I've admitted defeat. Truth is what I want. I've been convinced to abandon my original position to one that more accurately reflects the truth. From a KJVO position to a position away from it. Sometimes, people in online debates do change their mind.
It's not defeat, brother, it was a victory. You chose to follow the facts and good theology rather than man-made myths. That is always a victory, and progress.
I grew up in King James Version. After much study I understand much that new Christians may not. I study in the NKJV. It is amazing though that when someone is quoting a different version I automatically quote in my mind the KJV. I do prefer Psalm in KJV as it’s more poetic.
You are right... All this "junk" (and I use that word for the lack of another word at the moment) doesn't make a hill of beans of difference. I work in the world with a lot of nasty unsaved folk. Each textual family will lead someone to a saving knowledge of Christ. The thing I have never heard anyone tell me (for the most part) is can a person get saved without using the TR???
Such a wonderful video and I love the respectful responses to this very delicate dilemma for many. I became a Christian not too many years ago and was brought up under the KJV as a new disciple. Having discovered this channel and changing opinion on particular topics such as this, my family has now come to use the ESV in our general use and study. My wife and children in partiuclar appreciated the change very much. They used to tell me how difficult it was to follow the preacher or to read to themselves because of the nature of the language used in the KJV. While I personally still love and prefer to have a KJV at my desk for reading and study, I also have the ESV to read alongside my family and for helping interpret things that I may otherwise miss. Thank you brother for all that you do. Your channel has been a beautiful blessing to our family.
The graphic at the 1:40 point in this video is really quite helpful. Really illustrates well that we are prone to oversimplify, ignoring other important informational elements. Kinda like the "which is the best Bible" question that fails to include which scale one would measure by.
I screenshotted one of your images and sent it to my pastor. He replied "he has some good info. He has the gift of tongues". I misread what he wrote and and thought, "I'll have to search his channel and watch that video" A few moments later I got what he meant, haha. Just thought I'd fill you in so you could share that funny moment with us. Thanks Mark. :)
Thx Mark for your concerns for Textual truth. I'm currently 70 yrs old and for 42 of them have been a Christian. Having been down the translation gamut for many year's, I've finally came to a place of peace with this. And what brought this "rest" for me you mentioned @ 7:24 in this video. - "CONTEXT." - Conceptually for me context with collaborating co-text is a relative reality. Tack on to this another supporting witness such as a different text type in agreement would for me establish a correct corresponding action within itself. Covenant blessings to you.
Brother Mark, A few days ago I found an obvious "false friend". It was new to me, so I searched on TH-cam, but found no info. In Psalm 4:2, KJV, is the query, "How long will ye love vanity, and seek after LEASING?". To modern ears, "leasing" sounds like a long-term rental contract, possibly with an option to purchase. To the KJV translators, it meant "lying, deception". Some commentators describe it as having been "old English". :--}>
Another one overlooked! The obvious word will trip you up because they’re not what you think they mean. A modern translation will reveal what you’ve been missing and make you look at the Bible with fresh eyes.
In this case… I haven't talked about this one because I'm assuming that most (?) readers will realize that long-term rental contracts simply can't be what the verse is talking about. I'd have to discover that, in fact, many readers were indeed suffering from this misunderstanding.
@@markwardonwordsAfter your last videos on what pastors don't understand about basic early modern English forms, I would no longer be surprised by anything.
My Dad was a pastor and preached from the KJV almost his entire life. He came from a KJVO background but had departed from that early on. But he still used the KJV because that is what he was familiar with and many in the congregation were KJVO. Anyway, I moved to the modern translations as a teenager and I would tease him about his sermons. I told him that half of his sermon was explaining what the KJV meant in modern English (essentially translating KJV English into modern English) and that his sermons would be much shorter if he only used a modern translation.
I’ve seen KJVO advocates denounce the NKJV and deny that it even uses the TR because it has “critical text language” in it. Admittedly, it took me a while to understand what they were talking about, but I believe it boils down to they don’t like translation decisions that deviate from the KJV translators’ choices in any way, even if the biblical passages in question have no differences between the TR and CT.
Right! If you press them-and this has happened to me repeatedly, including yesterday-they either a) insist that they're right, that the NKJV is based on the critical text even if it says it isn't, or they b) retreat to the accurate but still misleading statement that the NKJV "uses the critical text" in the margins, in textual footnotes. Responsible KJV defenders know that the NKJV and MEV are based on the same TR as the KJV.
@markwardonwords I once read a KJO advocate state that ASV/RV rendering of 2 Ti 3:16 was due to the use of the "critical text." I was TR only or held to the Hodges/Farstead position at the time and knew better. It struck me that, if you didn't know Greek, you couldn't identify an error or what you call a false friend (something I of which I was aware) from a variant reading.
Yeah I had a guy in a comment section try to use the argument “the nkjv attacks the deity of Christ”. I showed him Titus 2:13, 2 Pet 1:1, and Colossians 2:9 in the nkjv vs kjv. Aaaaand he just totally ignored it, totally didn’t even flinch. These people have their eyes closed, and have shut their ears. They literally are not capable of hearing arguments against their position, nor seeing the truth of the issue.
If you think KJV is better, the most honest position to me seems to be - "I prefer the KJV, and generally trust it more than modern translations as it has stood the test of time." I don't share that particular view, but I can certainly respect it more than some of the hyperbolic denunciations of modern translations or the near-deification of the KJV text itself.
I read multiple versions. If a particular verse strikes me I'll read it in multiple versions then I'll look up the original greek and Hebrew for each word and read commentary from people who were alive some hundreds of years ago. For example... commentary from the 1800s. I'll link the Bible app i use. As far as listening i listen to "The word of Promise" dramatized audio Bible.
I always wondered where they got the he and she subheadings. I've never been KJVO, but now attend a church that is, not hard core, I think I've challenged the pastor. I like the KJV in church, but the pastor needs to know all the differences. I also just ordered Authorized from Amazon, so I can read it, and if the pastor wants more info, I'll have it on hand to give him, then I'll order a new one. Thanks.
Although not my go-to translation, I do like the NKJV, especially for the Psalms. I know of several confessional Lutheran pastors who actually prefer the NKJV over the more prevalent ESV now, in part because they prefer the TR, among other reasons.
Dr. Ward, o enjoy your work and appreciate your kindness. I am a proud PCC grad, who no longer holds to a KJVO position. I had to chuckle when you mentioned, i believe in the collective series, seeing Dr. Dell Johnson's videos in high school. I sat in those chapels live. Though i no longer agree with Dr. Johnson, he was always a lovely man to be around, with a wonderful sense of humor.
I’m glad to hear this; pretty much all I know about Johnson comes from those videos. I can’t help but have a decidedly negative opinion. To me, the very worst thing he did was to put a stack of Bibles on one side of the pulpit, only one on the other (guess which one!), and proclaiming that only one came from the pure text. Where was the NKJV? Again, though, I’m glad to learn that KJV-Onlyism wasn’t the whole of the man.
I disagree with Dr. Johnson on the issue of Bible versions, but I agree that he was a kind and considerate person. When I was a lowly freshman at PCC walking in the rain with no umbrella, he graciously invited me to share his umbrella, and we walked across campus together. I also remember that the story of Zaccaeus was one of his favorite Bible stories (He was rather short of stature himself.) I will never forget seeing him climb on top of the pulpit to illustrate the story!
What are your thoughts on Pentecost? I believe that since Christ quoted from the "lesser" septuigant and that the disciples were given the gift of speaking in many languages to spread the word, the biblical principle is that the message is more important than perfectly translated words in every aspect. Its like Christ was perfect, obviously. But He got dirty, hungry, tired, etc. He didnt have to be completely perfect in all ways in order to actually be perfect. It was His message that was perfect, not every detail of His entire person
Have you heard of Eli Yoder? He came out of the Amish and got saved reading the NIV when he says he gave up trying to understand the KJV and left it to collect dust. He calls himself a "German speaking boy" due to their Amish dialect, but he couldn't actually understand hardly any of the "only authorized version" of the Bible in the Amish community which is Martin Luther's translation.
@@salvadaXgraciaHe has a few nutty ideas you find in the fringes of the KJO circles, like Christmas trees being pagan, but he does have some good points too on living faith vs tradition.
In yesterday's Sunday school class the lesson was on John 2:1-12. The topic of alcohol came up. In making comments I referenced Deuteronomy 14:26. I noticed that "Strong drink" in the KJV is translated "Similar drink" in the NKJV; I think the NKJV dilutes the text there. The result? No change in my position. I will use both translations, as well as my NASB and the occasional CSB and NET.
@@markwardonwords I went as far as only the Hebrew; but now that you've brought it up I am curious. I've just now noted that, while the KJV and NASB have "strong" drink and the NKJV has "similar" drink, the NET has "beer" with no explanation for their reasoning. I do have the New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis on my shelf; I could start there. I did wonder if the NKJV translators might have had some anti-alcohol bias and tempered the translation so as not to appear to give an endorsement of drinking. A left-field idea, but it did cross my mind.
@@markwardonwords Replied earlier, don't know why it's not showing up. I wondered if the NKJV might have an anti-alcohol bias that led the translators to soften the translation with "similar" rather than "strong," which the KJV, NASB, and ESV have; the NET and CSB have "beer." I have the New International Dictionary of Theology and Exegesis I could look at, but that isn't going to tell me what the NKJV translators were thinking.
@@charlesf2804 Most likely, the translators of the NKJV simply thought, "Wouldn't wine be considered a 'strong drink' itself?" Thus, they phrased it to indicate that the second word means "other alcoholic beverages that are not wine." In Proverbs 20.1 and Isaiah 24.9, where the two terms are used in parallel clauses rather than in a simple list of items, the translators kept the term "strong drink," so it does seem to be a stylistic choice (albeit an inconsistent one if you start looking at every place where the term for "strong drink" is mentioned; they also call it "intoxicating drink" and "fermented drink' at times!). The word may mean "beer" in particular (as in CEV, CSB, CEB) or alcoholic drinks more broadly. Here's a longer treatment of the term in question from Jacob Milgrom's Leviticus commentary in the Anchor Bible series (Yale UP, 1998, pp. 611-612): *ale (sekar). Some claim that it is a synonym for wine and that, therefore, **_yayin wesekar_** form a hendiadys... But **_sekar_** occurs in two other P passages in which it is clearly not to be identified with wine. First, the prohibition of intoxicants to Nazirites includes... ‘vinegar of wine or of sekar ’ (Num 6.3), where wine and **_sekar_** must be taken as discrete substances and, second, the use of **_sekar_** ... ‘to be poured in the shrine as a sekar libation to the Lord’ (Num 28.7b) clearly indicates that **_sekar_** can stand alone, independent of wine...* *The identification of **_sekar_** is not completely certain. Tg. Ps.-J. renders “anything intoxicating” and, in the same vein, Ibn Ezra suggests intoxicants from substances other than grapes, which he specifies as wheat, dates, or honey. Nevertheless, the most likely candidate is beer or ale because of the Akk. cognate **_sikaru_** and its prevalent use in the cult throughout the ancient Near East.*
I will admit that I do prefer the Textus Receptus due to it spawning my favorite Bibles (NKJV, MEV, KJV). Granted, my first Bible was an NIV and I also like the Greek Septuagint. However, I do believe it doesn't help to be a KJV only person. You miss so much of the wonderful work scholars have done to make the Bible more readable. Especially if you are not a native English speaker like me, it is almost impossible to read the KJV at first. I eventually did manage to learn the language and will forever be happy for it but the KJV - despite its beautiful use of language - is kind of hard to understand. I prefer the NKJV. It lacks the poetic language from the KJV but has a nice rhythm to the words that many gloss over and some Bibles lack. I still strongly support the idea that modern translations are a blessing... except the New world "translation".
I propose, in accordance with contemporary English, we use “You guys” as a second person plural pronoun in our Bible translations: “Do not marvel that I said to you that you guys must be saved” (John 3:7) “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you guys, that he might sift you guys like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.” (Luke 22:31-32)
Interesting thought.... I wonder how long it would take before we have a discussion about keeping it gender neutral, in a similar sense to what I've seen concerning the word "brethren" vs "brothers and sisters" e.g. guys and gals.
Yeah, that's actually a really good point! My overall point-that no one is advocating for any translation in that quadrant-still stands. But there *are* translations in that quadrant. Good catch.
Modern English speakers work around the 2nd person singular/plural ambiguity of "you" by using such conventions as "you all." I wonder if anyone will advocate using "you all" in Bible translations! Given that such usage tends to differ across regional dialects, probably not.
Some translations do use some sortof incidator when the second person plural actually matters. I also read the Bible in Chinese a lot and there it just isn't a problem.
I think you shoulds change the verb ending for the second person pronoun instead so you woulds know who was being addressed. I hope you likes my suggestion!
Another great video from Mark Ward! Just out of curiosity, I wonder how many numbers* of Christians today would identify as KJV Only? I don't know for sure, but I imagine there may be a higher number of KJVO in, say, fundamentalist Baptist circles than most other circles. But are there also a high number of KJVO in other circles or camps or denominations as well? For example, I'm in the Reformed and conservative evangelical camp (like Mark Ward is), where it seems to me the ESV is the primary (not the only) translation of choice. There doesn't seem to be a large number of KJVO in the Reformed world - at least as far as I'm aware, but I could easily be wrong. What, if any, data exist on the number of KJVO in various Christian circles or denominations (e.g. fundamentalist Baptist, Reformed, broadly conservative evangelical, broadly progressive evangelicals)? Plus other questions like if KJVO is fading away across the generations or if it's unchanged or even growing (e.g. is KJVO more prevalent among Boomers than Zoomers?). In short, what's the *incidence* (new cases) as well as the *prevalence* (existing cases) of KJVO across various Christian groups? * Of course, a movement like KJVO can be small in numbers but big in influence, big in numbers but small in influence, etc. But I only focus on numbers since that's a more quantifiable measure than influence which seems to be a more qualitative measure and as such probably more challenging to assess.
Tim Berg and I were talking about this yet again today. We’re really not sure what to say. We feel confident that there are thousands (ten thousand??) of KJV-Only churches and therefore hundreds of thousands of KJV-Only individuals. We’d love for the Pew Research Center to do a survey and give us a figure.
Thanks, good sir! 😊 I suspect it's also thousands or more like you said. I don't know if Pew would care enough to do it, but I wonder if Christian organizations like Christianity Today, a big Bible publishing company like Lifeway, or a ministry like Ligonier which does their annual State of Theology might be find it worth their while to do it? Or if you might have any pull with the Logos powers that be to persuade them? Sorry just completing thinking off the top of my head, maybe what I've said is unrealistic or impractical or something...
@markwardonwords It's hard to say how fast the shrink is. I noticed after leaving the formal IFB for the SBC, I wasn't the only one making that move, and the KJO issue was one reason for that move (for me, it was a difficult decision). ,
Correct, and we get the word “rapture” from the Latin Vulgate translation, the word there is rapturo. People always say “the word rapture isn’t in the Bible”, when actually it is.
Hey Mark, I have an idea that I believe can get KJV only Christians and Christians who prefer modern translations on the same page. Unfortunately for me, I don't exactly have a line to Bible publishers. Could I run it by you or do you know anyone I could reach out to about my idea?
Could you help me know if the erv is a good transition? I really like it but am having trouble knowing if it’s true to GOD. I’m particularly wondering about proverbs 23:29-30. I know this has nothing with the vid but am seeking help because theres not much on this translation
If you like the Easy-to-Read Version, you might consider the New Century Version. They both trace back to the original English Version for the Deaf, as does the International Children's Bible. But the NCV is generally considered to be the best incarnation of this family of translations. Here is the passage you mentioned in these three versions. Prov. 23.29-30 ERV Who gets into fights and arguments? Who gets hurt for no reason and has red, bloodshot eyes? People who stay out too late drinking wine, staring into their strong drinks. Prov. 23.29-30 ICB Some people drink too much wine. They try out all the different kinds of drinks. So they have trouble. They are sad. They fight. They complain. They have unnecessary bruises. They have bloodshot eyes. Prov. 23.29-30 NCV Who has trouble? Who has pain? Who fights? Who complains? Who has unnecessary bruises? Who has bloodshot eyes? It is people who drink too much wine, who try out all different kinds of strong drinks. And here's a somewhat critical review of these translations: www.bible-researcher.com/ncv.html
@@Naturalyieldscompany I don't see anything here that would require an alternate reading in the Hebrew text. What exactly do you think is different about the ERV here?
@@Philisnotretiredἁρπάζω is to be snatched away, it is used to refer to the rapture of the church. But it relevant to all rapture views, not just pre trib as the op wrote.
Wanna hear my cheesy pictograph for harpazo? (You gotta picture the clip art images.) Harp (as in heaven stereotype) Pods (as in Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Get it? Seize or snatch?) O! (As in surprise!)
Yup, and there's a Thomas Nelson KJV that defines most of the archaic words in the footnotes. A very helpful tool. Unfortunately, the most extreme KJV-Onlyists discourage buying KJVs with footnotes.
@@curtthegamer934 I have copies of the KJV in my personal library which have helps such as this. The copy I have of the KJVER (Whitaker House) has a similar system of helps.
The strongest argument against KJVO to me is Daniel 8:14. They clearly changed the words in the bible. Erev Boqer are Evening Morning, NOT "Yamim" or "Days". Erev and Boqer are sigular and get changed to plural days. Also daniel 8:14 is not talking about evening morning of a day, but its a reference to the daily sacrifices given in the evening and morning, noted in numbers 28, exodus 29, and Ezra 3. This error in the 1611KJV turns daniel into a false prophet because the Daily was only stopped for about 1150 days, half of 2300 days. I debate all the time on Daniel 8 as proof the bible is a prophetic book.
Do you think the popularity of KJV-onlyism comes from the popularity of Chuck Missler? He never identified himself as KJV-only, though that was the translation he used and he made a lot of the same arguments regarding the TR and CT. For years, from part of high school and part of college, I was for all intents and purposes KJV-only, though I always said I wasn't, primarily because I had listened to Missler's arguments about the TR, CT, and Westcott and Hort. I've since actually come to respect B.F. Westcott a lot, and have gone through his commentary on the book of Hebrews.
Boy… I don't know. I never hear his name mentioned. I feel like it's the ideas more than the figures. The ideas of KJV-Onlyism are sticky. They validated my existing practice and made me feel superior to other Christians. Those were appealing to me at the time.
@@markwardonwords that sounds like the argument for Calvinism too. I realize you don't want to poke the bear, but the overlap of "validation (identity) politics" with theology seems to me just as bad as biblical illiteracy.
@@Matthew-307 I wasn't asking if he was a kjv-onlyist. I already knew he wasn't. I was saying that he used the same arguments that KJV onlyists use which made me "for all intents and purposes" a kjv onlyist for a while. Please pay attention to what I say before replying.
"It's not English any more" is an invincible argument against KJV-Onlyism, it seems to me. With regard to the problem at issue here, we've just got to some serious Bible study with regard to the original languages. Hey, wait a minute, isn't that what we have to do in respect of an entire passage of Scripture?
There is nothing like seeing a kid who can barely read struggling with the AV to push you away from using the KJV in church. I love the translation, it's beautiful and familiar, but the modern plowboys needs take precedence here.
@@kevinshort2230 Yes, right! For me at nearly 70 only a few passages of Scripture are familiar in the AV - Psalm 23, for example. In other respects there's just so much in the Bible which I'm still discovering (although I read it all thirty years ago) that my pressing need is to understand it - and for that I need a modern translation. It's essential, surely?
Feast, my friend. Don't miss the comments: byfaithweunderstand.com/2019/08/18/are-there-critical-text-readings-in-the-nkjv-after-all-a-nerdy-and-detailed-response-to-a-set-of-fair-questions/
Could plural you be said as “you all” and singular be just “you “? That would only work for some instances. Not sure what to do for possessive plural “you”. Your alls? Haha.
Ok, soooooo....I'm a nerd, I got it the first time. I've always coceded to KJV Only advocates that modern English doesn't convey the difference between first & second person pronouns as well as the KJV does. Btw, here in the Deep South we have "you" (singular) and "y'all" (plural). Still waiting to find this distinction in a new translation.
I'm glad someone mentioned this. As a Northerner, i've always heard that "y'all" is singular and "all y'all" is plural! How 'bout a new translation - the BBB or Triple B (Billy Bob Bible)???
Quick thoughts.... NWT 1984 edition says "what persons” in 2 Tim 3:14. But the 2013 edition study notes endorses what Mark says using “whom” in 2 Timothy 3:14 and explains; "Timothy reasoned on what he had been taught by his mother, his grandmother, Paul, and others....” in the notes. And for Song Of Solomon 1:15 though not in the text, the NWT Study notes indentifies; “Shepherd” for v15 (You are beautiful, my beloved) and “Young woman” for vs16, 17.
You don't even need a note at 2 Timothy 3.14 to communicate that the relative pronoun is plural. You simply need to supply an additional demonstrative pronoun: NIV: you know those from whom you learned it, NCV: you trust those who taught you. NLT: you can trust those who taught you. CSB: You know those who taught you, And there are other options, of course, assuming that you're willing to change some parts of speech as needed: TEV: You know who your teachers were, NJB: remember who your teachers were, MSG: sure of the integrity of your teachers--
@@MAMoreno I always enjoy your input. True, no note is really needed. But the additional study notes are helpful to the readers and especially to those that translate the NWT into the other 100s of languages. I find it noteworthy that the original NWT uses a plural phrase in verse 14; "knowing from what persons you learned." I like that subtle 'edge' the older edition has.
A friendly amendment? You have asserted that English (and I suppose you mean any language) just is what its contemporary users (productively?) use. I think this may be too strong. It is a feature of languages in general (and especially languages with still-read literature from centuries past) that at least part of the language includes its archaic and obsolete forms, especially when these forms admit to frequent use in literary and religious texts in frequent use. I will admit that your evidence re: KJVO pastors' understanding of thou/thy/thee might suggest that this form is passing from archaic to unintelligible, but I don't think we are quite there yet. Said differently, it would seem that thou, etc., is active in the way besom is not, since readers and singers are not generally confused by, say, hymnody or poetry making use of these forms, even if they would not be able to produce the right form consistently. So, while we might say that thou is on its way out as part of contemporary English, it survives as an intelligible part of the English language.
Yes, this is all true. I don't disagree at all. Well stated, too. Of course, "besom" is in the KJV, which is in frequent use. But "besom" occurs only once, and "thou" occurs countless times-and not just in the KJV. So appearance in a commonly used text can help a word stick around, but it doesn't always.
Your comment aboutnhow Twitter debates never solve anything makes me wonder if a social media "debate" feature, that allowed a minimum number of rebuttals, and automatic disqualifications for ad hominem attacks would work. Nah. Probably not.
I have to say I like the many sells tactics that you have implode to win people over to your way of thinking. So, why not offer to be part of a translation process that includes KJVO to work together on this monumental translation it would be like the two groups that disagreed that ended up translating what they had into what is now called the KJV.
I have repeatedly done this. And I have made some headway. This is a long-term process. It needs major institutional backing to be worth doing, and to be done well. But I've made strides-and I do have friends "across the aisle" who are interested in this possibility.
@@markwardonwords I am sure that the KJV translators faced similar issues in there day and eventually they completed the work of the KJV. I am not nor ever will be against translating the Biblical corpus even though I will use the KJV and call it Gods Words I would be lying if I did not acknowledge passages like this 1 Corinthians 9:20 "And unto the Jew I become as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;" KJV This and the rest of the chapter lets me know in its context that translation is just one means of spreading the gospel about Jesus Christ.
I do believe that the singular/plural pronoun distinction is important, but it's not the only place where the NKJV changes the underlying text. Did you know that there are places where the NKJV actually censors God's Word? A couple of places where this occurs is in 1 Samuel 25:22 and in Ezekiel 16:25. There are other examples, but those should be enough to make the point. Not only is this a significant deviation from the source text and from the principle of formal equivalence, but the translators are literally deciding that they know better than the Holy Spirit what is appropriate for people studying His Word. When I found out about this, I considered it to be a major betrayal of my trust on the part of the translators. This issue alone should make the NKJV unfit for use, but other modern translations have set such a low bar that we often have to just make do with what we've got.
Friend, did you watch the video? The NKJV does not "change the underlying text" by translating it into contemporary English! And on those two passages you mention: can you represent the NKJV translators in words they would accept? Can you explain what they at least thought their motivations were? That is simple charity.
@@markwardonwords Yes, I did watch the video. Did you read my comment? If you think that all they're doing is translating the same words into contemporary English, then you should read the relevant passages much more closely. As for what the translators thought their motivations were, I can only assume that they were trying not to offend people; but they should be more interested in giving correct translation than with what people might think.
Have you made a video on the KJVER? It supposedly is word for word KJV except it replaces archaic words with modern ones and includes a plural or singular note for modern pronouns. It could be a bridge for KJVO believers. Or rather first step. 😅
Your color scheme is great, so your arguments must be true! Sorry, couldn’t resist the ad hominem in light of your popup;). Anyway love the grammatical nerd session…
I am no where close to KJVO, being Catholic. However, your assertion that Elizabethan English is "no longer English" is hard to swallow. So is Shakespeare now considered non-English literature? To restrict English to what is in "active use" can easily devolve into meaning that the dumbest people dictate the boundaries of the language. To me, any words that remain intelligible by reasonably educated English speakers, even if not often used, qualify as current English, and that goes for the KJV. You don't have to be KJVO to appreciate the comparative beauty and dignity of the KJV translation, and to acknowledge that the use of "ye" versus "you" conveys information lost in modern translations. Besides, the language of the KJV is for some deep psychological reason easier to memorize. The KJV also serves as a sort of common cultural patronage that no other English translation will ever achieve. KJVO, never, but long-live the KJV!
How many students can honestly read Shakespeare anymore? There's a reason why more and more editions of his plays come with a modernized text in a parallel column. It's English in one sense, but it's not truly the English that is in use today.
@@MAMoreno How many "students" can read the Internal Revenue Code? How about engineering specs? Are they not English either? You don't define what is English by the abilities of the poorly educated.
@@danieldoherty5034 So the Bible should require a graduate degree to understand on a basic level? Technical jargon is no more appropriate for a translation than Jacobean English is.
@@MAMoreno I thought we were talking about what is or is not "English" not who should be able to understand the Bible. For most of history, the vast majority of Christians were illiterate in all languages, so no Bible was understandable to them. If someone needs a dumbed-down translation, by all means they should feel free to buy one, I have no problem with that. My only bone to pick here is the video's relying on the assumption that Elizabethan (or Jacobean, if you like) English is not English, which I think is bordering on the ridiculous. Have a good one, @MAMoreno.
Middle English is a different language than Modern English. French is not Latin. Shakespeare will not be the same language as contemporary language at some point. You have to accept it. It's reality.
Ok, Song of Solomon's gender verbs be can't translated into English without brackets as to who is speaking, That is no argument to abandon the KJV. How many average people would be able to understand what repent, justified, atonement, propitiation, righteousness, forbearance means in the modern versions?
Some modern versions avoid the theological jargon you mentioned. But even if they don't, they're still using the English of the last two centuries elsewhere. It's like trying to compare the Richard Michie article "The Dynamics of Star Clusters" from 1964 with the Thomas Digges text "A Perfit Description of the Celestiall Orbs" from 1576. Yes, they're both about astronomy, and yes, they both contain technical terms, but they come from centuries apart, and it's obvious when you try to read them: *Mitchie:* Galactic clusters spend most of their time close to the plane of the galaxy. The average root mean square velocity of the cluster stars is only a few kilometers per second. Since the interstellar clouds are moving more rapidly, they have a lot more kinetic energy than the galactic clusters in their motion about the galactic center. (Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol. 2, p. 67) *Digges:* For the earth being round, into the which all weighty things an every side fall, making right angles on the superficies, must needs if they were not stayed on the superficies pass to the Center, seeing every right line the falleth perpendicularly upon the Horizon, in that place where it toucheth the earth must needs passe by the Center.
Why not use the NKJV or the MET? Jesus is reduced to a servant rather than the Son in Acts 3. Christians are in a state of being saved instead of have been saved. Jesus is indignant when healing a man instead of moved with compassion. In the MEV , Jesus doesn't think godliness can be obtained. This is all in the text itself. I do not have a problem with footnotes until they question the validity of Scripture. The NKJV does this often. So do they really follow the TR? No, they do not, although they may be closer than others. They are not the same. I am not opposed to a version that only updates some words. Changing besom to broom would be fine, although not necessary, since the context of the verse shows us a besom is a type of broom. There simply has not been a translation like that made.
We've begun to go round and round. Tim. I've answered all of these charges elsewhere. The best things I can encourage you to do are a) give grace to fellow believers who have the same Christology as you and don't interpret those NKJV and MEV passages in the way you do and b) keep watching my false friends videos so that you understand your KJV.
@@markwardonwords You asked a question and I simply answered it. My concerns with these versions are valid and I am sure others share my concern on these points. I appreciate your response. Like you, I am trying to educate people. I do not believe you should just accept what someone says without studying for yourself. I encourage people to check things for themselves and not to follow anyone blindly. Check out what I have said as I check what you say. I only want to honestly represent the other side and let people decide for themselves what they should believe. Without knowing what the major differences are, people get funnelled into one camp or the other. Extremes exit on both sides, so learn what is behind both doors before making a choice.
The difference between "child" and "servant" in Acts 3-4 reflects a disagreement over what part of the Hebrew Bible the apostles are intending to reference with the word they use in Greek. Jesus is the anointed one in the lineage of David from Psalm 2.2, whom God declared to be his son. This verse is even quoted in Acts 4. But Jesus is also the suffering servant of Isaiah 53.11, and it's certainly Isaiah 53 that informed their understanding that Christ had to suffer and die. In Acts 4.25, David is called God's παιδός (paidos), and in verse 27, Jesus is called God's παῖδά (paida). Naturally, it makes sense to translate them both with the same English word. John Wycliffe consistently translated them as "child." Modern translations usually translate both as "servant." The KJV is inconsistent. Translating it consistently makes sense either way, and it's possible to argue that both David and Jesus warrant the terms "son" and "servant" in some sense.
@@MAMoreno we know that Moses was a servant, but Jesus is greater than a servant. He is the Son. This is the first public announcement declaring Jesus since his resurrection. I am pretty sure they would want to preach Jesus as the Son to the Jews from everywhere, so they could all believe in Jesus for who he actually was.
@@timlemmon2332 Wait, surely you're not denying that the suffering servant figure mentioned in Isaiah is in some sense a prophecy of Jesus Christ? (I say "in some sense" because the servant also refers to exiled Israel itself in some sense, as indicated by verses such as Isaiah 41.8.) Otherwise, it's completely appropriate to call Jesus the servant of God, even if Jesus is also the Son of God. In Isaiah 52.13, which quickly leads into the chapter that discusses how the servant was "wounded for our transgressions," the Hebrew word is עֶבֶד (ebed). When עֶבֶד was translated into Greek, it became παῖς (pais), which is basically the word as παῖδά (paida) and παιδός (paidos) in Acts 4. (As you may know, the different endings simply indicate their grammatical case.) So that's a point in favor of using the word "servant" in Acts for both David and Jesus. However, we can't just ignore that Acts 4.25-26 quotes Psalm 2.1-2. As we know, God calls the king בְּנִ֥י (beni), "my son," in verse 7. So if the speakers in Acts 4.27 & 30 already have Psalm 2 in mind, they might be using παῖδά to mean "child" and not "servant." But there's one problem with that: the Greek translation of בְּנִ֥י in Psalm 2.7 is υἱός (huios), not παῖς. In fact, when Psalm 2.7 is quoted in Acts 13.33, the word used is υἱός. With this in mind, we see it's unlikely that Luke would use the word παῖδά in Acts 4 if he simply meant "son." Since we've established the likely meaning of παῖδά in Acts 4, we can safely assume that it means the same thing in Acts 3.13 & 26. And we can also say that it doesn't mean the exact same thing as the "servants" of Acts 4.29, as the word there is δούλοις (doulois), which more properly means "slaves." The word παῖς has the advantage of allowing for either meaning, "servant" or "child," depending on the context, and perhaps that ambiguity is purposeful. Thus, I'd argue that the best approach is to choose one word (probably "servant") for use in the main text and to place the other word (preferably "child") in the footnote as an alternate option. Such is the practice of the ASV, RSV, NASB, NRSV, ESV, and a few other versions. (See also the current edition of the Amplified Bible, which reads "Servant _and_ Son" in Acts 3.13, 26; 4.30.) That way, the range of possible meanings is represented.
The TR actually is incorrect in its translation in a few places. Use a more straight yardstick. Get to historical and literary Truth. Who declared the TR inerrant - it wasn't God!!
Question: Does the NKJV Change the TR? Response: 1. In the case of 1 Corinthians 11:27, the NKJV restores the conjunction ἢ (ē), translated into English as 'OR' as the conjunction in the first clause of this verse so that it reads "Therefore whoever eats this bread OR drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." 2. This restoration of the correct conjunction in 1 Corinthians 11:27 is in agreement with the two specific versions of the Textus Receptus and the Critical Text utilized by Dr. Ward in his KJV Parallel Bible website in Paragraphs 2 & 3, respectively on the About This Site webpage: A. Paragraph 2 states "The specific version of the Textus Receptus used by this site is Scrivener’s TR, an edition of the TR F.H.A. Scrivener made in 1881 to demonstrate the textual-critical choices made by the KJV translators." B. Paragraph 3 states "The specific version of the critical text used on this site is the Nestle-Aland 28, the current edition of the CT used by basically all major modern English Bible translations except the NKJV and MEV (which uses the same Greek text as the KJV)." C. To be redundant, both Scrivener's 1881 Textus Receptus and the Nestle-Aland 28 Critical Text employ the conjunction ἢ (ē), translated into English as 'OR' as the conjunction in the first clause of 1 Corinthians 11:27. 3. However, on the How To Use This Site page of his KJV Parallel Bible website, Dr. Ward does NOT employ either (A) the Scrivener's TR version or (B) the Nestle-Aland 28 CT version for 1 Corinthians 11:27, but rather the 1611 KJV translation that invents καὶ (kai) translated as 'AND' as the conjunction in the first clause of the verse. It appears that this followed the 1560 Geneva Bible translation conducted under the authority of John Calvin where it first originated in English. Previously, the three English translations of (A) Wycliffe's Bible, c. 1382-95, (B) Tyndale's Bible, c. 1522-35 and (C) The Great Bible, 1539 [first authorized edition of the Bible in English, authorized by King Henry VIII and prepared by Miles Coverdale] all employed 'OR' as the conjunction in the first clause of 1 Corinthians 11:27. 4. It would appear then that the answer to the question posed by the title of this youtube video is: A. NO, regarding the conjunction in the first sentence clause of 1 Corinthians 11:27 the NJKV did NOT change the TR nor the CT English translation but rather restored it, - and - (B) both the Geneva Bible and the KJV did change the TR translation of the conjunction in the first sentence clause of 1 Corinthians 11:27. 5. Why? Also, shouldn't there be at least a TR/CT clarification for this verse in Dr. Ward's KJV Parallel Bible website?
Greetings, Doctor Philologus: I'm jubilant that you are making your 'mark' with 'a ward on words' and NOT with 'a war on words.' Please permit me to temporarily become a 'ward' of your state of mind in this exchange of words, although I may become a 'marked' man in the process. 1. "What is the How to Use This Site page?" Response: That is the heading of the KJV Parallel Bible page whereby I accessed 1 Corinthians 11 and focused on the verse 27 that is in question. Your org website designates this page as /1-corinthians-11/ 2. "I'm struggling to follow the argument here, I'm afraid." Response: A. Courage, I would say that you are a brave man if your Mrs. resembled the flower girl Eliza Doolittle of Pygmalion & My Fair Lady, and you have crafted her into an eloquent purveyor of the English language. B. The immediate point in your struggle "to follow the argument" is that in both the TR and CT versions of verse 27, you have made no indication that the conjunction 'AND' in the first sentence clause deviates from the TR and CT that has the conjunction 'OR' which the NKJV rightly corrects. C. For the sake of philological accuracy on your website, shouldn't some mention be made that the KJV in this verse is at variance with both the TR and CT? 3. Which brings us to the 'Why?' question: A. Unlike Martin Luther who later gave his reasons for adding the word ALONE (in German 'Allein') to Romans 3:28 to read "For we hold that a man is justified by faith ALONE ('Allein')" in his 1522 German translation of the New Testament, NOT ONE TRANSLATOR of either the 1560 Geneva Bible or the 1611 King James Authorized Version ever gave a reason, let alone a mention, as to why the conjunction OR was replaced with AND in the first clause of 1 Corinthians 11:27. This is particularly curious since Miles Coverdale worked as a translator on both the 1560 Geneva Bible and the previous 1539 Great Bible, the latter containing the correct OR as the conjunction in the first clause 1 Cor 11:27. 4. Does it matter? That would depend upon your point of view. A. Perhaps the correct English translation could be readily interpreted in a manner that supports a meaning that jeopardizes your position. B. Take the verse in question, 1 Cor 11:27 as correctly translated in the NJKV: "Therefore whoever eats this bread OR drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body AND blood of the Lord." (1) Wouldn't that also mean if you ate the bread OR drank the cup of the Lord in a WORTHY manner, you would be INNOCENT of the body AND blood of the Lord? (2) Wouldn't that also mean that one could either receive the bread ALONE OR the drink the cup of the Lord ALONE in a WORTHY manner and be INNOCENT of the body AND blood of the Lord? (3) Could that also mean that one could receive Jesus Christ WHOLE and ENTIRE in either the bread OR the cup, in perhaps a reflection of when He says in John 6:51 (KJV) "...if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever..." C. However, in order to preclude an interpretation of 1 Cor 11:27 in this manner, did the translators of the 1560 Geneva Bible and 1611 KJV deliberately alter the text to reflect the teachings of (1) The Institutes of the Christian Religion of the Reformed Church of Geneva and (2) the 39 Articles of Religion of the Church of England, respectively? (1) Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Chapter 18, No. 1: "By these and similar inventions, Satan has attempted to adulterate and envelop the sacred Supper of Christ as with thick darkness, that its purity might not be preserved in the Church. But the head of this horrid abomination was, when he raised a sign by which it was not only obscured and perverted, but altogether obliterated and abolished, vanished away and disappeared from the memory of man-namely, when, with most pestilential error, he blinded almost the whole world into the belief that the Mass was a sacrifice and oblation for obtaining the remission of sins. I say nothing as to the way in which the sounder Schoolmen at first received this dogma.I leave them with their puzzling subtleties, which, however they may be defended by cavilling, are to be repudiated by all good men, because, all they do is to envelop the brightness of the Supper in great darkness. Bidding adieu to them, therefore, let my readers understand that I am here combating that opinion with which the ROMAN ANTICHRIST and his prophets have imbued the whole world- viz. that the mass is a work by which the priest who offers Christ, and the others who in the oblation receive him, gain merit with God, or that it is an expiatory victim by which they regain the favour of God. And this is not merely the common opinion of the vulgar, but the very act has been so arranged as to be a kind of propitiation, by which satisfaction is made to God for the living and the dead. This is also expressed by the words employed, and the same thing may be inferred from daily practice. I am aware how deeply this plague has struck its roots; under what a semblance of good it conceals its true character, bearing the name of Christ before it, and making many believe that under the single name of Mass is comprehended the whole sum of faith. But when it shall have been most clearly proved by the word of God, THAT THIS MASS, HOWEVER GLOSSED AND SPLENDID, OFFERS THE GREATEST INSULT TO CHRIST, suppresses and buries his cross, consigns his death to oblivion, takes away the benefit which it was designed to convey, enervates and dissipates the sacrament, by which the remembrance of his death was retained, will its roots be so deep that this most powerful axe, the word of God, will not cut it down and destroy it? Will any semblance be so specious that this light will not expose the lurking evil?" [Beveridge translation, P. 866, ntslibrary website, Institutes of the Christian Religion, pdf 874 of 944] (2) 39 Articles of Religion: (A) No. 28. Of the Lord's Supper: "Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions." (B) No. 30. Of Both Kinds: "The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people: for both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament, by Christ's ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike." [Church of England org website /prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/book-common-prayer/articles-religion#XXIX] 4. By the way, Doctor Philologus: A. PHILOLOGUS fĭ lŏl’ ə gəs (Φιλόλογος, G5807, a lover of learning, learned). The first of five Christians to whom Paul sent greetings (Rom 16:15). The group, of which Philologus was apparently the leader, formed another house church in Rome (vv. 5, 10, 11, 15). His name is coupled with that of Julia, who may have been his wife or possibly his sister. If they were a Christian couple, Nereus and his sister prob. were their children. [Bible Gateway website /resources/encyclopedia-of-the-bible/Philologus] B. Philologus of Sinope (Greek: Φιλόλογος ό Σινώπιος) is numbered among the Seventy Disciples, and is commemorated with them on January 4. He is also commemorated on November 5 together with Ss. Patrobas, Hermas, Linus, and Gaius. The Apostle Andrew consecrated St. Philologos (Romans 16:15) as bishop of Sinope, a city in the region of the Black Sea. [Wikipedia org website /wiki/Philologus_of_Sinope]
For the purposes of the KJV Parallel Bible, Scrivener’s TR and the NA28 don’t differ at this location, so I left the text alone. More later if I can manage it. I’m slammed with work.
1. Thanks for the courtesy of your reply. 2. But Scrivener's TR and the NA28 are in agreement that the conjunction in the first clause of 1 Cor 11:27 is OR rather than AND, yes? 3. And that these two authoritative sources are in agreement with the NKJV but not the KJV? 4. So that it is reasonable to ask that some mention should be made of this translation irregularity in your online KJV Parallel Bible? 5. May you have a Holy Advent season, along with some time to smell the poinsettias your Mrs. is caring for.
@@annakimborahpaThe words of institution short circuit your nonsense attempt to defend the abominable anti-apostolic, unorthodox practice of communion in only one kind. That you are GUILTY of both if you offend in part is no more requiring of the inverse than Paul saying that breaking a part of the law means breaking the whole also entails that keeping a part of the law would be keeping the whole! Cursed papist nonsense remains cursed papist nonsense. Go back to telling us how a king going INTO a gate and then the gate getti g shut is like a baby coming OUT his mother and then her remaining a virgin or some other drivel. Maybe you can argue about how the papacy is like the Sanhedrin that condemned Christ. That's one of my favorites.
I've admitted defeat. Truth is what I want. I've been convinced to abandon my original position to one that more accurately reflects the truth. From a KJVO position to a position away from it.
Sometimes, people in online debates do change their mind.
You’re right! And I pray I’ll do the same anywhere I’m wrong.
I admire courage like that. To change one's mind is a strength.. Akin to conviction.
You're taking to heart the words of Proverbs 15:32 - "He who disdains instruction despises his own soul, But he who heeds rebuke gets understanding."
It's not defeat, brother, it was a victory. You chose to follow the facts and good theology rather than man-made myths. That is always a victory, and progress.
But he is wrong
I grew up in King James Version. After much study I understand much that new Christians may not. I study in the NKJV. It is amazing though that when someone is quoting a different version I automatically quote in my mind the KJV. I do prefer Psalm in KJV as it’s more poetic.
I'm the same way! I still quote the KJV!
@@markwardonwords could you do a video about the erv? Easy to read version
You are right... All this "junk" (and I use that word for the lack of another word at the moment) doesn't make a hill of beans of difference. I work in the world with a lot of nasty unsaved folk. Each textual family will lead someone to a saving knowledge of Christ. The thing I have never heard anyone tell me (for the most part) is can a person get saved without using the TR???
I memorized things in totally random versions. So different verses are in different versions in my head.
Psalm 22 is KJV though. 😂
@@toomanymarys7355 Wow, even I haven't memorized all 31 verses pf that chapter!
I have never seen Twitter drama covered in such an elegant and stately manner.
Just doin' m' job! ;)
Such a wonderful video and I love the respectful responses to this very delicate dilemma for many. I became a Christian not too many years ago and was brought up under the KJV as a new disciple. Having discovered this channel and changing opinion on particular topics such as this, my family has now come to use the ESV in our general use and study. My wife and children in partiuclar appreciated the change very much. They used to tell me how difficult it was to follow the preacher or to read to themselves because of the nature of the language used in the KJV. While I personally still love and prefer to have a KJV at my desk for reading and study, I also have the ESV to read alongside my family and for helping interpret things that I may otherwise miss. Thank you brother for all that you do. Your channel has been a beautiful blessing to our family.
This is meaningful to me! Thank you!
I just am always impressed by your tone and gracious spirit in all your videos. Thank you!
Wow, thank you! Pray for me!
@@markwardonwordspraying for you my brother
The graphic at the 1:40 point in this video is really quite helpful. Really illustrates well that we are prone to oversimplify, ignoring other important informational elements. Kinda like the "which is the best Bible" question that fails to include which scale one would measure by.
Right!
Brilliant! Thank you. Yes, why not the NKJV?
Right!
because it’s not the KJV 😑 that’s really the only reason why they hate it. KJV idolatry is what it is, plain and simple.
I screenshotted one of your images and sent it to my pastor.
He replied "he has some good info. He has the gift of tongues".
I misread what he wrote and and thought, "I'll have to search his channel and watch that video"
A few moments later I got what he meant, haha. Just thought I'd fill you in so you could share that funny moment with us. Thanks Mark. :)
Ha! Nice!
I gotta say this "Twitter drama" screams spiritual maturity!
Thx Mark for your concerns for Textual truth. I'm currently 70 yrs old and for 42 of them have been a Christian. Having been down the translation gamut for many year's, I've finally came to a place of peace with this. And what brought this "rest" for me you mentioned @ 7:24 in this video. - "CONTEXT." - Conceptually for me context with collaborating co-text is a relative reality. Tack on to this another supporting witness such as a different text type in agreement would for me establish a correct corresponding action within itself. Covenant blessings to you.
Thank you!
Brother Mark,
A few days ago I found an obvious "false friend". It was new to me, so I searched on TH-cam, but found no info.
In Psalm 4:2, KJV, is the query, "How long will ye love vanity, and seek after LEASING?".
To modern ears, "leasing" sounds like a long-term rental contract, possibly with an option to purchase. To the KJV translators, it meant "lying, deception".
Some commentators describe it as having been "old English".
:--}>
Another one overlooked! The obvious word will trip you up because they’re not what you think they mean. A modern translation will reveal what you’ve been missing and make you look at the Bible with fresh eyes.
In this case… I haven't talked about this one because I'm assuming that most (?) readers will realize that long-term rental contracts simply can't be what the verse is talking about. I'd have to discover that, in fact, many readers were indeed suffering from this misunderstanding.
@@markwardonwordsAfter your last videos on what pastors don't understand about basic early modern English forms, I would no longer be surprised by anything.
@@toomanymarys7355 You're right.
So so good - I love it - I am also looking forward to a second edition (lord willing) of Authorized 🙂
Ha! Thank you!
My Dad was a pastor and preached from the KJV almost his entire life. He came from a KJVO background but had departed from that early on. But he still used the KJV because that is what he was familiar with and many in the congregation were KJVO. Anyway, I moved to the modern translations as a teenager and I would tease him about his sermons. I told him that half of his sermon was explaining what the KJV meant in modern English (essentially translating KJV English into modern English) and that his sermons would be much shorter if he only used a modern translation.
Or he'd have more space in his sermons for other good stuff if he didn't have to explain the older English!
I’ve seen KJVO advocates denounce the NKJV and deny that it even uses the TR because it has “critical text language” in it.
Admittedly, it took me a while to understand what they were talking about, but I believe it boils down to they don’t like translation decisions that deviate from the KJV translators’ choices in any way, even if the biblical passages in question have no differences between the TR and CT.
Right!
If you press them-and this has happened to me repeatedly, including yesterday-they either a) insist that they're right, that the NKJV is based on the critical text even if it says it isn't, or they b) retreat to the accurate but still misleading statement that the NKJV "uses the critical text" in the margins, in textual footnotes. Responsible KJV defenders know that the NKJV and MEV are based on the same TR as the KJV.
@markwardonwords I once read a KJO advocate state that ASV/RV rendering of 2 Ti 3:16 was due to the use of the "critical text." I was TR only or held to the Hodges/Farstead position at the time and knew better. It struck me that, if you didn't know Greek, you couldn't identify an error or what you call a false friend (something I of which I was aware) from a variant reading.
NKJV knocks Proverbs 8 out of the park. Great job there.
My nephew believes you're going to hell if you read the NKJV
Yeah I had a guy in a comment section try to use the argument “the nkjv attacks the deity of Christ”. I showed him Titus 2:13, 2 Pet 1:1, and Colossians 2:9 in the nkjv vs kjv. Aaaaand he just totally ignored it, totally didn’t even flinch. These people have their eyes closed, and have shut their ears. They literally are not capable of hearing arguments against their position, nor seeing the truth of the issue.
If you think KJV is better, the most honest position to me seems to be - "I prefer the KJV, and generally trust it more than modern translations as it has stood the test of time." I don't share that particular view, but I can certainly respect it more than some of the hyperbolic denunciations of modern translations or the near-deification of the KJV text itself.
Right!
I read multiple versions. If a particular verse strikes me I'll read it in multiple versions then I'll look up the original greek and Hebrew for each word and read commentary from people who were alive some hundreds of years ago. For example... commentary from the 1800s. I'll link the Bible app i use. As far as listening i listen to "The word of Promise" dramatized audio Bible.
Excellent video!! Subbed!
Thanks for the sub!
I always wondered where they got the he and she subheadings. I've never been KJVO, but now attend a church that is, not hard core, I think I've challenged the pastor. I like the KJV in church, but the pastor needs to know all the differences. I also just ordered Authorized from Amazon, so I can read it, and if the pastor wants more info, I'll have it on hand to give him, then I'll order a new one. Thanks.
Great! Be humble, and speak only to him about it (or other church leaders).
I believe the RV/ASV would exist in the blank bottom-left quadrant of your easy->hard "wrong"->"right" chart
Although not my go-to translation, I do like the NKJV, especially for the Psalms. I know of several confessional Lutheran pastors who actually prefer the NKJV over the more prevalent ESV now, in part because they prefer the TR, among other reasons.
More power to them! It's a good choice!
Thank you, Brother Mark🌹⭐🌹(I will 'splain you!!! Stealing that😎).
You are so welcome!
Dr. Ward, o enjoy your work and appreciate your kindness. I am a proud PCC grad, who no longer holds to a KJVO position. I had to chuckle when you mentioned, i believe in the collective series, seeing Dr. Dell Johnson's videos in high school. I sat in those chapels live. Though i no longer agree with Dr. Johnson, he was always a lovely man to be around, with a wonderful sense of humor.
I’m glad to hear this; pretty much all I know about Johnson comes from those videos. I can’t help but have a decidedly negative opinion. To me, the very worst thing he did was to put a stack of Bibles on one side of the pulpit, only one on the other (guess which one!), and proclaiming that only one came from the pure text. Where was the NKJV? Again, though, I’m glad to learn that KJV-Onlyism wasn’t the whole of the man.
I disagree with Dr. Johnson on the issue of Bible versions, but I agree that he was a kind and considerate person. When I was a lowly freshman at PCC walking in the rain with no umbrella, he graciously invited me to share his umbrella, and we walked across campus together. I also remember that the story of Zaccaeus was one of his favorite Bible stories (He was rather short of stature himself.) I will never forget seeing him climb on top of the pulpit to illustrate the story!
In my run ins with your adversary, I'd hardly classify him as "gracious." You're being kind.
I really have seen him be gracious repeatedly. But I don't deny your experience either.
What are your thoughts on Pentecost? I believe that since Christ quoted from the "lesser" septuigant and that the disciples were given the gift of speaking in many languages to spread the word, the biblical principle is that the message is more important than perfectly translated words in every aspect.
Its like Christ was perfect, obviously. But He got dirty, hungry, tired, etc. He didnt have to be completely perfect in all ways in order to actually be perfect. It was His message that was perfect, not every detail of His entire person
I guess an example of the "hard and wrong" text might be the nova vulgata. Translated from the critical text, but in Latin.
Have you heard of Eli Yoder? He came out of the Amish and got saved reading the NIV when he says he gave up trying to understand the KJV and left it to collect dust. He calls himself a "German speaking boy" due to their Amish dialect, but he couldn't actually understand hardly any of the "only authorized version" of the Bible in the Amish community which is Martin Luther's translation.
Wow! No, I am unfamiliar with this story.
@@markwardonwordsth-cam.com/video/oBIX1uXZHHs/w-d-xo.htmlfeature=shared
@@markwardonwordsthere's the link to the video where he talks about it. God bless.
@@salvadaXgraciaHe has a few nutty ideas you find in the fringes of the KJO circles, like Christmas trees being pagan, but he does have some good points too on living faith vs tradition.
In yesterday's Sunday school class the lesson was on John 2:1-12. The topic of alcohol came up. In making comments I referenced Deuteronomy 14:26. I noticed that "Strong drink" in the KJV is translated "Similar drink" in the NKJV; I think the NKJV dilutes the text there. The result? No change in my position. I will use both translations, as well as my NASB and the occasional CSB and NET.
Why did the NKJV translators make that revision? How would you go about finding out?
@@markwardonwords I went as far as only the Hebrew; but now that you've brought it up I am curious. I've just now noted that, while the KJV and NASB have "strong" drink and the NKJV has "similar" drink, the NET has "beer" with no explanation for their reasoning. I do have the New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis on my shelf; I could start there. I did wonder if the NKJV translators might have had some anti-alcohol bias and tempered the translation so as not to appear to give an endorsement of drinking. A left-field idea, but it did cross my mind.
@@markwardonwords Replied earlier, don't know why it's not showing up. I wondered if the NKJV might have an anti-alcohol bias that led the translators to soften the translation with "similar" rather than "strong," which the KJV, NASB, and ESV have; the NET and CSB have "beer." I have the New International Dictionary of Theology and Exegesis I could look at, but that isn't going to tell me what the NKJV translators were thinking.
@@charlesf2804NIDOTTE may in fact tell you! I feel 100% confident that your guess is incorrect. Keep studying!
@@charlesf2804 Most likely, the translators of the NKJV simply thought, "Wouldn't wine be considered a 'strong drink' itself?" Thus, they phrased it to indicate that the second word means "other alcoholic beverages that are not wine." In Proverbs 20.1 and Isaiah 24.9, where the two terms are used in parallel clauses rather than in a simple list of items, the translators kept the term "strong drink," so it does seem to be a stylistic choice (albeit an inconsistent one if you start looking at every place where the term for "strong drink" is mentioned; they also call it "intoxicating drink" and "fermented drink' at times!).
The word may mean "beer" in particular (as in CEV, CSB, CEB) or alcoholic drinks more broadly. Here's a longer treatment of the term in question from Jacob Milgrom's Leviticus commentary in the Anchor Bible series (Yale UP, 1998, pp. 611-612):
*ale (sekar). Some claim that it is a synonym for wine and that, therefore, **_yayin wesekar_** form a hendiadys... But **_sekar_** occurs in two other P passages in which it is clearly not to be identified with wine. First, the prohibition of intoxicants to Nazirites includes... ‘vinegar of wine or of sekar ’ (Num 6.3), where wine and **_sekar_** must be taken as discrete substances and, second, the use of **_sekar_** ... ‘to be poured in the shrine as a sekar libation to the Lord’ (Num 28.7b) clearly indicates that **_sekar_** can stand alone, independent of wine...*
*The identification of **_sekar_** is not completely certain. Tg. Ps.-J. renders “anything intoxicating” and, in the same vein, Ibn Ezra suggests intoxicants from substances other than grapes, which he specifies as wheat, dates, or honey. Nevertheless, the most likely candidate is beer or ale because of the Akk. cognate **_sikaru_** and its prevalent use in the cult throughout the ancient Near East.*
I will admit that I do prefer the Textus Receptus due to it spawning my favorite Bibles (NKJV, MEV, KJV). Granted, my first Bible was an NIV and I also like the Greek Septuagint. However, I do believe it doesn't help to be a KJV only person. You miss so much of the wonderful work scholars have done to make the Bible more readable. Especially if you are not a native English speaker like me, it is almost impossible to read the KJV at first. I eventually did manage to learn the language and will forever be happy for it but the KJV - despite its beautiful use of language - is kind of hard to understand. I prefer the NKJV. It lacks the poetic language from the KJV but has a nice rhythm to the words that many gloss over and some Bibles lack. I still strongly support the idea that modern translations are a blessing... except the New world "translation".
I propose, in accordance with contemporary English, we use “You guys” as a second person plural pronoun in our Bible translations:
“Do not marvel that I said to you that you guys must be saved” (John 3:7)
“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you guys, that he might sift you guys like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.”
(Luke 22:31-32)
Ha, yes!
Interesting thought.... I wonder how long it would take before we have a discussion about keeping it gender neutral, in a similar sense to what I've seen concerning the word "brethren" vs "brothers and sisters" e.g. guys and gals.
Might not the 1901 ASV or the Darby translation be in the bottom left quadrant (in their view)? Not that it matters so much I guess.
Yeah, that's actually a really good point! My overall point-that no one is advocating for any translation in that quadrant-still stands. But there *are* translations in that quadrant. Good catch.
Or something like the NASB or another literal translation with less respect for English's word order.
@@DrGero15 Well, that criticism could be directed at the NKJV, too. There is no major "readable" translation based on the Textus Receptus.
Did the flotsam and jetsam go over the transom? 😊
Love it!
Modern English speakers work around the 2nd person singular/plural ambiguity of "you" by using such conventions as "you all." I wonder if anyone will advocate using "you all" in Bible translations! Given that such usage tends to differ across regional dialects, probably not.
Good point. In Texas we say, "Ya'll."
As a West Texan, I'd endorse a "Ya'll" translation!
Some translations do use some sortof incidator when the second person plural actually matters. I also read the Bible in Chinese a lot and there it just isn't a problem.
I think you shoulds change the verb ending for the second person pronoun instead so you woulds know who was being addressed. I hope you likes my suggestion!
@@ianholloway3778 It's fine with me if it's fine with youse guys.
Another great video from Mark Ward!
Just out of curiosity, I wonder how many numbers* of Christians today would identify as KJV Only? I don't know for sure, but I imagine there may be a higher number of KJVO in, say, fundamentalist Baptist circles than most other circles. But are there also a high number of KJVO in other circles or camps or denominations as well?
For example, I'm in the Reformed and conservative evangelical camp (like Mark Ward is), where it seems to me the ESV is the primary (not the only) translation of choice. There doesn't seem to be a large number of KJVO in the Reformed world - at least as far as I'm aware, but I could easily be wrong.
What, if any, data exist on the number of KJVO in various Christian circles or denominations (e.g. fundamentalist Baptist, Reformed, broadly conservative evangelical, broadly progressive evangelicals)? Plus other questions like if KJVO is fading away across the generations or if it's unchanged or even growing (e.g. is KJVO more prevalent among Boomers than Zoomers?).
In short, what's the *incidence* (new cases) as well as the *prevalence* (existing cases) of KJVO across various Christian groups?
* Of course, a movement like KJVO can be small in numbers but big in influence, big in numbers but small in influence, etc. But I only focus on numbers since that's a more quantifiable measure than influence which seems to be a more qualitative measure and as such probably more challenging to assess.
Tim Berg and I were talking about this yet again today. We’re really not sure what to say. We feel confident that there are thousands (ten thousand??) of KJV-Only churches and therefore hundreds of thousands of KJV-Only individuals. We’d love for the Pew Research Center to do a survey and give us a figure.
Thanks, good sir! 😊 I suspect it's also thousands or more like you said. I don't know if Pew would care enough to do it, but I wonder if Christian organizations like Christianity Today, a big Bible publishing company like Lifeway, or a ministry like Ligonier which does their annual State of Theology might be find it worth their while to do it? Or if you might have any pull with the Logos powers that be to persuade them? Sorry just completing thinking off the top of my head, maybe what I've said is unrealistic or impractical or something...
@markwardonwords It's hard to say how fast the shrink is. I noticed after leaving the formal IFB for the SBC, I wasn't the only one making that move, and the KJO issue was one reason for that move (for me, it was a difficult decision). ,
KJO arguments in modern English clearly makes the opposing point.
Which versions besides the KJV use the TR as their NT basis?
NKJV and MEV are the most prominent in English.
@markwardonwords thanks so much! I can't seem to find MEVs in any numbers. Is there a good reason why this translation never got popular?
Isn't "harpazo" the word we translate as "rapture" typically?
Yes!
Correct, and we get the word “rapture” from the Latin Vulgate translation, the word there is rapturo. People always say “the word rapture isn’t in the Bible”, when actually it is.
Hey Mark, I have an idea that I believe can get KJV only Christians and Christians who prefer modern translations on the same page. Unfortunately for me, I don't exactly have a line to Bible publishers. Could I run it by you or do you know anyone I could reach out to about my idea?
Sure! Byfaithweunderstand.Com/contact
@@markwardonwords Cool! Just sent it. Hope you got it!
I’m more curious what “also our bed is green” has anything to do with anything than who’s talking
The Good News Bible clarifies the metaphor: "The green grass will be our bed."
I thought the same!
@@MAMoreno that’s even weirder.
Could you help me know if the erv is a good transition? I really like it but am having trouble knowing if it’s true to GOD. I’m particularly wondering about proverbs 23:29-30. I know this has nothing with the vid but am seeking help because theres not much on this translation
If you like the Easy-to-Read Version, you might consider the New Century Version. They both trace back to the original English Version for the Deaf, as does the International Children's Bible. But the NCV is generally considered to be the best incarnation of this family of translations. Here is the passage you mentioned in these three versions.
Prov. 23.29-30 ERV
Who gets into fights and arguments? Who gets hurt for no reason and has red, bloodshot eyes? People who stay out too late drinking wine, staring into their strong drinks.
Prov. 23.29-30 ICB
Some people drink too much wine.
They try out all the different kinds of drinks.
So they have trouble. They are sad.
They fight. They complain.
They have unnecessary bruises.
They have bloodshot eyes.
Prov. 23.29-30 NCV
Who has trouble? Who has pain?
Who fights? Who complains?
Who has unnecessary bruises?
Who has bloodshot eyes?
It is people who drink too much wine,
who try out all different kinds of strong drinks.
And here's a somewhat critical review of these translations: www.bible-researcher.com/ncv.html
@@MAMoreno do you think they translated it differently because of different manuscripts? In the erv pro 23:29-30
@@Naturalyieldscompany I don't see anything here that would require an alternate reading in the Hebrew text. What exactly do you think is different about the ERV here?
@@MAMoreno it looks like they took out who has sorrow and the part where they spend time mixing drinks
@@MAMoreno I really wanna like the erv but feel like this one passage is so far off, I could be wrong. And if so please prove it
Harpazo is the greek word pre-mill pre-tribs obsess over. I see their harpazo, and I raise them a parousia.
Obsess? How so?
I won't say they obsess over it. And that word is not just relevant to pre tribbers. Not does pre mil only hold hands with pre trib.
@@Philisnotretiredἁρπάζω is to be snatched away, it is used to refer to the rapture of the church. But it relevant to all rapture views, not just pre trib as the op wrote.
Wanna hear my cheesy pictograph for harpazo? (You gotta picture the clip art images.)
Harp (as in heaven stereotype)
Pods (as in Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Get it? Seize or snatch?)
O! (As in surprise!)
Here's a little more on the Greek word... th-cam.com/video/0MRc3mqF248/w-d-xo.htmlsi=5ylcqtVFksdunZUw
Texti Recepti, that’s funny
There's editions of the Bible where the KJV is one column and the NKJV or the MEV in another. These editions can help people understand the KJV.
✔
Yup, and there's a Thomas Nelson KJV that defines most of the archaic words in the footnotes. A very helpful tool. Unfortunately, the most extreme KJV-Onlyists discourage buying KJVs with footnotes.
@@curtthegamer934 I have copies of the KJV in my personal library which have helps such as this. The copy I have of the KJVER (Whitaker House) has a similar system of helps.
The problem is that they don’t know they’re misunderstanding it….
The strongest argument against KJVO to me is Daniel 8:14. They clearly changed the words in the bible. Erev Boqer are Evening Morning, NOT "Yamim" or "Days". Erev and Boqer are sigular and get changed to plural days.
Also daniel 8:14 is not talking about evening morning of a day, but its a reference to the daily sacrifices given in the evening and morning, noted in numbers 28, exodus 29, and Ezra 3.
This error in the 1611KJV turns daniel into a false prophet because the Daily was only stopped for about 1150 days, half of 2300 days.
I debate all the time on Daniel 8 as proof the bible is a prophetic book.
It seems the KJB was a fine translation and remains so but but but it’s translating to an archaic English.
Hey have u heard of the Simplified KJV bible
Do you think the popularity of KJV-onlyism comes from the popularity of Chuck Missler? He never identified himself as KJV-only, though that was the translation he used and he made a lot of the same arguments regarding the TR and CT. For years, from part of high school and part of college, I was for all intents and purposes KJV-only, though I always said I wasn't, primarily because I had listened to Missler's arguments about the TR, CT, and Westcott and Hort. I've since actually come to respect B.F. Westcott a lot, and have gone through his commentary on the book of Hebrews.
Boy… I don't know. I never hear his name mentioned. I feel like it's the ideas more than the figures. The ideas of KJV-Onlyism are sticky. They validated my existing practice and made me feel superior to other Christians. Those were appealing to me at the time.
@@markwardonwords that sounds like the argument for Calvinism too. I realize you don't want to poke the bear, but the overlap of "validation (identity) politics" with theology seems to me just as bad as biblical illiteracy.
@@Matthew-307 I wasn't asking if he was a kjv-onlyist. I already knew he wasn't. I was saying that he used the same arguments that KJV onlyists use which made me "for all intents and purposes" a kjv onlyist for a while. Please pay attention to what I say before replying.
"It's not English any more" is an invincible argument against KJV-Onlyism, it seems to me. With regard to the problem at issue here, we've just got to some serious Bible study with regard to the original languages. Hey, wait a minute, isn't that what we have to do in respect of an entire passage of Scripture?
Right!
There is nothing like seeing a kid who can barely read struggling with the AV to push you away from using the KJV in church. I love the translation, it's beautiful and familiar, but the modern plowboys needs take precedence here.
@@kevinshort2230 as long as it's spelt 'ploughboy', I agree!
@@kevinshort2230 Yes, right! For me at nearly 70 only a few passages of Scripture are familiar in the AV - Psalm 23, for example. In other respects there's just so much in the Bible which I'm still discovering (although I read it all thirty years ago) that my pressing need is to understand it - and for that I need a modern translation. It's essential, surely?
I was expecting quibbles regarding the few places where the nkjv seems to match the CT. I was disappointed lol
Feast, my friend. Don't miss the comments: byfaithweunderstand.com/2019/08/18/are-there-critical-text-readings-in-the-nkjv-after-all-a-nerdy-and-detailed-response-to-a-set-of-fair-questions/
For the algorithm
Could plural you be said as “you all” and singular be just “you “? That would only work for some instances. Not sure what to do for possessive plural “you”. Your alls? Haha.
Ok, soooooo....I'm a nerd, I got it the first time. I've always coceded to KJV Only advocates that modern English doesn't convey the difference between first & second person pronouns as well as the KJV does. Btw, here in the Deep South we have "you" (singular) and "y'all" (plural). Still waiting to find this distinction in a new translation.
Right!
Could just write you all without the contraction.
I'm glad someone mentioned this. As a Northerner, i've always heard that "y'all" is singular and "all y'all" is plural! How 'bout a new translation - the BBB or Triple B (Billy Bob Bible)???
Quick thoughts.... NWT 1984 edition says "what persons” in 2 Tim 3:14. But the 2013 edition study notes endorses what Mark says using “whom” in 2 Timothy 3:14 and explains; "Timothy reasoned on what he had been taught by his mother, his grandmother, Paul, and others....” in the notes.
And for Song Of Solomon 1:15 though not in the text, the NWT Study notes indentifies; “Shepherd” for v15 (You are beautiful, my beloved) and “Young woman” for vs16, 17.
You don't even need a note at 2 Timothy 3.14 to communicate that the relative pronoun is plural. You simply need to supply an additional demonstrative pronoun:
NIV: you know those from whom you learned it,
NCV: you trust those who taught you.
NLT: you can trust those who taught you.
CSB: You know those who taught you,
And there are other options, of course, assuming that you're willing to change some parts of speech as needed:
TEV: You know who your teachers were,
NJB: remember who your teachers were,
MSG: sure of the integrity of your teachers--
@@MAMoreno I always enjoy your input. True, no note is really needed. But the additional study notes are helpful to the readers and especially to those that translate the NWT into the other 100s of languages. I find it noteworthy that the original NWT uses a plural phrase in verse 14; "knowing from what persons you learned." I like that subtle 'edge' the older edition has.
time to use "y'all"
I can't believe Mark could use such vulgar language! Flotsam and jetsam? What if a child was around to hear this!
Ha! ;)
A friendly amendment? You have asserted that English (and I suppose you mean any language) just is what its contemporary users (productively?) use. I think this may be too strong. It is a feature of languages in general (and especially languages with still-read literature from centuries past) that at least part of the language includes its archaic and obsolete forms, especially when these forms admit to frequent use in literary and religious texts in frequent use. I will admit that your evidence re: KJVO pastors' understanding of thou/thy/thee might suggest that this form is passing from archaic to unintelligible, but I don't think we are quite there yet. Said differently, it would seem that thou, etc., is active in the way besom is not, since readers and singers are not generally confused by, say, hymnody or poetry making use of these forms, even if they would not be able to produce the right form consistently. So, while we might say that thou is on its way out as part of contemporary English, it survives as an intelligible part of the English language.
Yes, this is all true. I don't disagree at all. Well stated, too. Of course, "besom" is in the KJV, which is in frequent use. But "besom" occurs only once, and "thou" occurs countless times-and not just in the KJV. So appearance in a commonly used text can help a word stick around, but it doesn't always.
Your comment aboutnhow Twitter debates never solve anything makes me wonder if a social media "debate" feature, that allowed a minimum number of rebuttals, and automatic disqualifications for ad hominem attacks would work.
Nah. Probably not.
Ha! I wish!
I have to say I like the many sells tactics that you have implode to win people over to your way of thinking. So, why not offer to be part of a translation process that includes KJVO to work together on this monumental translation it would be like the two groups that disagreed that ended up translating what they had into what is now called the KJV.
I have repeatedly done this. And I have made some headway. This is a long-term process. It needs major institutional backing to be worth doing, and to be done well. But I've made strides-and I do have friends "across the aisle" who are interested in this possibility.
@@markwardonwords I am sure that the KJV translators faced similar issues in there day and eventually they completed the work of the KJV. I am not nor ever will be against translating the Biblical corpus even though I will use the KJV and call it Gods Words I would be lying if I did not acknowledge passages like this 1 Corinthians 9:20 "And unto the Jew I become as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;" KJV This and the rest of the chapter lets me know in its context that translation is just one means of spreading the gospel about Jesus Christ.
@@markwardonwordsIf you do, I may email you a list of verses that are often botched in translation. 😂 As in, please don't mess this up!!!
I do believe that the singular/plural pronoun distinction is important, but it's not the only place where the NKJV changes the underlying text. Did you know that there are places where the NKJV actually censors God's Word? A couple of places where this occurs is in 1 Samuel 25:22 and in Ezekiel 16:25. There are other examples, but those should be enough to make the point. Not only is this a significant deviation from the source text and from the principle of formal equivalence, but the translators are literally deciding that they know better than the Holy Spirit what is appropriate for people studying His Word. When I found out about this, I considered it to be a major betrayal of my trust on the part of the translators.
This issue alone should make the NKJV unfit for use, but other modern translations have set such a low bar that we often have to just make do with what we've got.
Friend, did you watch the video? The NKJV does not "change the underlying text" by translating it into contemporary English!
And on those two passages you mention: can you represent the NKJV translators in words they would accept? Can you explain what they at least thought their motivations were? That is simple charity.
@@markwardonwords Yes, I did watch the video. Did you read my comment? If you think that all they're doing is translating the same words into contemporary English, then you should read the relevant passages much more closely.
As for what the translators thought their motivations were, I can only assume that they were trying not to offend people; but they should be more interested in giving correct translation than with what people might think.
Have you made a video on the KJVER? It supposedly is word for word KJV except it replaces archaic words with modern ones and includes a plural or singular note for modern pronouns. It could be a bridge for KJVO believers. Or rather first step. 😅
I would really like to do this! I'm hoping to do this! I just need time!
I have the KJVER, it is a very interesting translation. I think they did a great job.
Your color scheme is great, so your arguments must be true!
Sorry, couldn’t resist the ad hominem in light of your popup;). Anyway love the grammatical nerd session…
🤓
I am no where close to KJVO, being Catholic. However, your assertion that Elizabethan English is "no longer English" is hard to swallow. So is Shakespeare now considered non-English literature? To restrict English to what is in "active use" can easily devolve into meaning that the dumbest people dictate the boundaries of the language. To me, any words that remain intelligible by reasonably educated English speakers, even if not often used, qualify as current English, and that goes for the KJV. You don't have to be KJVO to appreciate the comparative beauty and dignity of the KJV translation, and to acknowledge that the use of "ye" versus "you" conveys information lost in modern translations. Besides, the language of the KJV is for some deep psychological reason easier to memorize. The KJV also serves as a sort of common cultural patronage that no other English translation will ever achieve. KJVO, never, but long-live the KJV!
How many students can honestly read Shakespeare anymore? There's a reason why more and more editions of his plays come with a modernized text in a parallel column. It's English in one sense, but it's not truly the English that is in use today.
@@MAMoreno How many "students" can read the Internal Revenue Code? How about engineering specs? Are they not English either? You don't define what is English by the abilities of the poorly educated.
@@danieldoherty5034 So the Bible should require a graduate degree to understand on a basic level? Technical jargon is no more appropriate for a translation than Jacobean English is.
@@MAMoreno I thought we were talking about what is or is not "English" not who should be able to understand the Bible. For most of history, the vast majority of Christians were illiterate in all languages, so no Bible was understandable to them. If someone needs a dumbed-down translation, by all means they should feel free to buy one, I have no problem with that. My only bone to pick here is the video's relying on the assumption that Elizabethan (or Jacobean, if you like) English is not English, which I think is bordering on the ridiculous. Have a good one, @MAMoreno.
Middle English is a different language than Modern English.
French is not Latin.
Shakespeare will not be the same language as contemporary language at some point. You have to accept it. It's reality.
Ok, Song of Solomon's gender verbs be can't translated into English without brackets as to who is speaking,
That is no argument to abandon the KJV.
How many average people would be able to understand what repent, justified, atonement, propitiation, righteousness, forbearance means in the modern versions?
All those words are in modern versions. I’m not sure I get your point.
Some modern versions avoid the theological jargon you mentioned. But even if they don't, they're still using the English of the last two centuries elsewhere. It's like trying to compare the Richard Michie article "The Dynamics of Star Clusters" from 1964 with the Thomas Digges text "A Perfit Description of the Celestiall Orbs" from 1576. Yes, they're both about astronomy, and yes, they both contain technical terms, but they come from centuries apart, and it's obvious when you try to read them:
*Mitchie:* Galactic clusters spend most of their time close to the plane of the galaxy. The average root mean square velocity of the cluster stars is only a few kilometers per second. Since the interstellar clouds are moving more rapidly, they have a lot more kinetic energy than the galactic clusters in their motion about the galactic center. (Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol. 2, p. 67)
*Digges:* For the earth being round, into the which all weighty things an every side fall, making right angles on the superficies, must needs if they were not stayed on the superficies pass to the Center, seeing every right line the falleth perpendicularly upon the Horizon, in that place where it toucheth the earth must needs passe by the Center.
Why not use the NKJV or the MET? Jesus is reduced to a servant rather than the Son in Acts 3. Christians are in a state of being saved instead of have been saved. Jesus is indignant when healing a man instead of moved with compassion. In the MEV , Jesus doesn't think godliness can be obtained. This is all in the text itself. I do not have a problem with footnotes until they question the validity of Scripture. The NKJV does this often. So do they really follow the TR? No, they do not, although they may be closer than others. They are not the same. I am not opposed to a version that only updates some words. Changing besom to broom would be fine, although not necessary, since the context of the verse shows us a besom is a type of broom. There simply has not been a translation like that made.
We've begun to go round and round. Tim. I've answered all of these charges elsewhere. The best things I can encourage you to do are a) give grace to fellow believers who have the same Christology as you and don't interpret those NKJV and MEV passages in the way you do and b) keep watching my false friends videos so that you understand your KJV.
@@markwardonwords You asked a question and I simply answered it. My concerns with these versions are valid and I am sure others share my concern on these points. I appreciate your response. Like you, I am trying to educate people. I do not believe you should just accept what someone says without studying for yourself. I encourage people to check things for themselves and not to follow anyone blindly. Check out what I have said as I check what you say. I only want to honestly represent the other side and let people decide for themselves what they should believe. Without knowing what the major differences are, people get funnelled into one camp or the other. Extremes exit on both sides, so learn what is behind both doors before making a choice.
The difference between "child" and "servant" in Acts 3-4 reflects a disagreement over what part of the Hebrew Bible the apostles are intending to reference with the word they use in Greek. Jesus is the anointed one in the lineage of David from Psalm 2.2, whom God declared to be his son. This verse is even quoted in Acts 4. But Jesus is also the suffering servant of Isaiah 53.11, and it's certainly Isaiah 53 that informed their understanding that Christ had to suffer and die.
In Acts 4.25, David is called God's παιδός (paidos), and in verse 27, Jesus is called God's παῖδά (paida). Naturally, it makes sense to translate them both with the same English word. John Wycliffe consistently translated them as "child." Modern translations usually translate both as "servant." The KJV is inconsistent. Translating it consistently makes sense either way, and it's possible to argue that both David and Jesus warrant the terms "son" and "servant" in some sense.
@@MAMoreno we know that Moses was a servant, but Jesus is greater than a servant. He is the Son. This is the first public announcement declaring Jesus since his resurrection. I am pretty sure they would want to preach Jesus as the Son to the Jews from everywhere, so they could all believe in Jesus for who he actually was.
@@timlemmon2332 Wait, surely you're not denying that the suffering servant figure mentioned in Isaiah is in some sense a prophecy of Jesus Christ? (I say "in some sense" because the servant also refers to exiled Israel itself in some sense, as indicated by verses such as Isaiah 41.8.) Otherwise, it's completely appropriate to call Jesus the servant of God, even if Jesus is also the Son of God.
In Isaiah 52.13, which quickly leads into the chapter that discusses how the servant was "wounded for our transgressions," the Hebrew word is עֶבֶד (ebed). When עֶבֶד was translated into Greek, it became παῖς (pais), which is basically the word as παῖδά (paida) and παιδός (paidos) in Acts 4. (As you may know, the different endings simply indicate their grammatical case.) So that's a point in favor of using the word "servant" in Acts for both David and Jesus.
However, we can't just ignore that Acts 4.25-26 quotes Psalm 2.1-2. As we know, God calls the king בְּנִ֥י (beni), "my son," in verse 7. So if the speakers in Acts 4.27 & 30 already have Psalm 2 in mind, they might be using παῖδά to mean "child" and not "servant." But there's one problem with that: the Greek translation of בְּנִ֥י in Psalm 2.7 is υἱός (huios), not παῖς. In fact, when Psalm 2.7 is quoted in Acts 13.33, the word used is υἱός. With this in mind, we see it's unlikely that Luke would use the word παῖδά in Acts 4 if he simply meant "son."
Since we've established the likely meaning of παῖδά in Acts 4, we can safely assume that it means the same thing in Acts 3.13 & 26. And we can also say that it doesn't mean the exact same thing as the "servants" of Acts 4.29, as the word there is δούλοις (doulois), which more properly means "slaves." The word παῖς has the advantage of allowing for either meaning, "servant" or "child," depending on the context, and perhaps that ambiguity is purposeful.
Thus, I'd argue that the best approach is to choose one word (probably "servant") for use in the main text and to place the other word (preferably "child") in the footnote as an alternate option. Such is the practice of the ASV, RSV, NASB, NRSV, ESV, and a few other versions. (See also the current edition of the Amplified Bible, which reads "Servant _and_ Son" in Acts 3.13, 26; 4.30.) That way, the range of possible meanings is represented.
The TR actually is incorrect in its translation in a few places. Use a more straight yardstick. Get to historical and literary Truth. Who declared the TR inerrant - it wasn't God!!
The TR isn't a translation; I'm not following you!
I’m sure that you don’t know what you saying about the NKJV
Anything in particular from the video that gave you this impression?
Question: Does the NKJV Change the TR?
Response:
1. In the case of 1 Corinthians 11:27, the NKJV restores the conjunction ἢ (ē), translated into English as 'OR' as the conjunction in the first clause of this verse so that it reads "Therefore whoever eats this bread OR drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord."
2. This restoration of the correct conjunction in 1 Corinthians 11:27 is in agreement with the two specific versions of the Textus Receptus and the Critical Text utilized by Dr. Ward in his KJV Parallel Bible website in Paragraphs 2 & 3, respectively on the About This Site webpage:
A. Paragraph 2 states "The specific version of the Textus Receptus used by this site is Scrivener’s TR, an edition of the TR F.H.A. Scrivener made in 1881 to demonstrate the textual-critical choices made by the KJV translators."
B. Paragraph 3 states "The specific version of the critical text used on this site is the Nestle-Aland 28, the current edition of the CT used by basically all major modern English Bible translations except the NKJV and MEV (which uses the same Greek text as the KJV)."
C. To be redundant, both Scrivener's 1881 Textus Receptus and the Nestle-Aland 28 Critical Text employ the conjunction ἢ (ē), translated into English as 'OR' as the conjunction in the first clause of 1 Corinthians 11:27.
3. However, on the How To Use This Site page of his KJV Parallel Bible website, Dr. Ward does NOT employ either (A) the Scrivener's TR version or (B) the Nestle-Aland 28 CT version for 1 Corinthians 11:27, but rather the 1611 KJV translation that invents καὶ (kai) translated as 'AND' as the conjunction in the first clause of the verse. It appears that this followed the 1560 Geneva Bible translation conducted under the authority of John Calvin where it first originated in English. Previously, the three English translations of (A) Wycliffe's Bible, c. 1382-95, (B) Tyndale's Bible, c. 1522-35 and (C) The Great Bible, 1539 [first authorized edition of the Bible in English, authorized by King Henry VIII and prepared by Miles Coverdale] all employed 'OR' as the conjunction in the first clause of 1 Corinthians 11:27.
4. It would appear then that the answer to the question posed by the title of this youtube video is:
A. NO, regarding the conjunction in the first sentence clause of 1 Corinthians 11:27 the NJKV did NOT change the TR nor the CT English translation but rather restored it,
- and -
(B) both the Geneva Bible and the KJV did change the TR translation of the conjunction in the first sentence clause of 1 Corinthians 11:27.
5. Why? Also, shouldn't there be at least a TR/CT clarification for this verse in Dr. Ward's KJV Parallel Bible website?
I'm struggling to follow the argument here, I'm afraid. What is the How to Use This Site page?
Greetings, Doctor Philologus:
I'm jubilant that you are making your 'mark' with 'a ward on words' and NOT with 'a war on words.' Please permit me to temporarily become a 'ward' of your state of mind in this exchange of words, although I may become a 'marked' man in the process.
1. "What is the How to Use This Site page?"
Response:
That is the heading of the KJV Parallel Bible page whereby I accessed 1 Corinthians 11 and focused on the verse 27 that is in question. Your org website designates this page as /1-corinthians-11/
2. "I'm struggling to follow the argument here, I'm afraid."
Response:
A. Courage, I would say that you are a brave man if your Mrs. resembled the flower girl Eliza Doolittle of Pygmalion & My Fair Lady, and you have crafted her into an eloquent purveyor of the English language.
B. The immediate point in your struggle "to follow the argument" is that in both the TR and CT versions of verse 27, you have made no indication that the conjunction 'AND' in the first sentence clause deviates from the TR and CT that has the conjunction 'OR' which the NKJV rightly corrects.
C. For the sake of philological accuracy on your website, shouldn't some mention be made that the KJV in this verse is at variance with both the TR and CT?
3. Which brings us to the 'Why?' question:
A. Unlike Martin Luther who later gave his reasons for adding the word ALONE (in German 'Allein') to Romans 3:28 to read "For we hold that a man is justified by faith ALONE ('Allein')" in his 1522 German translation of the New Testament, NOT ONE TRANSLATOR of either the 1560 Geneva Bible or the 1611 King James Authorized Version ever gave a reason, let alone a mention, as to why the conjunction OR was replaced with AND in the first clause of 1 Corinthians 11:27. This is particularly curious since Miles Coverdale worked as a translator on both the 1560 Geneva Bible and the previous 1539 Great Bible, the latter containing the correct OR as the conjunction in the first clause 1 Cor 11:27.
4. Does it matter? That would depend upon your point of view.
A. Perhaps the correct English translation could be readily interpreted in a manner that supports a meaning that jeopardizes your position.
B. Take the verse in question, 1 Cor 11:27 as correctly translated in the NJKV: "Therefore whoever eats this bread OR drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body AND blood of the Lord."
(1) Wouldn't that also mean if you ate the bread OR drank the cup of the Lord in a WORTHY manner, you would be INNOCENT of the body AND blood of the Lord?
(2) Wouldn't that also mean that one could either receive the bread ALONE OR the drink the cup of the Lord ALONE in a WORTHY manner and be INNOCENT of the body AND blood of the Lord?
(3) Could that also mean that one could receive Jesus Christ WHOLE and ENTIRE in either the bread OR the cup, in perhaps a reflection of when He says in John 6:51 (KJV) "...if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever..."
C. However, in order to preclude an interpretation of 1 Cor 11:27 in this manner, did the translators of the 1560 Geneva Bible and 1611 KJV deliberately alter the text to reflect the teachings of (1) The Institutes of the Christian Religion of the Reformed Church of Geneva and (2) the 39 Articles of Religion of the Church of England, respectively?
(1) Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Chapter 18, No. 1:
"By these and similar inventions, Satan has attempted to adulterate and envelop the sacred Supper of Christ as with thick darkness, that its purity might not be preserved in the Church. But the head of this horrid abomination was, when he raised a sign by which it was not only obscured and perverted, but altogether obliterated and abolished, vanished away and disappeared from the memory of man-namely, when, with most pestilential error, he blinded almost the whole world into the belief that the Mass was a sacrifice and oblation for obtaining the remission of sins. I say nothing as to the way in which the sounder Schoolmen at first received this dogma.I leave them with their puzzling subtleties, which, however they may be defended by cavilling, are to be repudiated by all good men, because, all they do is to envelop the brightness of the Supper in great darkness. Bidding adieu to them, therefore, let my readers understand that I am here combating that opinion with which the ROMAN ANTICHRIST and his prophets have imbued the whole world- viz. that the mass is a work by which the priest who offers Christ, and the others who in the oblation receive him, gain merit with God, or that it is an expiatory victim by which they regain the favour of God. And this is not merely the common opinion of the vulgar, but the very act has been so arranged as to be a kind of propitiation, by which satisfaction is made to God for the living and the dead. This is also expressed by the words employed, and the same thing may be inferred from daily practice. I am aware how deeply this plague has struck its roots; under what a semblance of good it conceals its true character, bearing the name of Christ before it, and making many believe that under the single name of Mass is comprehended the whole sum of faith. But when it shall have been most clearly proved by the word of God, THAT THIS MASS, HOWEVER GLOSSED AND SPLENDID, OFFERS THE GREATEST INSULT TO CHRIST, suppresses and buries his cross, consigns his death to oblivion, takes away the benefit which it was designed to convey, enervates and dissipates the sacrament, by which the remembrance of his death was retained, will its roots be so deep that this most powerful axe, the word of God, will not cut it down and destroy it? Will any semblance be so specious that this light will not expose the lurking evil?"
[Beveridge translation, P. 866, ntslibrary website, Institutes of the Christian Religion, pdf 874 of 944]
(2) 39 Articles of Religion:
(A) No. 28. Of the Lord's Supper:
"Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions."
(B) No. 30. Of Both Kinds:
"The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-people: for both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament, by Christ's ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike."
[Church of England org website /prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/book-common-prayer/articles-religion#XXIX]
4. By the way, Doctor Philologus:
A. PHILOLOGUS fĭ lŏl’ ə gəs (Φιλόλογος, G5807, a lover of learning, learned). The first of five Christians to whom Paul sent greetings (Rom 16:15). The group, of which Philologus was apparently the leader, formed another house church in Rome (vv. 5, 10, 11, 15). His name is coupled with that of Julia, who may have been his wife or possibly his sister. If they were a Christian couple, Nereus and his sister prob. were their children.
[Bible Gateway website /resources/encyclopedia-of-the-bible/Philologus]
B. Philologus of Sinope (Greek: Φιλόλογος ό Σινώπιος) is numbered among the Seventy Disciples, and is commemorated with them on January 4. He is also commemorated on November 5 together with Ss. Patrobas, Hermas, Linus, and Gaius.
The Apostle Andrew consecrated St. Philologos (Romans 16:15) as bishop of Sinope, a city in the region of the Black Sea.
[Wikipedia org website /wiki/Philologus_of_Sinope]
For the purposes of the KJV Parallel Bible, Scrivener’s TR and the NA28 don’t differ at this location, so I left the text alone. More later if I can manage it. I’m slammed with work.
1. Thanks for the courtesy of your reply.
2. But Scrivener's TR and the NA28 are in agreement that the conjunction in the first clause of 1 Cor 11:27 is OR rather than AND, yes?
3. And that these two authoritative sources are in agreement with the NKJV but not the KJV?
4. So that it is reasonable to ask that some mention should be made of this translation irregularity in your online KJV Parallel Bible?
5. May you have a Holy Advent season, along with some time to smell the poinsettias your Mrs. is caring for.
@@annakimborahpaThe words of institution short circuit your nonsense attempt to defend the abominable anti-apostolic, unorthodox practice of communion in only one kind. That you are GUILTY of both if you offend in part is no more requiring of the inverse than Paul saying that breaking a part of the law means breaking the whole also entails that keeping a part of the law would be keeping the whole!
Cursed papist nonsense remains cursed papist nonsense. Go back to telling us how a king going INTO a gate and then the gate getti g shut is like a baby coming OUT his mother and then her remaining a virgin or some other drivel. Maybe you can argue about how the papacy is like the Sanhedrin that condemned Christ. That's one of my favorites.