The KJV Only Controversy: With Mark Ward
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ก.ย. 2021
- The KJV Only Controversy: With Mark Ward
Have you guys heard of Mark Ward? This guy is amazing. A former Independent Fundamentalist Baptist, now speaking out on the KJV only Controversy, and with such balance. Mark is not an angry academic with a bone to pick. He is a passionate Bible translator who helps resource the body of Christ with relevant information about, you guessed it Bible translations. In this episode, Mark thoroughly tackles the King James Only Controversy with wit and class. If you are not aware of all the KJV stuff out there, this episode will be an eye-opener for SURE! Hope you guys enjoy.
🌐📧 Visit our Website & Subscribe to our Newsletter: www.theremnantradio.com
What a great discussion! Hope to have another episode with Mark! Thank you, Remnant Radio, for providing all these wonderful resources to aid us in our walk. ☺
Yeah, I’m not too sure. I agree with you here. For instance, take a look at this. ESV 2 Sam 21:19 ? Who kills Goliath
Several weeks ago I had an epiphany (not a dream). Routine: Every morning, we get up, have breakfast, get the kids off to school, get ourselves to work, etc, and all this time we are doing something that makes everything possible: BREATHING! From the moment we are born until we 'gasp our last breath', we BREATHE! OXYGEN! In - out! Every day! All day! Summer and winter! Sleeping or awake! And it makes not one whit of difference if you're dumb or smart, rich or poor, black or white - you NEED AIR to live! EVERY SINGLE MINUTE OF YOUR EARTHLY LIFE! Now here's the epiphany part: JESUS IS OUR SPIRITUAL AIR! "Without ME you can do NOTHING!" We earthlings can study verses from ten different Bible versions and hit each other over the head with Greek/Hebrew clubs till the cows come home (all good), but if we haven't humbly received Jesus with his atoning blood as our Savior, we are still dead in our sins. We'll end up being the most learned scholars in the spiritual graveyard. But in John 14:6 (KJV, of course/whatever) Jesus said: I am the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE; NO MAN comes to the Father but by ME! I love my Bible with all my heart and soul, and study it every day; however in the end, the entire book can be summed up in two critical words: JESUS SAVES. Quote: Jesus didn't come to make bad men good. He came to make dead men live!
Live chat was 🔥
For those who are KJVonly or wonder why translations differ, ask yourself how you would translate "it costs an arm and a leg" in Spanish. You could be literal, "Cuesta un brazo y una pierna" or give what it means, "es Caro," or maybe there's a Spanish expression for something being expensive. Three ways to say the same thing, and the worst one in this case is "literal."
If you consider this, it will answer your questions about the different translations, and when you use a few different ones, you can get the full scope of the meaning.
And always ask "why" a different word or phrase or order is used, don't just reject it. There are reasons they worded it like that, and it might hold a key from the original inspired text that you miss reading just one version.
Such a great example of how language is not as simple as the KJV-only people treat this important topic. Thank you.
If you translate, I have the blues, into Vietnamese. It comes out as, I possess the color blue. This makes no sense to a Vietnamese person if you are trying to explain that you feel sad.
If you apologize to a Vietnamese, and he smiles and says to you, "no star where". That is a literal translation of the phrase. What he's trying to say is basically, "no big deal", or, it doesn't matter. Likewise, if you translate 'no big deal' into Vietnamese, it sounds like, not a large business transaction.
Having learned about four different languages to varying degrees of proficiency, I find people who talk about having the literal translation of God's word, as either incredibly ignorant or totally dishonest. It is impossible to translate a language literally word-for-word and have any understanding of what they're talking about.
And this is particularly true of ancient languages. I studied Sanskrit which in some ways is similar to Greek and Latin and translating things literally from Sanskrit can sometimes be completely impossible, especially when you get into a second person passive imperative with an intransitive verb. Try doing a word for word literal translation of that with English, it cannot be done, it's totally impossible.
Great point. I love hearing other people talk about this subject who are from other native languages. Thats exactly the perspective needed to get through some of the hard heads of the KJV only catastrophe. Another problem with the KJV only crowd is it plays right into the hands of those who want to frame Christians in the west as White Supremacists because it really does suggest that God held out that which is 'perfect' for Anglicans and thats just pure hog-wash. Theres a lot of weird icky things that are on the periphery of KJV only that look a lot like racism and prejudice and Im in no way a left wing activist or political person. I just call it as I see it. Theres no place for that in the Body of Christ.
Best translation is the one you read and mediate on, and dwell on, and it challenges you in your sin, grows you in your faith, reveals the heart of God to you more deeply, and inspires you to want to learn his word even deeper.
However, beware of the translations that are filled with false doctrine such as The Message, The Passion Bible and the Mirror Bible.
@@meggy8868 I actually prefer the New World Translation.
Lol ... I kid I kid ... geeez ... just jokin'
@@patriothippie5881 See how important the English language is? See how the little article "A" makes all the difference. Ha ha, a joke, but somehow you made my point for me.
@@patriothippie5881 LOL Inadvertently your humor has made my argument. See how important the right word can be? In this case the article "A" used by New World Translators in John the 1st Chapter, verse one.
@@meggy8868 yes, this is true. I think the Message is fine as long as people understand that it is a PARAPHRASE, not a translation, and is therefore not really the true Word. Unfortunately a lot of pele don’t realize this. But the Message never actually claims to be a translation, which is what makes The Passion Translation so much more problematic, in my opinion. It is heavily a paraphrase with very distinct denominational interpretations and it claims to be a true translation.
I love all the content you guys put out it's always my go to here on TH-cam. One small critique I have though has to do with the production. The hosts mic volume are always so much hotter than the guests. I have no experience in the live podcast field but some more consistent volume would help my listening experience. I'm assuming it's easier to dial in your own volumes in house at your own studio while guests are more succeptible to unpredictable levels. However maybe some compression would help kind of even out the dynamics?
Love his tone and loving empathy! Much needed in this sometimes frustrating topic. Praise God for this discussion
Yeah, I’m not too sure. I agree with you here. For instance, take a look at this. ESV 2 Sam 21:19 ? Who kills Goliath
Would really appreciate it if the speaker’s audio level was the same as the hosts.
I was at the extreme end of the KJV onlyism movement. It’s enslaving and while I was within this movement I had little to no joy in my walk with Christ. I’m so grateful the Lord has delivered me from this false position. Brothers please continue to speak truth to lies! May The Lord be with each of you!
I use KJV and recently KJV2000 = (KJV style with modern English words in place of old English words) for studying purposes which other translations is good for in-depth bible study?
ESV and NASB are good for study. I love the HCSB for just reading but they don't make it anymore. The CSB is the updated version and I don't like it quite as much but it's still great.
NET is nice bc it has translation notes
I really appreciated this episode.
Mike Winger is gonna love this!
The "ESV only" camp is feeling left out :(
In 300 years that will be the debate du jour for the reformed types haha
@@ReverendElation lol probably
@@ReverendElation Think it'll take that long? I don't know... 😅
The ESV is a good translation but it like all translations does contain errors.
@thetruthchannel349 so you don't think God has a Bible without errors?
Love your neighbor, Love God. Jesus made this easy.
As a Spanish speaking believer I can see some differences between the KJV and our 'official' text, the REINA VALERA '60s Bible. Now, I humbly think it's better to stick to a version because it facilitates memorization. I'm not dogmatic about the KJV and I would browse others on ocassion to get a better sense of the ideas that are being portrayed, but when in doubt, I still consider it as the final and most authoriitative word for me. I'm suspicious of modern translations where different doctrinal positions can creep in, especially from modernist, liberals and even skeptics that are in the bussiness of selling more bibles.
You have a right to, but in the Bible, really the only solid part of the New Covenant is Jesus and to abide in him.. I'm not against convictions but when The Bible is more Center than Jesus Himself .. when you can know all of it be accurate and still not live it.. or say Not love Others who disagree with you in spite of 1John saying if you don't love your in Darkness rather than the light.. yep I'm against that.. Without A direct Connection to Jesus.. don't matter what translation you have .. your wrong
This is a little off topic, but as someone who is learning Spanish, I would eventually like to get a Spanish bible to read. Is the Reina Valera the version that is generally read amongst Spanish speakers?
@@fernandolozano9898 That's correct. The 1960 is still the most popular.
@@caonexpeguero9984 thanks!
@@fernandolozano9898 *Some of the Spanish translations are far more accurate than many of our English translations. People getting hung up on this translation obsession really perplex me. We know 2 things. 1. The original transmitted texts from Spirit to man were INSPIRED. 2. We know that not a single TRANSLATION has EVER been INSPIRED. In fact, some translations including our KJV was created simply out of a political gains motive. I use any and all translations but I always use Lexicons and Expository Hebrew Dictionaries.*
This is great and his comment at minute 37:00 about a "perfect translation" also would disprove the misuse of 1 Corinthians 13:10 by cessationists.
When I first heard that Scripture used that way I honestly thought it was a joke. I was probably 11 maybe 12. Even at that young age I knew enough to know that Paul explains to us what 'that which is perfect' IS in those very passages. People create doctrines and then chase Scripture to wrap around them and it never ends well.
Thanx, Gentlemen 🌹🌹🌹
I discovered Mark Ward a few months ago and THOROUGHLY enjoy his content.
Do you happen to listen to his podcast ?
@@patriothippie5881 I watch him on TH-cam
I use multiple translations
Awesome! underrated episode
Has Mark also read the news for NPR? Love the Word Nerd Series by the way.
Jubilee bible by russell stendal does retain thee, thou, thy and it is quite similar to kjv plus the Jubilee bible is in modern english.
"When you only have one and all of the denominations (Christians) use it there is this kind of implicit trust. OK, everybody agrees this one is good. We are losing that." And that, my brother, is a great loss! We had agreement about God, agreement on a trusted Bible in our language working towards agreement on interpretation. We lost that, sad day indeed.
very good. I work in mission field. KJV is so hard for them to understand as a second language. there is NO WAY is the ONLY GOOD translation.
Loved this episode! Good stuff guys
36:55 - only reason they have to have an immaculate Mary is because they assume Original Sin doctrine. Problem is that doctrine, as defined by Augustine, is not in the Bible. Mary doesn’t have to be immaculate. Just saying.
I agree, the KJV is not the only truth in translations. Simple facts, Jesus did not read the KJV. True Christians should not be attacking other brothers or denominations or belittle them, because it tears them down and does not uplift. The real truth is No man has the exact (entire) truth that can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. As God word says, let God be true and every man a liar. Love you guys keep up the good work.
Byzantine Greek Text only.
The Case for the Byzantine Priority by Maurice A. Robinson
The theory about the Byzantine priority discussed by the authors of a magnificent edition of the Majority Text of the Greek New Testament.
Guest's audio is volume is inconsistent. Difficult to follow. 😕. I would have loved to watch/listen , , ,
For shakespeare archaic english, students currently have 2 main helps: 1> modern translations of shakespeare like No Fear Shakespeare 2> annotated shakespeare like arden shakespeare. For kjv archaic english, fundamentalists are not united enough to support a revised kjv bec maybe fundamentalists have many doctrines of separation. Fundamentalist institutions like Bible For Today and Trinitarian Bible Society maybe can try to improve the existing Defined King James and Westminster bible to have more footnotes to explain more archaic words. Some kjv readers rely on kjv commentaries and most verse by verse commentaries do explain the archaic words such as: calvinists jamieson fausset brown, calvinist albert barnes, methodist adam clarke. There are kjv commentaries by baptists, lutherans, pentecostals, etc.
25:18 What if the directive is spiritual?
We have too many denominations, and we have too many translations. I'm not happy about these two things.
When we understand the history of denominations and the science of translation it's easy to understand why we do. The remedy to the negative aspects though, I believe, is to appreciate what each denomination or translation was doing when they were created, but to always remain at the forefront of what God is currently doing in our time right now. He didn't stop working in lives in the books of history, He didn't stop inspiring poetry and songs, He didn't stop continuing the acts of the church by the power of the Holy Spirit, and He still uses people today to reveal His will in our modern times just as He has through all history.
Once a denomination "parks" their doctrine and sets up a school, they tell their adherents "we will go no further," and when God highlights a new aspect to be focused on, a group from that church splits and makes a new denomination, while the previous one persecutes it. That's the bad news. The good news is that some are always pursuing and walking with God, not walking with a rearview mirror image of Him.
For this reason, I agree with your critique, as long as we are actively pursuing the most recent "upgrades" in both, and not trying to run our modern hardware on out-of-date software.
@@ReverendElation
You seem to lack awareness that all these splinter groups are 100% Protestant and are therefore entirely modern in their approach to doctrine.
A historical context was critical for me as a Protestant to move forward in my understanding of Christendom generally, but also in terms of my grasp of early (Orthodox) Church theology.
This idea that human experience determines how we know God due to "upgrades" is a completely Satanist philosophy, one that scripture itself warns against.
@@PETERJOHN101 Protestants are not "entirely modern." And the 200 year old church was at its infancy, and was not meant to be another religious replacement similar to Judaism. This is why we were given the active and present Holy Spirit, and why God walks through time with us as we grow up into Him. Year by year, century by century, we grow with the foundation of those before us. The alive and active church is like this. Many dead ones are not.
We need to be precise with speech. Use "entirely" and "Satanist" for what they mean. The idea of us learning about God from experience is not foreign to Christianity, this is one of the many ways we learn about God. Just like we learn of Him through the book of the Bible and the book of nature, we all have the blessed testimony that we will tell in Heaven forever more, telling of the great works of God on earth as it is in Heaven.
Perhaps you took 'experiences' in a negative sense, and for the sake of your spiritual walk. I certainly hope it is not devoid of experiences. If we want to be truly orthodox (lower case o) in regards to the witness of scripture in the earliest church, then we find no other description other than that of a church where the Holy Spirit was invited and active, and none of them were resigned to mere ideas to determine their relationship with God. When later fathers experienced less, it was because of their lack, not the higher way.
If you apply the same argument that you make against the Passion Bible to protecting lay people from indeterminately consuming the NLT and the Message (commentary or paraphrases), you will be closer to truth.
I appreciate your argument against 'false friend' words which distort our perception of the message being communicated because of often dramatic shifts in word usage.
Many kjv readers are aware that there are words which have changed in meaning bec of various word lists like at the back of the cambridge concord kjv bible. The American Bible Society kjv bibles have a list of about 500 words that have changed in meaning at the back, and a similar list is found at the back of the Rainbow Bible.
I was not even remotely infestered in this, it kept popping up on my feed, so I said okay okay. One of the best content I have heard in a very long time. Thank you Remnant Radio and Mark Ward.
Same! I initially thought it seemed boring, ended up loving every minute of it and am now a fan of Mr. Ward and subscribed to his YT.
Amen, amen!!!
Why translate the Textus Receptus into English at all?
Which is better? "Out of your belly shall flow rivers of living water." Or, "Out of your inner most being shall flow rivers of living water?"
@@jameswillison1527 I'm speaking of good English here. Belly is concrete and appeals to the senses. The phrase is an abstraction. The KJV instructed many writers in the art of writing with it's concreteness, rhythm, concision, etc. The KJB is an education.
Not reading the KJV is to miss out on a real treat, to miss an immersion in beauty, especially in the Psalms. But to insist on it to the exclusion of other translations is foolishness. However, just for fun, Compare Esau's "My Father, My Father, hast thou not a blessing for me . . . " with the very trite translation in the NIV for example. Completely stripped of emotion.
You will always think the one you're familiar with is better because you refuse to learn about the translation process. Use the best translation, not your favorite. But hey, if you speak 17th century English at home, then thou hast found the tome for thee.
@@jameswillison1527 "inner most being" is a thought. "belly" is a picture or an image. Only an image can appeal to the 5 senses. Thanks for the discussion.
@@ReverendElation :) Ha Ha , thanks for the discussion. Which is your favorite translation? If you went to a Seminary I am guessing ESV or NIV or NASB. As much as I love the King James, I scream at my Chinese student, "if you don't understand it, take a look in another translation." But if you never read the King James, I can't tell you how much you are missing.
@@meggy8868 Thanks for engaging! If someone goes to seminary (graduate degree and up) they know that there is no perfect translation and they understand the translation methods - because we are taught to use logic and reason not sentimentality when studying and understanding God's word. There are good sides to any, and bad sides to any - depending on what you're using it for and how much you understand translation methods and the culture.
As I showed you in your other post, the word "dung" wasn't the word or concept Paul used, it was the opinion of the KJV translators in their 17th century culture. Therefore, that verse is a bad translation for today. But since you grew sentimentally attached to the emotional meaning of the word, you prefer it to the words that Holy Spirit inspired. Think about it.
Jesus used the LXX not the Masoretic - obviously. This is why Jesus' quoting the OT differs in places where the KJV translated the original OT passages. This should mean something to you, if it doesn't you need to consider it.
As for you trying to (presumably) teach a native non-English speaker modern English yet attempting to share spiritual truths in a 17th century English dialect, you are teaching him from your religious tradition and not using wisdom considering what translation even is meant to do. You don't have to listen to modern educated translation experts who know the languages and cultures after spending decades studying them so they can honor God's word by putting ancient text in our modern language--but what you can't see clearly is that the men who translated the KJV were the exact same. They were just translating to a culture that used words like beeves, satyrs, anon, assay, glead, grisled, milch, mote, prating, ringstraked, stripple, etc. I certainly hope you're not teaching grammar to the student using Shakespeare either.
Understanding God's choice to use man within his many transitory cultures to both write and translate the word has helped me drop denominational opinions about translations - and loving people of different cultures has made me embrace the idea of the correct meaning being passed along as being more important than any particular words being used. This is probably why the gift of tongues wasn't the gift of speaking ancient Hebrew or something... often language can stifle understanding when different cultures use it differently. I understand WHY seminaries like NRSV and NASB, and why reformed like ESV, and why others like NIV, Message, whatever. So, I will repeat the semi-sassiness that scholars say "the one that gets the original meaning the closest to the language you speak." Respecting the teacher role of the Eph 4 five-fold, I'd need a good reason to disagree with the best experts, while judging each instance on its own merit. Sorry for the long and inexact answer- but if I'm studying or the school prefers one then Ill pick the experts preference of NASB or NRSV - if listening I often listen to ESV or NIV depending on the audiobook voice and style - if Im trying to get a point across then I will use them all because of the differences between our culture and the many different cultures represented in the Bible.
In the end, clarity is key. What did God mean? What did the writers mean to say? How would we bring that meaning into our world? If we had as many teachers, apostles, and prophets as we had pastors and evangelists, more of the church would understand these important things - but unfortunately the same churches that often hold illogical views about scripture translation also do so about scholarship and higher education.
If everyone had a direct link to God like we are supposed to.. this wouldn't be an argument. some times we place t he bibles Importance above Knowing God Himself
God's design as expressed in Ephesians 4 was that Jesus would send 5 different types and personalities of leader into the church (apostle, prophet, pastor, teacher, evangelist) who with their different styles and expertise would train the church, equip them for the work of the ministry, and keep them from being tossed and turned with different doctrinal ideas. This is why this argument is necessary - those who are KJV only are refusing to listen to teachers who understand the translation process and purpose.
If the Christian life were only about knowing God, we could be zapped out of here right when we are saved. We begin our journey when we meet God, but it is the beginning of an existence long exercise of learning and growing into our eternal selves as sons and daughters of God. This is why the body of Christ is set up this way, and why we all need a lot more than just having a link to God. We are not promised at all that God Himself will teach and correct our doctrine, or that the Holy Spirit will - without including the massive role that Eph 4 plays in the process-- which is similar to only humans being able to preach the gospel.
@@ReverendElation Um you dont understand the bible.. Nor the new covenant.. while it is true we do have those gifts working in the Body we are to know God.. direct link, the Reason people argue translations is a lack of real christianity... the bible is a took to lead us to Him.. and to love one another, the reason we argue translations ia a lack of God in our lives. It seems you think we can Grow without a direct connection to God. Most who.. dwell in the realm of doctrine worship tend to be unable to imagine a relationship with God that transcends our own abilities. Its why we have Christians going back to the law of Moses... the idea of actually living the word is watered down because we learn to do it in our own strength rather than it being a natural result of the vine we are supposed to be connected to.. instead we think or intellect is enough to comprehend the Truth when it is The Holy Spirit we live by and comprehend anything. Translation really isnt as important as is knowing God through connection via the Spirit which was promised via OT of the new covenant
@@dargostvolos614 In the New Covenant prophecies like Ezek 36, Jer 31 God said He would take away the heart of stone and give flesh, and He would give His Spirit so they would have the "law" (from their perspective at the time) in their hearts, and they would do his judgments. We also see the other aspects of Holy Spirit empowerment which is the crux of the New Covenant. In fact, the reason Christ died to make man clean is so that finally the Spirit could indwell man (not just rest upon them) and represent God and the Kingdom to the world. My New Covenant theology is on point - its the only thing going right now, and its not even between us and God - its between Christ and God.
But the point Im making is that within scripture, we see Holy Spirit teaching us aspects of how the church will grow and thrive and become who we should be as imagers of God and people who look like Christ. We need to consider the whole of the verses about the New Covenant church, and not take verses out of context outside of their relation to the other verses. One example, is Jesus saying "no man should teach you, the Holy Spirit will" which many think to mean that they will not need human teachers to live the fulles Spirit filled life. However, there are contextual aspects that need to be considered for that verse (was it for the disciples starting the church? a specific audience? was it one of the verses that apply to everyone or just disciples?). But then, looking at the whole of scripture, we see the Holy Spirit speak through Paul in Ephesians 4 that an OT passage about giving gifts to men pointed at Christ giving gifts to the church in the form of leadership types. These Spirit empowered men and women will be used by the Holy Spirit to reproduce different aspects of Christs ministry - as He was all 5: apostle, prophet, pastor, teacher and evangelist. Specificity is important here.
We also see that the 1 Cor 12 manifestations of the Spirit like prophecy will comfort, or word of wisdom will guide--these are things the Holy Spirit does personally but also through others. Usually through others, because God designed it that way to foster family community, but also because of individual weakness and specialties. If you thought the ultimate was to have the Holy Spirit and NOT be connected to others, then youre missing the point of what every instance of koinonia in scripture explains: we have fellowship because we have the same Holy Spirit. These are the aspects that rogue solo believers (myself being one) need to be reminded of.
And those same rogue solo believers who think they hear perfectly and get perfect doctrine in dreams or by revelation need to understand WHY Jesus thought we needed the fivefold ministry FOR our Spirit-led lives. No one has a perfect antenna - and Holy Spirit is not going to teach you ancient near eastern culture so you can understand the context of a passage. He doesn't need to - He decided He would use teachers. I hope you can see this idea here - Spirit baptism with empowerment is the BEGINNING of your eternal journey of learning and growing in spiritual and natural ways and it will never stop. You may try to test out of classes in Heaven when you get there, but something tells me you would rather follow Gods plan IF He expressed a desire for you to have a teacher. This is what He did in Eph 4 - unless you have a problem with Paul.
As you can see, you inferred that i meant one should grow without connection to God. Though its true that any can learn Biblical truths even without connection to God (like Ehrman) it is obviously not the design. In fact, its good that you learned the Spirit power first before attempting scholarly study - since the nature of scholarly study is based on empirical not subjective interpretations and ideas. You would love it - but you would need to accept the idea that God set up a system where we learn just like we pray - in the Spirit and with understanding.
The reason we argue about translations is not because of a lack of God in people's lives- it is because believers who have chosen to be good stewards of the mind and intellect God gave us constantly wrestle with Gods word and Gods world so that we show the utmost respect to God and the abilities he gave us. But for many, the scholarly world isnt for them . In the MBTI, these would be many feelers or sensors - where concrete facts or feelings about them fit better with their perceptions instead of the pursuit of accuracy or dancing with abstract concepts.
Your heart and points are true - at the bare minimum we need the Spirit, and when it comes to one aspect of life - relationship - we don't need anyone else. But life is multi-faceted, and for that God has put these gifted people in the church to focus on these different aspects, and its up to us to do our due diligence to be good Bereans, see if its in the word, and appreciate the many ways God has chosen to bless our lives both internally and externally. And if the Holy Spirit will lead us to truth, He will also lead us to the truest book, and those He gifts to speak truth in a way we can understand - just like the different translations do. Bless u bro.
I'm not sure why both sides of the argument argue over "the", i.e. There is no "THE" Textus receptus because there are differences in editions. In that case there is no "THE" King James Version because there are differences in editions. In that case, there is no "THE" Greek text because there are differences in editions. In fact, there is no "THE" original because there are differences manuscripts. And there is no "THE" autographs as there are differences in the autographs, i.e. they were edited by Moses, Ezra, and expanded over time. Is "the" argument made in opposition to something that I'm not aware of or missing?
Kjv was how I was raised after being saved. Thanks for doing this video. I needed to hear…
What did you learn if I may ask?
Fundamentalists who translate to foreign languages do use the textus receptus usually. For chinese kjv, 1 translation seems to come from followers of Herbert W Armstrong bec they used kjv, nkjv, amplified bible and complete jewish bible in addition to the textus receptus (they translate baptize as immerse). 1 chinese kjv translation used the kjv in addition to the textus receptus bec they are followers of the pentecostal prophet William Branham who long ago used the kjv (they translate baptize as immerse). 1 chinese kjv gospel of john is from the baptist organization bearing precious seed who use kjv in addition to textus receptus (they translate baptize as immerse). 1 chinese kjv gospel of john is from the trinitarian bible society and they seem to be using the textus receptus only, but cannot depart too much from the current standard Chinese Union Version (they translate baptize with the traditional wash).
As an Anthroplogist i think the real reason for the KJV only groups and their adherence has nothing to do with the arguments.Many of them are ultra conservatives and holding to KJV only is A social boundary marker. They view many other churches as liberal or compromising AND maintaining KJV exclusive helps them identify who is with them.if most churches used the KJV, , it couldnot be used as a distinction in contrast.
The arguments are just how they establis the social markers. Mark Ward no doubt shifted social first before he had arguments against the specifics.
As a student of anthropology, I would have to agree with you. The arguments about different Greek texts are really an ex post facto justification for an aspect of tribalism. It's about being part of the in-group and showing yourself to be a member of the tribe. It's also a way of creating a high boundary of entry into that tribe so you become part of the knowing Elite. This is very common in actual tribes throughout history but even today in like gamer groups or academic disciplines, etc.
Humans love to create ways of distinguishing themselves into smaller groups. They can do this through clothing, types of music, food, political affiliation. And one of the most important ones is Speech & Language. The Prestige dialect, the cool kids way of speaking, the Academic Way of speaking, these are all kind of prestige dialects that the in-group uses to show their superiority to the out-group and also has a way of connecting and identifying with like-minded members of the tribe. And one of the most powerful ways of solidifying your rather arbitrary tribal markers of identity, is to use moralism. What I mean by that is not to be a moral person, I mean that people take these arbitrary markers and assign moral value to them. I wear the clothes I wear, I listen to the music I like, I eat the food I eat, I speak the language and dialect I speak, because it is morally Superior to all others. Once a person begins to use moralism to reinforce their tribal identity, it becomes completely unassailable to any reason, evidence, or information. Justifications may be completely ad hoc, irrational, contradictory, self undermining, ex post facto. But it really doesn't matter because if they have given moral weight to the belief, the justifications don't really need to make any sense whatsoever.
@@khaccanhle1930 youre correct though there doesn't have to be a negative aspect to it. Identity like that is a sign of feeling under threat. And a way of surviving. It serves a function. My point is that such groups are using these beliefs to mark out themselves, I think his story of the older deacon type man being offended and walking out on the pastor illustrates this.
@@Liminalplace1, I agree with you. I do. But I couldn’t bring myself to conclude that everyone within the boundaries of KJV-Onlyism was unreachable. And my hope and belief has been proven right-though surely more than arguments has been needed in every case.
Wow. Incredibly interesting interview. This guy clearly knows his stuff. Very fascinating.
Would be great to see a show done in KJV English😊
You should rename the ministry “Thee Remnant Radio”
the orthodox seem to believe god has preserved for the orthodox church the septuagint and the byzantine text. The byzantine text is similar to the textus receptus of the kjv. Some orthodox use nkjv.
you need to turn the volume up on this guy, he speaks so softly.
I use Roku and I have Chromecast. Do you have an iPhone? Screen mirroring? You’ve got options to cast to your TV and then there will be no issue with the audio.
A consideration of variant versions of 2 PETER 1:10.
The following versions of 2 PTR. 1:10 are translations from Aramaic or Syriac into English (with years published):
Etheridge (1849)
Upon this the more, my brethren, be careful, that by your good works your
calling & your election you may confirm. For, while you do these, you will never lapse.
Murdock (1852)
And therefore, my brethren, be ye exceedingly diligent to make your calling & election sure, by your good actions. For, by so doing, ye will never fall away.
Lamsa (1947)
For this very reason, my brethren, be diligent. For through your good deeds, you make your calling & your election sure. And when you do these things, you shall never fall.
For comparison, here is the KJV:
Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling & election sure. For if ye do these things, ye shall never fall.
The phrase "through good works" is missing from the KJV of 2 PTR. 1:10; as it is missing from most English Bibles. The KJV & most English Bibles are translated almost exclusively from Greek Bibles.
Here is the Rheims version:
Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling & election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time.
Most Catholic commentators agree that the "sin" in that translation is the mortal sin of absolute apostasy. Some say it is any mortal sin. A mortal sin is a "sin unto death", as mentioned in...
1 JOHN 5:16
If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, & He shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death. I do not say that he shall pray for it.
The Douay-Rheims Bible was translated from Jerome's Latin Vulgate. So was Wycliffe's Bible, which was first completed in 1384.
Wycliffe's version of 2 PTR. 1:10 is shown here:
Wherfor, britheren, be ye more bisi, that by goode werkis ye make youre clepyng and chesyng certeyn;
Here is 2 PTR. 1:10 as it appears in Jerome's Latin Vulgate:
Quapropter fratres, magis satagite ut per bona opera certam vestram vocationem, et electionem faciatis : hæc enim facientes, non peccabitis aliquando.
The Latin agrees with the Aramaic; & so does the Greek Codex Sinaiticus (dated 330 - 360), as shown here:
διο μαλλον αδελφοι ϲπουδαϲατε
ϊνα δια των καλων εργων
βεβαιαν ϋμων την κληϲιν και ἐκλογὴν ποιειϲθαι ταυτα γαρ ποιουντεϲ ου μη πτεϲητε ποτε
Greek Codex Alexandrinus (dated 400 - 440) also agrees with the Aramaic & Latin, as shown here:
διὸ μᾶλλον, ἀδελφοί, σπουδάσατε
‘ίνα δια των καλων ‘ύμων ’εργων
βεβαίαν ὑμῶν τὴν παρακλῆσιν καὶ ἐκλογὴν ποιεῖσθε· ταῦτα γὰρ ποιοῦντες οὐ μὴ πταίσητέ·
But most later Greek manuscripts leave out:
‘ινα δια των καλων ’εργων
as shown here:
διὸ μᾶλλον, ἀδελφοί, σπουδάσατε βεβαίαν ὑμῶν τὴν κλῆσιν καὶ ἐκλογὴν ποιεῖσθαι· ταῦτα γὰρ ποιοῦντες οὐ μὴ πταίσητέ ποτε·
Please note that Greek has regional & generational variations in spelling, punctuation, & the shape of some letters. But for a language that is almost 3000 years old, these variations are surprisingly few & minor.
Was the phrase "through good works" part of the original text or was it a later addition? The answer to that question depends on the answer to this question: was the addition or omission accidental or deliberate?
If the phrase was added later, its addition could not have been an accident.
Anyone who would change the words of the Bible by deliberately adding that phrase to that verse, would have added a similar "good works" phrase to as many other NT verses where it would seem to contextually fit. But this was not done. Nowhere else in NT Greek manuscript history do we see another "good works" addition. Therefore, it is almost impossible that the phrase is a deliberate addition.
If the "good works" phrase was part of the original text but someone later knowingly omitted it when making a copy of the Bible, such a person would also remove similar "good works" phrases throughout the NT. But, nowhere else in NT Greek manuscript history is there another "good works" omission. Some early Greek NT manuscripts leave out the entire EPISTLE OF JAMES, but this was when the NT Canon had not yet been universally established by the majority of Catholic bishops & JAMES was still disputed by some. So it was not a case of textual manipulation because even those who disputed JAMES did not rewrite or change it to suit themselves.
So the most likely (if not only) option left is that the "good works" phrase was part of the original text but someone accidentally omitted it while handwriting a copy. This handwritten copy with the accidental omission was probably copied later by others who didn't know the original text & didn't notice the change.
For contextual emphasis, I include & conclude with the subsequent verse:
2 PTR. 1:11
For in this way there will be abundantly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord & Savior Jesus Christ.
Did someone just cuss at 3:26?
No. Rowntree said, "legit"
Lol ... I'm scrolling through the comments to see if anyone else thought the same.
I listened twice because that's what I thought I heard! But no.
Thanks for this! Thoroughly enjoyed Mark Ward and this discussion. I definitely encountered KJV-only in my hometown when I was growing up.
there are rifts separating fundamentalists, evangelicals and liberals. Evangelicals usually do not use liberal translations ceb and nrsvue 2021. Fundamentalists usually do not use textus receptus translations done by evangelicals such as nkjv and mev. Fundamentalists also consider mev to have pentecostal bias.
some fundamentalists do not believe catholics are saved, so maybe some fundamentalists do not believe evangelicals and liberals are saved. some fundamentalists seem to believe those who do not use the kjv are not saved.
Ivan Panin was a Russian agnostic who became a Harvard educated linguist and mathematician in the 1940s.
His study of the Byzantine manuscripts, from which the King James bible was translated, led to a remarkable discovery of mathematical structure that he said could not have been produced by human authorship.
All portions of the underlying Greek text demonstrated a kind of divine mathematical signature that Panin said would be impossible to maintain for more than a few paragraphs apart from divine providence.
After a year of intensive research, Panin began to publish articles in prestigious scientific journals to show how the source manuscripts used to produce our King James Bible exhibited this remarkable phenomenon.
Panin pointed out that these detailed structures were not found in the Alexandrian manuscripts used to produce all other bible translations.
Because of his discovery, Panin became a devout Christian and devoted the remainder of his life to a study of the Bible.
I have one of the few remaining copies of Panin's published work from about 1944, and I can attest to his rigorous application of statistical analysis due to my own scientific background.
Sadly, the modern Church would rather intellectualize this topic into a draw for the sake of a "balanced view," and to entertain its ever growing faith challenged audience.
The KJV is widely attacked for a reason, and now you know why.
Or it could be attacked bc King James was a freemason and the final editor Francis Bacon was a polytheist. And some things were not translated correctly on purpose.... I'll point to purposely translating the Greek word for Passover to Easter when it clearly wasn't Easter. And now everyone associates a pagan holiday with Jesus death and resurrection...
Memorizing verses in the KJV ultimately lead me to delve into the topic of Bible versions. Before that, I had assumed that all versions carried the same meaning but used different words to convey that meaning. Independent study comparing the versions among themselves on a verse-by-verse basis to the KJV demonstrated my assumption to be wrong.
I recommend the book titled Missing in Modern Bibles: The Old Heresy Revived by Jack A. Moorman on the subject of Bible versions. He writes powerfully, informatively, and in a tone that readers will appreciate.
Contrast with Islam re the Quran; unless it is the original C7th Arabic as dictated to Mohammed by the angel Gabriel, it is NOT the halal Quran.😳
Big fan of Marks. Glad to see him on here
The other extreme is "The Bible-Of-The-Month Club"; a deliberate but deserved exaggerated nickname for the way modern Bible publishers crank out new versions or new packagings of the Bible on an almost monthly basis just to make money.
Or how Christian bands shell out these albums just to make money, or how these Christian coffee houses make all these brews just to make money, or how Christian electricians keep on fixing electrical issues just to make money, or how pastors keep taking offerings every week just to make money, or how ... oh wait a second. That's what people do - create goods or services that people want, and they exchange money for those goods or services.
Obv you're not the target audience, but to assume greed on their part is a bit short-sided, no? When it comes to the most printed book on earth within a world with such varied cultures and denominations and personal styles, do you think that having one simple black book on the shelf is the best solution? Do you even care about artistry, beauty, or people using their God-given skills of creating, designing, purposing, and finding new ways to present the word in order to show them the light of God? Perhaps you want everyone to have a little black book like you have, and then they all go be farmers, and all dress the same too.
You're talking about people who are using their time on earth to work towards spreading God's word - what are you doing in your job? Do you really think God looks at them with disdain? These are real people. Who are you to judge another man's servant?
I would really like to see some of the examples of this. Do you know how much time goes into translating the bible? Its not cheap. But to only stick to one version JUST BECAUSE, makes almost no sense. I used to be KJV only for 14 years. I still like the KJV, but in reality alot of the old english never made sense to me in certain word uses( aka the language changed, not the greek/hebrew words)
@@ReverendElation
Who art THOU to judge another man's servant?
Thou art judging them to be right, me to be wrong, & thyself to be intelligent & informed enough to dare to disagree with me.
But thou art a gullible idiot who is easily brainwashed & tricked.
Few things have caused more damage in churches than when pastors say things like:
“In the originals, the word here really means_____”
“The Greek word for this is______”
“A better rending of the originals would be_____”
Churchgoers have heard these sayings for so long they have now become calloused to it! This is a real problem.
So, what is the problem? Here are a few.
There are no originals
When the pastor says, “in the originals”, it is guaranteed that a majority of the people in his Sunday morning church audience thinks he means the original autographs. What he said was misleading.
The dirty little secret that everyone in seminary knows but no one talks about is that there are no original autographs. Not a single original writing from any apostle, prophet, or tablet of stone exists today. We have thousands of copies (apographs), but not a single true original autograph. Many textual critics think it is impossible to believe the Bible is divinely inspired because of this very point. Bible believers have known this for centuries and understand by faith God preserves his words through copies and translations and not the original autographs.
When the pastor refers to the “originals” in church, he means a copy of a Greek text that was sold to him in the first Greek class he took. Most likely that Greek text did not exist anywhere in history before it was compiled in the last couple centuries.
No one speaks Greek and Hebrew
When the pastor says this in church, he is not speaking to a room of experts in ancient near eastern languages. Some in the audience may have learned the alphabet, or memorized verb tenses in Bible college, or spent a few years in elementary language learning, but the majority can not even tell if what he says is true. Why is it that those pastors who claim the audience should use Bibles in the language of the people think it is helpful to speak foreign languages to them?
It changes the Bible text
The number one reason pastors go back to the original Greek, Hebrew, Latin, or Aramaic is because they want to retranslate the text to align with their holy outline. If it is only a matter of definition then why don’t they use an English dictionary to clarify? Instead, the English word is seen as insufficient and needs retranslated. This gives the lesson to everyone in the audience that there are mistakes in the Bible, and it is acceptable to retranslate the Bible to make a point. The ends justify the means.
It begets pride and reopens the translation process
Speaking in other languages puffs people up. The Bible has already been translated into English from Greek, Hebrew, and with other translations diligently compared and revised. When the pastor raises the issue of translation he not only claims to correct all the translators of the Bible everyone is holding, but also leaves the translation process open for anyone to do the same thing. How is anyone supposed to know when the process of retranslating/correcting/revising the Bible is complete? In the eyes of most seminary trained textual critics, it will never be finished, because they are constantly finding new manuscripts in the dirt. They do not believe they have God’s words inspired or preserved in a single book.
It robs the audience of God’s words
The most serious problem with pastors saying these things is that it robs the audience of the authority of the Bible in their hands. The Bible in their hands says one thing, but suddenly they need the pastor to tell them what the Bible really should say. What happens when they go home after the meeting and continue reading in the book they hold? Now they will have a doubt, even if small, concerning the very words on the printed page. Since the pastor has declared that at least in one place it is incorrect, how can they trust it enough to teach their children and family at home? Now multiply this by the hundreds of times pastors refer to “the originals” and you might start to understand one reason why people don’t feel confident to study the Bible for themselves.
This needs to stop. People ought to be encouraged to believe the Bible, starting with the one they have, and not the one a pastor retranslates or cherry picks from his own sanctified opinion.
Do we need Greek and Hebrew?
You can live your whole life not knowing a single Greek or Hebrew word and be made perfect unto all good works by all scripture preserved in the English language (2 Tim 3:16-17). If someone tells you otherwise, then you have found someone who wants dominion over your faith.
We already have God’s preserved words in English, but we do need translators. We need faithful workmen to study Bible translation from a Bible believing perspective so that we can help preserve God’s words in languages all across the world that do not have a Bible. If this is your ministry then you will need to study other languages and utilize the translations that have been a part of God’s preservation process through history.
What Do I Do?
If you hear your pastor say “The Greek word here really means…” have the courage to speak up for the weaker brothers around you and say, “Stick to God’s words in English pastor!” Better yet, find some place where the leadership seeks to encourage Bible belief instead of critiquing scripture when it doesn’t suit their doctrinal preferences.
We need to be sensitive to the critique, editing, and imposition of doubt upon God’s word. It is enough to hear it from without the church, must we hear it from within as well? Don’t let someone who has studied other languages stop you from understanding and trusting God’s word in your own language.
“…let God be true, but every man a liar;…” - Romans 3:4
1 cor 14 and neh 8:8 erv
King James was a freemason and the final editor of the KJV was Francis Bacon, a polytheist. And some things were purposely mistranslated. KJV is not infallible and there are better translations, though they all fall short of the original Hebrew and Greek.
KJV is poetic, concrete, concise using fewer words than most translations; it keeps the parallelisms, and the repetitions of "And" found in the Hebrew, but if you want to study something, read your favorite Bible and as many others translations that bring you to understanding. And don't forget to read the King James. The King James committee was headed up by the famous Lancelot Andrews who could have been translator general at Babel. My understanding that they didn't revise another Bible but used Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Textus receptus is a powerful argument. If you read Eusibius, the verses cited in the King James New Testament have already been cited by early ante-nicean fathers.
The King James Version was 80 percent based on Tyndale's work is what I was taught.
@@timothyross8985 I have to review, I have been pulling things out of my head and my memory may be faulty. I am going to research again. I disagree that the KJB is based on the Bishop's Bible. I first did my research on the Committee for the King James deep in the bowels of a University Library on Microfiche, Primary Sources, this was 1986. It will be a miracle if I can find my notes, but I will look.
And the final editor Francis Bacon was a polytheist. And purposely mistranslated the Greek word for Passover as Easter (a pagan holiday). Literally makes no sense when you read those verses bc the disciples would not have been celebrating Easter, but Passover. Thus for hundreds of years people have been equating a pagan holiday with Jesus death and resurrection. And let's not forget king James was a freemason. So, to say there aren't biased things in there is silly.
Mike Winger is against the message Bible & passion Bible etc
All these KJV only comments make my heart sad. I was raised in this culture, and one that I believe was abusive and dishoners the Lord. Though it was unintentional, the Lord doesnt "wink at ignorance". My question for those who are in KJV only crowd would be "How are you ok with the original KJV taking out the apocrypha?" Thats 14 books of the bible which seems to be alot of jot and tittles. What gives modern KJV only believers the authority to claim the KJV we have now is the best?? The version of the KJV they use is the 16th revision, yet they believe that satan is actually out there printing the word of God that saves people with THE GOSPEL MESSAGE OF SALVATION BY FAITH ALONE IN CHRIST. Also just because they italicize words in the KJV to show they added them doesnt mean they are exempt from what most KJV only people believe, namely that there name will be removed from the book of life ( kinda sounds like you can lose your salvation). KJV only believers totally ignore Jesus' rebuke to the desciples in Luke 9:49-50 "John answered, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he does not follow with us.” 50 But Jesus said to him, “Do not stop him, for the one who is not against you is for you.” Here it is in the KJV "And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.
And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us." If we preach Christ crucified, then we are on the same team. The KJV only movement is disobedient to Christ here because they created a arugment for a VERSION of Gods word without letting GODS WORD change them. They think they are fighting the Lords battles, but are actually listening to demonic wisdom (James 3:13-18). God give us eyes to Love and Cherish your WORD like david and his hebrew VERSION. We need his Holy Spirit to see this beauty, not arguing logic over eachothers heads.
What is better? "I count them but dung." or "I count all as loss." Please, always use a concrete word over an abstract. Guess which is the KJV? KJV makes scripture memorizing easy because of its rhythms and its concreteness. Easy in the ear, easy out. And the Psalms, EEEK
The real question is what did Paul mean, and how would that meaning be best translated into the ears of the listener.
When the KJV chose to use the word dung, they did it based on 17th century English culture, not the Bible.
In fact, the word translated "dung" in Phil isn't the Greek word for dung or excrement, it's the word for loss or detriment. This same word is used in Acts 27:10 and 21 describing the loss and damage taken to the ship.
So we see here the real problem with someone's religious addiction to a certain text, as opposed to really desiring to know what God was saying.
Paul wasn't even thinking of dung, but the KJV translators took an idea and changed it for their modern 17th century audience so they can get the connection. This is what modern translators do too, but they now pay more attention to the text, using the word "loss" just as Paul did.
Now if you said something like, "Paul just lists his Hebrew accolades and calls them dung, and in the Torah dung was unclean and to be taken outside the camp and not to be cooked with" then you'd have a textual reason for its inclusion - but again, it wasn't in the Greek.
I hope you will look this up, and look at any other word choices and really consider the role that translators play. If you love His word, as I do, enough to dicusss it and make claims, be sure to do the work first, being a good steward of the reason and intellect God gave you.
And don't forget - if you're not reading Greek or Hebrew (or a little Aramaic) then you aren't reading the original text - it will always be a translation from one culture to another. So, make sure you get one written to your culture, if not, it might make one's understanding as worthless as dung.
@@ReverendElation "dung" provides a powerful image. The point is the reader gets it. The reader does not plunge into the Greek. The reader depends entirely upon the translator to provide MEANING. The translator must provide the powerful English. The image always wins over the abstraction (language that refers to thought and not to the five senses) An image is seen or smelled or heard or felt.
Almost 30 year's ago the Holy Spirit revealed to me to only use the KJV. To this day I have only used it. As the Holy Spirit being my teacher I had no need for any other version are concordance.
Using the KJV is different from KJV Onlyism. I love the KJV, but it is not perfect. Having said that, I encourage people to use the KJV if they like it.
@@vikingpreacher9026 None of the versions are perfect. Without doubt we know that the Roman's have altered the word of God despite it having been told to us do not change a word. This is why God has said in his Word that in the last days he would write his word on the rablets of our hearts if people do not have the Holy Spirit you will be definitely be lead astray and deceived
And the Holy Spirit revealed to William Miller that the Second coming would occur in 1840, and we know how that turned out.
Just saying "God told me..." is HARDLY a Godly justification for your arbitrary beliefs.
KJV is from 1611. I guess NO ONE really understood God's truths before that date. I guess that Jesus himself spoke Greek, and this means that he didn't understand God's truth either because he did not speak King James English. I suppose the apostles also couldn't get it right, because they didn't speak King James English either. If we take this King James only thinking to its so-called logical conclusions, all of these assertions I have made are perfectly reasonable and consistent.
@Kittens Henderson, Could you please help me understand what you mean by this? How did the Holy Spirit reveal to you that you should only use the KJV?
Also, you mentioned that “without a doubt we know that the Romans have altered the Word of God.” What evidence do we have for this conclusion? (I am not seeking to pick at you; simply seeking to understand your point of view :)
Why does it seem the kjv is the only English version that almost everyone likes to beat up on, yet compare other versions to?
I don’t think anyone is beating up on the KJV itself, just the movement that says you’re not saved if you’re not reading ONLY the KJV. I love the KJV. But I don’t understand it very well. So I use other versions to help me make sense of it.
@@mariebo7491 I don't know anyone who says you're not saved if you don't read the kjv. False narrative, red herring.
@@recoveringknowitall1534 just had someone tell me I wasn’t born again just the other day in another video because I wasn’t onlyKJV. I was baffled.
@@mariebo7491 what a wack job... But that's not everyone, not even close, to people who love the kjv. No need to paint all of us with such an extreme brush.
@@recoveringknowitall1534 Glad to hear that. I seem to attract the wack jobs unfortunately 🤣
The book called “Bible contradictions” by Williams is pretty good on this subject. Opened my eyes to a lot of issues that no one wants to talk about.
So.. what Bible is the best? lol 😅
KJV only is idolatry
Worshipping modernism is idolatry.
@@igregmart are you suggesting I worship modernism?
Psalm 138:2 KJV
Classic English 2nd person pronouns:
singular -
thou =
nominative (subject)
&
vocative (direct address)
thee =
accusative (direct object)
&
genitive (origin or possession) - "of thee" or "from thee"
This genitive may be substituted with "thy" (before a word beginning with a consonant),
or "thine" (before a word beginning with a vowel).
&
dative (indirect object) - "to thee" or "for thee"
plural -
ye = nom., voc.
you = acc., dat.
your(s) = gen.
Greek also makes these distinctions. Therefore, any English version of the Bible that replaces "thou", "thee", & "ye" with "you"; or replaces "thy" & "thine" with "your(s)" is automatically a mis-translation because it fails to distinguish between singular & plural, & between functions.
The KJV is not the only English translation with correct 2nd person pronouns. Noah Webster's Bible, Murdock's translation from Aramaic into English, the Douay-Rheim Bible, & the Revised Version have those classically correct pronouns; & they should all be consulted & compared to arrive at an amalgamated perfect English understanding of the Bible.
If we used those words today, the point would be valid.
We do.
@@ronreeder2967 thine answer betrayeth thee.
Actually, thine answer betrayeth THEE.
@@ronreeder2967 Don't you mean "Verily..."
/
|
\
|
\
|
\
|
🎤
The problem is the KJV has verses that are being left out in other Bible translations
My friend, the New King James Version and the Modern English Version both use the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts as the King James. And they translate those texts into fully intelligible contemporary English, which means they meet the principle of 1 Corinthians 14, edification requires intelligibility. I recommend the NKJV and MEV to you.
I think one of the main problems is that Mark Ward doesn't think there is any problem with removing thousands of God's words. Check his words at 41:12. How many words would have to be removed before it would start becoming a problem? If we just threw out the whole book of John, would that be a problem?
Why are the new Bible translations Are missing many verses And they are different than the kjv Bible These are the verses That the new translations are missing I know One can argue That The majority of manuscripts Don't have these verses but I believe that the Manuscript that the KJV was copy from Was More Accurate one
Matthew 17:21
Matthew 18:11
Matthew 23:14
Mark 7:16
Mark 9:44
Mark 9:46
Mark 11:26
Mark 15:28
Luke 17:36
Luke 23:17
John 5:4
Acts 8:37
Acts 15:34
Acts 24:7
Acts 28:29
Romans 16:24
I appreciate Dr. Ward’s honesty with all aspects of the King James Bible and the movements around it. However, I disagree that the church NEEDS to all just read from the same translation because he seems well-aware that there is no such thing as a perfect translation in English. The church needs to be mindful of textual criticism and have some admiration for the work that goes into this particular scientific inquiry. Being single-minded with translations simply does not do that at all.
Agreed! We need to see the benefits that come from having multiple good translations.
Something no one in the critical text crowd, including Mark Ward, will answer is "Why does Jesus lie to his brothers in John 7:8-10?"
In the KJV, Jesus tells the truth.
Remember, if Jesus lied, he cannot be the son of God. He is not able to die for the sins of the world. So, how can anyone trust versions like the NIV or ESV?
I looked at all 3 and they all say the same thing to me. Also, he didn’t lie. He just changed his mind. You ever thought you didn’t want to do something, but then did it? It explains in the context why he didn’t want to go at first.
@@mariebo7491 Jesus did not change his mind. He said he came to fulfill the law. In order to do that, he has to attend the Feast of Tabernacles. It was part of the law he had to do.
Jesus knew he was going. You cannot get around the fact that most modern versions have Jesus lie. Don't try to read it for what you want it to say. Read what it actually says.
@@timlemmon2332 if that’s what you think, then why does He say the same thing in KJV? You said he “told the truth” there, but it says the same as the others? What’s the difference that you’re seeing. I’m not trying to argue, I’m trying to understand.
@@mariebo7491 In the KJV, Jesus says he is not going yet. In the versions based on the Critical Text, he states he is not going. He does not use the word "yet". This one word changes the entire meaning of what Jesus is saying.
If I flat out say I am not going to do something, then I do that very thing, you can assume that I either lied or changed my mind. We have already established that Jesus did not change his mind.
If I tell you I am not going to do something yet and later I do it, you would not think I changed my mind or lied, because I already told you I intended to do it, just not at the time we had discussed it.
@@timlemmon2332 i see what you mean. I always just took it like He changed His mind because of the explanation before. But I can see why you’d see it that way.
POO JABBER
KJV
it's more poetic
easier to remember
had many skilled learners have to agree on passages to put them together instead of just from a few men's minds that could easily have an agenda
taken from the majority of text instead of older unused text that was probably set aside due to it's flaws
I’m from the mountains of Appalachia, where there is a huge dense population of KJV only readers. For some reason, simple mountain people can understand the king James version very well but it seems the scholars like Mark or James White seems to have issues with how Difficult it is to read. Trust me, in the Appalachian Mountains the simple plow boy is reading KJV
The first church I went to after I was saved used the NASB version. They said it was the best most accurate translation. I bought one and used it for a couple years. I was in church one morning and the lord spoke to me clearly,
“Do not use the New American Standard Version”. Clear as a bell. I went home after church and found a KJV Bible I never used.
I figured I would read this version until the lord directed me to the right version. That was 30 years ago and I’m still reading the KJV. There is a reason the enemy battles against it.
Come on Remnant Radio have the other perspective tell their side. Get a good balance, that is what your show is all about, "break outside of our echo chamber". You have now had two shows against the KJV, give someone the chance to defend it.
AMEN.
This is what KJV only people do not understand. They project their own way of thinking on everybody else. They think, "I think KJV is the best and I attack all other types of translations". Therefore they think, "That must mean everyone else who is not KJV-only attacks the KJV." But what they fail to understand, is those who do not accept KJV only thinking do not themselves dislike the KJV, they merely do not think of it as the only correct version to have. There is no reason for him to defend the KJV, because he is not strictly speaking attacking the KJV, He is only criticizing people who attack all other translations except the KJV. Just because you attack all other translations does not mean that people who don't agree with you are doing the exact same thing to you in response. You see, I do not use the KJV normally, however I respect it as a very adequate an admirable translation.
Again, he is not criticizing people who like to use the KJV, he is criticizing people who demand that everyone use the KJV only. He's not attacking the KJV. And this is something that KJV-only people simply don't understand, they see everyone else as being just as dogmatic and intolerant and close-minded as they are.
@@khaccanhle1930 I don't think you know what Mark Ward truly believes. He has a video on his page where he is reaching out to Trinitarian Bible Society offering to update the KJV. Does that sound like someone who is fine with 55% of Americans reading it?
They should have Douglas Wilson on to talk about this. Doug is unique in that he is not an IFB preacher (not that there’s anything wrong with IFB, it’s just that they are mostly the pastors who are KJV-Only). He is a true reformed Presbyterian who believes that the KJV is the best translation for the church to use. He is not antagonistic to the new translations but he does believe that the King James is from superior manuscripts and is a superior translation and verbiage.
@@maggieprice357 @Maggie Price I've not heard of him. I'll have to look him up. I know that even within the IFB there are many different KJV philosophies. Have a great day!
Why the King James only? There is only one Word of God, so not all translations can be the One. Although man may change, God never does. If a translation has been copywrited then it belongs to whom copywrited it. We cannot do what the Bible teaches if we don't have a public domain copy (we can be sued and or jailed if we use a copyrighted copy, without permission). And permission is quite hard to get at times and normally will cost you money.
God told us to freely give, as you were freely given. A public domain Bible allows us to pull the *complete* key Scriptures. How else can God keep every jot and tittle? God's orders should be more important to follow than whether or not our favorite Bible is up to date.
Psalms 119:151
Thou art near, O LORD; and all thy commandments are truth.
Jesus is The Word, John 1:1-5
The Word God spoke: Exodus 20:1 (His Spirit)
The Word God wrote: Deuteronomy 4:13(His Covenant)
and The Word God made flesh John 1:14 (Jesus). He is our example of The Trinity. He is The Law that hung on the cross and The Law that is written in the heart.
Psalms 40:7
Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me
Hebrews 10:7
Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
Jesus was given a new name upon His resurrection. So what is the new name of Jesus, The Word of God? NIV, RSV, NLT etc., or is He The King James? There is only ONE Word of God, choose your Lord and King.
As Psalms ask us, what is the name of the Father and Son? Remember He told us He would rise perfect in three days, a day to the Lord is a thousand yrs.. Could it be Lord King James?
We are servants to whom we obey. If copywrited, then it is him in whom you serve.
You should interview Dr. Gene Kim from San Jose Bible Baptist Church. That way you will have both sides represented.
They wouldn’t dare lol
After seeing clips of Dr Gene Kim I think it’s safe to say he represents the most toxic divisive side of KJVO. He even claims the “original Greek is garbage”. He’s far too radical to have a healthy debate on this.
I challenge you to have a KJV Only expert on your show. They are all over the place.
I am safe with my King James Bible. Are you safe with your so-called Bible? Someone (I can't recall who) said some of the modern translations "contain" the word of God, while the KJV IS THE WORD OF GOD for English speakers.
Also worth noting is that in order for a new English translation to get its own copyright it has to be 10% different from other Bibles. Is that the way we preserve GOD's word, having a target of a certain number of words to be changed rather than accuracy?
Isaiah 40:8 - The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
Matthew 24:35 - Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
Psalms 119:89 - For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.
Matthew 5.18 - For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
there's nothing controversial about it. kjv is the preserved snd unperverted word of God
Easy to being fooled by allegory, John Baptism was greatest born of woman so Jesus was allegory, The Bible is allegory not secular history like classic theology thinks it is, nothing new under the sun and repeated. Imagination is God in man, looking outside is classic theology that creates fear and repeating under the sun, Paul hinted who you are, Phil 2:5Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Matt 11:11Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he
His microphone is not loud enough: PERIOD. This is a waste of a critical podcast. How awful!!
Gifts aren’t for today
Why do you say that?
Correct . It’s not my birthday or Christmas
Blessings
The church isn't for today
translated "I don't have any and haven't seen any, so they aren't for today." I love a good argument from incredulity.
@@ReverendElation Yes, exactly! It's like saying Jesus isn't for today or the church isn't for today or the Bible isn't for today, etc
What you are sir, is someone who is sincere. Sincerely wrong and sincerely on the wrong side of history. You’re not fooling anyone who knows basic textual history. You’re the new-gen of James White.
'Theological Fight Night' huh? Why don't you children grow up but remain silent in the meantime?