to readable English, without changing meaning or core doctrines involved, and possibly doing so with making as little changes as is necessary, which would be difficult for both sides to agree on at all times.
You also brought up modern updates, the NKJV and the MEV, both fairly readable. What I would have an issue with concerning any future update is, for example, how they would treat Daniel 9:26. The KJV has that the Messiah would be cut off, 'but not for himself'. The NKJV follows the KJV reading, whereas the MEV doesn't (maybe that could change, who knows?) The KJV does have a marginal translation note at this verse which says that it could also be translated as 'but shall have nothing'. The KJV translators acknowledged that there was another possible reading, but chose the reading that made the most sense in light of the NT.
Part of the problem is that modern textual scholarship has tended to go away from KJV renderings, which creates problems in such a Messianic verse.
The NET translators say in a textual note: The expression have nothing is difficult. Presumably it refers to an absence of support or assistance for the anointed one at the time of his “cutting off.” The KJV rendering “but not for himself,” apparently suggesting a vicarious death, cannot be defended.
They claim that it can't be defended, but is that true? The issue here is with the word 'low' (I've transliterated this as I will with other Hebrew words). Now, if you take a look at Leviticus 16:11, you will see two Hebrew words translated as 'for himself', 'low' and 'ba·‘ă·ḏōw'. Low is translated with slight differences in some of the modern translations, but all with a similar meaning. Most translate both as 'for himself'. So I would contend that this would be the correct reading also at Daniel 9:26, and any update of the KJV would need to reflect that decision which the KJV translators themselves had made.
Bless you
Hi fellow Australian. I was glad the night ended up with talk of a modern revision of the KJV. It is a good way to improve our Bible reading future.
My concern is, could it be done in a way that most KJO people would approve of it? The Bible is a big book with lots of places where people can find disagreements if they want to.
I suspect that even if the original translators came back and gave their approval there would be some modern people who would reject it
@@Asher0208Hi mate!
Yes, there could be many places where there are disagreements throughout the text, but if the translation philosophy remains consistent and takes all of revealed Scripture as context, which I believe the KJV translators did, then there wouldn't be that many disagreements.
For example, the reference to 'meats' vs 'food' in regards to 1 Timothy 4:3 which was also discussed in the debate, if we look at Romans 14 in the KJV, it distinguishes what is being eaten, 'meats' or 'flesh' vs 'herbs', which other translations render all things or foods and meat vs vegetables. Are not vegetables food? So obviously he isn't referring to all foods throughout the chapter (though different Greek words are used in relation to all things and meats and flesh), and there is something else happening in this context that modern translations miss. I mean, if they were forbidding eating of food altogether, then it wouldn't take long for that heresy to end. The adherents of the heresy would all soon be dead. Plus, from the KJV rendering in 1 Corinthians 8:13 of the Greek words broma and krea, they seem to consider the words meat and flesh to be synonymous, hence their rendering of bromaton as meats in 1 Timothy 4:3. That's why I think meats is more appropriate in an overall context
In fact, I think the legalistic heresy adressed in 1 Timothy 4 probably came from a misunderstanding of what Paul also wrote in 1 Corinthians 8:13 and 1 Corinthians 7 regarding marriage and staying celibate etc
So, I do see your point, it would be a difficult task.
Example, chambering which was also discussed in the debate. Nowadays we might call it clubbing, as in hitting nightclubs but with the intent of doing what happens in a lot of nightclubs. But clubbing, which is a modern term, could also cause confusion. Are people going around with clubs and clubbing people? Anyway, bless you mate
@@glennomac7499 You have given these things much more attention than I have, so I do not have to say either way without further study. However, if the KJV was to be updated in a way that was acceptable to most KJV-only people, then most of the changes would need to be small. In that case, it may be better to leave more difficult places like Daniel 9:26 as they are.
You also mentioned 1 Tim 4:3. I had not considered a possible connection with 1 Cor 8:13 and similar verses. Again it is something I would have to think about. But I think the more general food would be the better choice. Why? a) It seems to me that 1 Cor 8 is referring to a specific practice whereas 1 Tim 4 is talking about a variety of practices that people are refraining from so they can appear to be "super spiritual". Now, most forbidden foods then and today would probably be meat-based, but it is possible to have a forbidden plant-based food. The word food will then cover all food-based religious restrictions. b) I also note that the Greek word appears to be a more general word for food. Yes, Paul probably had examples of meat-based foods on his mind, but he did use a more general word and I think so should we.
My first Bible was the NASB. I then got the NIV - bad mistake. Next was me being invited to a very good church in FL that used the KJ. WOW! What was this - what did this word, conviction mean and what was happening with my heart and soul!! For the first time in my life I was being convicted by the Holy Spirit and after 4 years of being under God’s word, I was gloriously Born Again!
I love God’s word, the KJV. It was beautifully written and if I don’t understand something I look it up, ask someone or pray. It’s not hard to read or understand. The Holy Spirit speaks to me and gives me understanding and a desire to know more of my Saviour, Jesus Christ.
I do not appreciate the last speaker saying that the pulpit that he’s speaking behind needs to stop using the KJ and all the schools. You sir, are deeply mistaken and are leading people astray. His comment on that was around the 1 hour section. I will continue to listen but I do not like your stand.
What a weird debate topic. Protestants are so obsessed with different English translations of the bible. They all are more or less readable and essentially say the same thing. For all this time and effort (and money) put into various English translations, they should just learn the Greek. (Yes, I know some do, and they are to be commended.)
Mark was better prepared and handled the debate well. I don’t agree with Mark, but he is a skillful debater.
One issue with the debate that I see is that there was no formal definition of KjVonly. There’s a lot of positions in that camp.
From Marks comments he seems to believe that a KjVonly won’t read any other translation; that they won’t read commentaries and dictionaries. In short, that they are at the mercy of the outdated KJV and its false friends.
Well, I disagree with that definition. Some us do word studies using Strongs, dictionaries and other translations. We also sometimes come to different conclusions as to meanings of words and phrases. Mark, it’s arrogant of you to think you’re always right.
Some of us, despite being familiar with other translations, only trust the KJV as the preserved word of God in English.
Marks' definition of KJVonlyism is what the vast majority believe and teach. If you don't fall into that category, you're in the minority.
I would call your position "King James Preferred" or, at most, "King James Priority." In my youth, there was no talk of consulting the other versions for clarity, even though the issue was supposedly about the missing verses and whatnot. It's not that the KJV was seen as perfect, but that the other options were seen as untouchable. These versions were accused of dumbing down the language, and if you needed the language dumbed down, then you clearly weren't studying hard enough. And since Bible study was how we supposedly received God's approval, the greatest of all good works, it was not our place to make the task easier on ourselves.
With these false friends, he is straining out nats, painting the KJV as if it is an entirely different language. The KJV is fine and understandable. I do agree we should not impose it on others who want the NIV or whatever, but it is rediculous to say that it is not sufficiently intelligible.
Considering how often KJV Only pastors misinterpret the text, it must not be sufficiently intelligible in isolation. Note that the KJV can be sufficiently intelligible when supported by a number of helps, including definitions in the margin (as seen in some Thomas Nelson editions) and comparisons against other translations.
That's fine. I will say though that pastors on all sides misinterpret often regardless of what translation they use. Sure, the helps are great.
But here’s the thing, they’re dependent on the helps to have the same have baseline intelligibility of a modern English translation.
The thesis against the KJV is that as the culture changes, the words of God should be changed or deleted to accommodate the people. But the result of modern perVersions, is that people are falling away rather than being lifted up. Today, one needs not to be able to spell as the computer finishes spelling words. Imagine future bible translations would be replete with slanguage, pictograms, emojis, and memes as comprehension declines. Would this not be an abomination in the sight of Almighty God? God has promised to preserve his words: “Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” (Ps 12:7 KJV) Will you fight against God?
So as people are less literate, knowledge and understanding decline, and vocabularies are shrinking, the gold standard, KJV should be discarded? Absolutely not. The KJV is even more relevant and needed today than ever.
I guess I'm too ignorant to understand what "ad hominem" means, but Mark is an idiot arguing over his own arrogance and self-importance. His arguments have nothing to do with "readability" or comprehension. A deceiver that plucks the seeds of biblical truth out of the hearts of young people.
Dost þou use þe one trewe Byble?
@@FaithLikeAMustardSeed The 'thorn' which looks like the letter 'p' is pronounced "th". Now you can read it. Case closed.
@@johnlopez-qq4eh I understood it without your simpleton explanation. I'm not a Bible college student that gets impressed by condescension. I went to UW and had to defend my faith and positions against daily attacks.
You have some gall calling someone else "idiot" and complaining about "arrogance and self-importance." Understand that you WILL give account to Christ for your filth spewed here. Know that.
But thanks for being a textbook example of ad hominem!
ad hominem
1 of 2
adjective
ad ho·mi·nem (ˈ)ad-ˈhä-mə-nəm -ˌnem
1
: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
an ad hominem argument
2
: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
made an ad hominem personal attack on his rival
@@WiscoMike You've done a friendly fire. John Lopez is firmly KJB, judging by the comments during the livestream.