ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ต.ค. 2020
- CredoMag asked me to provide two pieces on KJV-Onlyism. Here's the first, and here's the second: • Don’t Be a One-Bible-V...
And here's a link to the articles:
📰 credomag.com/2020/10/how-to-r...
📰 credomag.com/2020/10/dont-be-...
😎 Help me end Bible translation tribalism, one plow boy at a time:
/ mlward
📖 Check out my book, Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible:
amzn.to/2r27Boz
🎥 Watch my Fifty False Friends in the KJV series:
• 50 False Friends in th...
👏 Many, many thanks to the Patreon supporters who make my work possible!
Name, James Duly, Robert Gifford, Lanny M Faulkner, Lucas Key, Dave Thawley, William McAuliff, Razgriz, James Goering, Eric Couture, Martyn Chamberlin, Edward Woods, Thomas Balzamo, Brent M Zenthoefer, Tyler Rolfe, Ruth Lammert, Gregory Nelson Chase, Ron Arduser, Caleb Farris, Dale Buchanan, Jess English, Aaron Spence, Orlando Vergel Jr., John Day, Joshua Bennett, K.Q.E.D., Brent Karding, Kofi Adu-Boahen, Steve McDowell, Kimberly Miller, A.A., James Allman, Steven McDougal, Henry Jordan, Nathan Howard, Rich Weatherly, Joshua Witt, Wade Huber, M.L., Brittany Fisher, Tim Gresham, Lucas Shannon, Easy_Peasy , Caleb Richardson, Jeremy Steinhart, Steve Groom, jac, Todd Bryant, Corey Henley, Jason Sykes, Larry Castle, Luke Burgess, Joel, Joshua Bolch, Kevin Moses, Tyler Harrison, Bryon Self, Angela Ruckman, Nathan N, Gen_Lee_Accepted , Bryan Wilson, David Peterson, Eric Mossman, Jeremiah Mays, Caleb Dugan, Donna Ward, DavidJamie Saxon, Omar Schrock, Philip Morgan, Brad Dixon, James D Leeper, M.A., Nate Patterson, Dennis Kendall, Michelle Lewis, Lewis Kiger, Dustin Burlet, Michael Butera, Reid Ferguson, Josiah R. Dennis, Miguel Lopez, CRB, D.R., Dean C Brown, Kalah Gonzalez, MICHAEL L DUNAVANT, Jonathon Clemens, Travis Manhart, Jess Mainous, Brownfell, Leah Uerkwitz, Joshua Barzon, Benjamin Randolph, Andrew Engelhart, Mark Sarhan, Rachel Schoenberger
I grew up in a KJVO church. I always felt so guilty for feeling like reading my Bible was a burden. I knew it should be a joyful thing, but I just didn't enjoy it. Then when I was a teenager I found the NIV. Wow! It wasn't so much that I couldn't understand the KJV, but now I could understand without working at it. It was like living with asthma and not knowing I had asthma and then being able to take a deep breath. 🤯
Currently, I read the ESV, but my heart will always treasure the 1984 NIV for the freedom it gave me. ❤️
This is fantastic!
But long experience has taught me to be very careful the way I put this: it's not that the NIV lets me read without work; it's always going to be work reading difficult portions of Scripture, from Paul to Leviticus. It's that the NIV lets me read without *unnecessary* work, busywork created by unnecessarily archaic ways of putting things.
@@markwardonwords Well, yes. I could focus on understanding what the Scripture *means* without working so hard at understanding what it *says*. I took Spanish in highschool but it's much less work reading an English translation of Don Quixote than trying to understand the original Spanish. 😄
RIGHT! A great way of putting it!
That's exactly the problem with the King James version okay trying to read that 17th century English writings It's a burden it's hard it's annoying it's so tedious It doesn't make sense trying to understand the words they're saying It reading the Bible you shouldn't feel that way You should be able to read it and understand it instantly what it's trying to say 17th century English might as well be a different language You're trying to read a different language and understand it
Fast n pray. Something others leave out. That's an issue. KJV is it
I came to Christianity late in life (from a Jewish -> atheist -> New Age -> Buddhist -> Hinduistic focus) and I find that when in a Bible study and someone reads aloud the KJV, it's very hard for many to follow the language as it is so strained for us in the 21st century to understand. I respect them but that language detracts from understanding unless you live in it daily and, particularly, understand word meaning changes. I study the Bible with Parallel readings handy online so I can see how things can be presented differently - and so understand the Bible better.
I agree fully with you. And the point is to understand what God has said! Thanks for watching. Great to hear your story.
I’m very sorry to hear that, I’m interested in the phenomenon of people having the inability to comprehend words written at a 6-7th grade reading level.
Did you happen to complete middle school by any chance?
Here, let’s try this out.
2 Peter 1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
1 Corinthians 2:13-14
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. [14] But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1. That verse means that before diving into the scriptures we MUST know this first…. The only way to “interpret” the scripture is through the Holy Spirit, attempting to “interpret” the personally is an error. What you believe it means does not matter, what matters is what God means. Take what his says literally and for face value.
2. That second verse means the the Holy Spirit teaches us about the Bible and the words spoken within it. And a natural (unsaved or hellbound) man cannot understand these things contained within because like you all he’ll think it’s written foolishly due to the fact that it must be discerned spiritually by the author, the Holy Spirit
See? That’s why y’all have difficulty understanding the kjv. If you would like to understand just ask the Holy Spirit, who is the author of the Bible, to reveal the scripture unto you by pulling the veil off your eyes.
@@uswvme862 if you are a Christian I don't think making your argument while calling another brother in Christ an idiot ("did u pass middle school ")is edifying to the Lord just saying.
@@noahrohrbach351 wait what? I didn’t say he’s an idiot, I mentioned that the KJV is written at a 6th-7th grade reading level and asked if he completed those grade levels.
- Is it not reasonable or enough of a big ol edifying smooch to ask someone who can’t read at a middle school reading level, if they in fact completed middle school? Would you rather me assume he did not?
- My goal was to understand by asking questions, which accompanies/involves dissecting, scrutinizing, and breaking down; not edifying or building up, but the very opposite. The edifying material is found within the rest of comment, specifically the other 7/8 of the total comment posted. You should take a look at it, it’s a very interestingly edifying explanation for this present day phenomenon of people not understanding the KJV Bible and needing to update the “archaic” english every 4 months by releasing a new Bible
@@noahrohrbach351 ye so don’t think they ment to say that though it could be interpreted as that
Escaping KJV-onlyism was one of the best decisions I made in my Christian life. The amount of subjectivity involved with it is significant. Once you realize it's just an English translation built upon the ideas of the textual criticism at that point in time, you realize all the other translations later on or that come after also sought to improve upon the text in the ways the scholars embarked upon, just like the KJV scholars did. If the KJV-onlyists would just read the introduction text to the KJV from the scholars themselves, they would learn just how wrong they are on so many things.
🤣😂😂😂😂😂I’ll stick with my kjv. This clown isn’t God. I’ll never listen to someone who doesn’t have power over their next breath, and the kjv worked before they were born and will work when he’s dead
You have been lied to. The King James Bible is PERFECT. The "newer versions" DID NOT EXIST until like 1970s and do not even claim to use same manuscripts. They are different books and NOT scripture. Any "new discovery" would be LOST and NOT scripture. Read John. Read Numbers 5.
Escaped the true Word of God nothing to brag about
@@MichaelAChristian1 thank you. I think they came out in the 50s. But nobody was thinking much of it or paying attention to that garbage until he got time for Jesus return. Then all of a sudden the king James Bible is the problem even though it wasn’t for over 400 years.
@@PastorErickDMarquez exactly
Just curious...why do you feel you have to "Rescue People from the Trap of KJV-Onlyism"? If they are saved using the KJV, then what's the problem? We should be focused on those those who do not understand the principles of the Doctrines of Christ. The KJV is adequate in being able to do just that.
Yes, it absolutely is-for many people. But I’m not rescuing people from the KJV, but from the doctrines of KJV-Onlyism. This very day I talked to a young man whose father is worried that he’s losing his faith because the son is using other Bible translations. I also talked to a godly young Christian man who has no relationship with his mother because she is so extreme in her devotion to the KJV. These false doctrines cause real disunity and harm. And I don’t want an adequate understanding of the Bible; I want a detailed and accurate one. This the KJV can no longer give to all but the most adept readers, because no one any longer speaks the Elizabethan English of the King James.
When I read words like thy, thee, thyself, thou, shalt, mayest, thereof, hath, ye, doth, I have no idea what the passages are saying. Thus, giving the reader their own meaning of the bible.
I was once KJV only, but after some initial reluctance, I now have an NKJV and an NASB95. I'm glad I have them. I heard a man say a while back (something to the effect) that he accepts the limitations of human preservation of the scriptures, so not having a "perfect" book does not undermine his faith in Christ, rather, his faith in Christ gives him confidence in the scriptures in the form in which we have them. That had an impact on me. We simply must accept reality as it is. I can't agree with those who say if we don't have "one perfect book" that God didn't preserve his Word, or that it is faith destroying. No! We can trust that the theology, morality, and historicity of the scriptures have been preserved in the translations available to us, even if they translate the words in various ways.
I wonder how many KJV onlyists realize, for example, when they attack the word usage in Isaiah 14:12 (day star, morning star, star of the morning) that the 1611 KJV contains marginal notes that give "day star" as a valid alternate reading. Fascinating! It certainly sheds light on the ad hominem attacks against newer translations of that verse. I didn't even know until recently that the 1611 had marginal notes!
I encourage KJV onlyists to lay down the pitch forks and to search for more insight when it comes to this topic.
Right. =(
The meaning didn't change, though.
The NT says that copies of scripture are inspired too. So if something contradicts scripture, it's not inspired, and therefore untrustworthy. Paul tells us that divine preservation is real. This doesn't mean only the KJV; but it does mean that anything that contradicts it is false. Since divine preservation is real, where are the holy scriptures??? "Only the originals are inspired" won't work, I'd hope for obvious reasons...
I have a question about translation choices. I do not speak the Biblical languages so I utilize Logos software to research their word study tools and resources to better understand the original words behind the English translations. In doing so, I have seen how a lot of the renderings in the modern versions are clearly more precise; at least in for contemporary English (the CSB in particular seems to have a knack for capturing nuances in a remarkable way. At least in my own layman’s opinion).
My question is about some of the other translation choices that leave me scratching my head. I will bring up two somewhat infamous examples that have been argued about a lot in KJV Only debate forums: σπουδή (spoude) in 2 Timothy 2:15 and δεισιδαίμων (deisidaimon) in Acts 17.22. After reading a lot of conflicting statements from different sources over what these two words really mean, I plugged them into Google translate out of curiosity just to see if Modern Greek still used the terms and what they mean today (I realize Google Translate isn’t the most academic of resources but thought it might be interesting just for comparison).
δεισιδαίμων translated as “superstitious” rather than “very religious” and σπουδη came up as “study” rather than “be diligent.” Both terms mean today exactly what the KJV rendered them as. So isn’t it unfair to say that modern versions are more accurate in these two verses? Why would even the NKJV translate them with less precise wording? I have come across other instances like this which give me concern about fully trusting newer Bible versions.
Shrewd the Wise, you put admirable effort into your “study”! But watch my video on study (and my follow-up video, “Study Part 2”) and you’ll get a little help here. It isn’t that Google Translate is a non-scholarly resource; not at all. I use it regularly. It’s that the version of Greek it is using is Modern Greek, not the 2000-year-old Greek of the New Testament. Let me say something gently, here, because you seem to be thinking very carefully through this: you committed what can only be called an extremely basic error. I don’t mean to insult you, not at all. I commit such errors ALL THE TIME in fields I don’t have training in. I’ve just gotten into woodworking, and nearly every new project I do makes me slap my forehead and realize how stupid I was to be ignorant of the tools and techniques I’m learning. Those tools and techniques would have helped me so much just one year ago, say. It’s easy for me to be extra humble about woodworking, because I recognize my abysmal ignorance. Here’s the upshot: I would encourage you to step back and think not, “Can I trust the CSB’s/ESV’s/NASB’s choice here in passage X?” but instead, “Can I trust the CSB/ESV/NASB translators?” Look them up. Read a few of their books and commentaries. See where and how they have served the church. If they do something you can’t explain, give the benefit of the doubt to people who would never, ever make the (totally understandable!) Google Translate mistake you made because they actually read Κοινή (Koine) Greek. Start with the assumption that they have a good reason you can’t see for their choice in any given place, because they are trustworthy evangelical scholars. If you didn’t write such a humble and careful comment, I wouldn’t have dared to risk offending you! But I’m afraid this is the point that must be made.
Oh, and please make sure to watch the follow-up! th-cam.com/video/PrHfKdpxqfQ/w-d-xo.html
@@markwardonwords I just watched both of your videos about “study” and this is EXACTLY the information I was looking for! I fancy myself a wannabe language nerd, also, and I was really seeking a reasonable, coherent explanation as to why the modern translators decided to go this direction.
I know how languages change over time and consequently recognize that comparing Modern Greek with Koine has its limitations. Honestly, I was shocked by how the words I gave as examples were as close as they were (as you also mentioned, in your “Study” videos, the surprise you have experienced in seeing how little Greek has changed over the centuries). I was hoping to maybe glean a little insight into how the root words might have changed by looking into Google Translate, I certainly wasn’t expecting to see “spoude” come up as “study” (“spoudazo” came up as “I study”, I believe, which is interesting that the Koine second person imperative ending seems to now mark the first person indicative in Modern Greek).
I certainly hope my question didn’t come across as argumentative or combative, that certainly wasn’t my intention. Like those you described in your follow-up “Study” video, I’m just a Christian wanting to know the truth and understand.
I have put to rest most of the arguments put forward by KJV Onlyists in my mind, but a few nagging concerns remain. I only recently became aware of your ministry in this area and I have been impressed with your gentle, gracious, and respectful teachings about the subject. Qualities that can be markedly scarce when it comes to proponents on both sides of the issue! I was also impressed to see that you directly answer comments on your videos and felt you would be the right person to bring my question to. I’m really glad I did, your counsel is edifying.
One last thought: I see that you are trying to walk that tightrope of firmly responding to those who criticize your viewpoints without becoming quarrelsome. To disagree without being disagreeable and argue for the truth without being argumentative. I just wanna say that, from what I’ve seen of your teachings, I believe that God has blessed you with a gift for doing just that. You may never persuade those deeply entrenched in error, but you are definitely reaching those of us who are honestly searching to better understand God’s Word. Thank you!
Wow! Praise God for such an encouraging exchange! I am truly thrilled to have been of service to you, and I am moved by your words-and by your humble response to me.
@@markwardonwords Almost but not quite. I take your very own standard and apply it not to modern committee translators but the Critical Text committee and they fail.
Encouraging video Dr. Ward, I am thankful for your ministry.
I was a member of a church that held to the TR only position - and they used the KJV, so I used it too, for years. When I left due to spiritual abuse and cultish practices, I moved over to the ESV.
I sadly began harboring a lot of resentment towards the King James Version because of the association I made with it and the abusive practices of my former church.
Over time I’ve been able to unpack a lot of that baggage and have started to have a softened heart to the King James again. I really do enjoy the beauty of the language, formality in translation, and how easy it is for me to “tuck it in my heart” so to speak, for mediation and memorization. I’m planning to read through it this upcoming year and have been blessed by your “False Friends” videos, and by your sober, clear headed critique of the KJVO movement and its various pitfalls. (All without demonizing the translation itself, as is so often the case by some KJVO and TRO proponents.) I hope you have a blessed New Year, Dr. Ward! Keep on keeping on!
I absolutely LOVE this! I know just how you feel. I, too, have grown in my love for the KJV over the last few years.
I have been waiting for this very important video on the trap or shackle of KJVOnlyism.Psalm 12:6 is one verse that is overly misinterpreted to support the KJV onlyism position,saying that the Authorized Version is not just verbally inspired but verbally preserved what ever that means.
Right: it’s a major confusion to say that the KJV is “the preserved Word of God.” It’s the Hebrew and Greek that are the proper objects of preservation.
I am not sure if you heard about the late Dr.Robert L.Sumner editor of Biblical Evangelist newspaper who wrote the pamphlet Bible Translation has helped me started thinking for myself and wrote that the original Hebrew and Aramaic in the O.T.and Greek for the N.T. are the preserved ones plus your lectures on KJV its use and misused videos have solidified my position.on Bible versions.
Praise God. I’ve heard of Robert Sumner, yes!
Tho shall not ad nor diminish from my word!
Study the difference between Proverbs 30:29-31 KJV then ESV or NIV
You shall see others are indoctrinated!
@@yalnevatekofreedom5096 I respect your opinion about the KJV issue.But let me ask you this question which made me think about the KJV Bible.Can you show me a verse from either the Old testament or New Testament which say YOU SHALL READ AND USE ONLY ONE BIBLE VERSION AND IF YOU DISOBEY THIS COMMANDMENT YOU WILL LOSE YOUR SALVATION FOREVER,if you can show me this verse then I will go back to being a KJVonly person.
When I was a resident assistant (hall counselor) at BJU, there were about half a dozen students from my hall who came to me personally because they were struggling over this issue. They were thinking to themselves that other translations were good and valuable to use, but it pricked their conscience because of their upbringing - it almost felt like a closet sin to branch out in their devotional life. (A couple KJVO students were even struggling with the social dynamic of worshipping with other students who didn’t like to use KJV.) And, to me-as much I wanted to talk up the other translations or even talk down the KJV-it seemed wise to encourage them for the time being to keep yielding to their conscience (and to avoid persuading other Christians until they are fully convinced for themselves.) I was sometimes uncertain about advice beyond that, though. It always felt like a hard balance between trying to free them from an unnecessarily strict conscience and trying to keep them obeying their conscience and respecting their authorities. 🤷🏻♂️
Looking forward to the follow up! (I’m also specifically curious about whether or not there is an inherent sin in having KJVO-ism limit your fellowship and worship with other believers-whether practically or out of a sense of necessity.)
Wow-yes, this is just what I would have done. Especially if they are still under their parents’ authority. But this is so tough, because their consciences are being bound by untruths. So I think I would stick with the time-honored practice of telling people what the Bible says about a touchy topic and leaving application to their own conscience. I would encourage them to consider the application of 1 Cor 14 to their situation, and I would also tell them that the best representatives of the KJV-Only perspective do insist that the KJV is not perfect or itself inspired.
Mark Ward much appreciated 🙏
Christopher, I’m not sure I’m following this comment. Explain?
Ah! And, to again get clarity here, you do insist that it’s perfect? Yes, Christopher, I have to say this puts you out of the mainstream in the KJV-Only world. As I’ve pointed out a number of times, the KJV translators themselves did not hold this perspective. E.F. Hills didn’t; Chuck Surrett of Ambassador Baptist College doesn’t; the Trinitarian Bible Society doesn’t.
And, brother, my next CredoMag article will talk about this very thing: the Bible does not teach us to expect or demand a perfect Bible translation in any language. God could have done it that way; I wouldn’t stop him if he wanted to do it. I’d love it, of course! But I feel the same way about the immaculate conception of Mary: it’s possible; God could have done it that way. It’s not so much that I object to the idea as if it were impossible or necessarily wrong. I object to the implicit claim to authority in the Catholic church’s promulgation of that doctrine. It’s the same with the perfection of the KJV (or any translation in the world): I don’t object to the idea in itself. I object to saying that the Bible teaches that idea.
Lesson learned! I will keep this in mind.
I’ve seen the fruit so far, and I’m happy.
My friend, I’ve been reading KJV-Only literature for 20+ years. I did not and do not misrepresent the camp-I even work carefully to distinguish the camps. However, I am finite and fallible. And I am willing to be corrected if I have made a mistake.
You mentioned the NKJV and the MEV. Would you personally recommend one over the other?
Probably the NKJV, for the sole reason that it uses an already-trusted name. Well, I guess there’s also the reason that I am more familiar with the scholars who produced it than I am with the scholars who produced the MEV. But that’s minor.
@@markwardonwords great. Thanks so much!
@@markwardonwords dear Mr ward I after a lot of my own research came to a from of king james only view my view rejects the critical text, but believes in theory that the kjv can be modernized if done correctly. I came to this conclusion based on trying my best to be as non biased as possible. I assumed that both sides only wanted the best for people and loved and served God. So I couldn't attacked either side. What my research boiled down too is this how does one view the preservation of scripture, did God perfectly preserve his word through time or not? I also looked at multiple church history books to see what was going on in 3rd and 4th century church life and beyond. Even took a little Greek. So I gathered up all the evidence and looked at the same evidence from the different views of scripture preservation, and both sides came to their conclusions based on their own views on preservation. My own desire would be to get a group of people who love the king james, but who are willing to modernize it by just rephraseing some of the passages and replacing the archaic words but keep the text exactly the same. No Greek or Hebrew just the king james Bible. The NKJV and the mev don't count because the king james only view rejects both of these versions. I can see why as someone who is ocd and can explain the supposed errors in the KJV. God Bless you I would like to hear what you think about my findings whether or not you agree or disagree with me.
Why ask yet another man?
Ask God directly. I did, 23 years ago, and HE answered me.
@@markwardonwords While the MEV is a good translation, in my view, they have dropped the MEV and are not updating it or improving it. I am sad about that, but do trust the NKJV a lot myself. I am trusting the NET Bible more and more though.
Thank you so much for your non divisive leadership. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ. I have heard so many say there were certain translations that spoke to them. Just as we are in certain stages or levels of learning and not being static we can therefore move from one translation to another and glean something from each. Yes I have my favorites which speaks to me. No doubt once full I will either add a chain reference or possible commentaries or even a prayer journal. God moves beyond our translations for we are more than the physical. We are mental, emotional, spiritual. Some of these areas are more developed than others in each of us. Hence the various translations OF the same sources speaks on various levels.
Thank you for these kind words! May God help us in our Bible study!
Amen 🙏
Textus Receptus was also used for the NKJV and Modern English Version.
The first KJV was translated in 1611 and updated in 1613, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769 and 1850.
I don't keep all the KJV edition dates in my head, but you're right about the NKJV and MEV.
@@markwardonwords the point is that the Bible has been updated continually over time and using outdated translations only puts a Vail over the Gospel.
“Sure as Sheol” 😅🤣 I’m totally gonna internalize that and start using it frequently in conversational format!
Btw, the King James’ usage of שְׁאוֹל Ἅιδης as “hell” is one of my biggest objections to its rendering of the Hebrew and Greek. For me, this demonstrates a massive lack of understanding in Jewish and early Christian eschatology and it’s primarily rooted in a misguided[, and yet widely accepted,] disposition to over-Christianize the Bible in its entirety. In other words, older texts of the Hebrew Bible are made to say something their original audience has absolutely no concept of whatsoever.
This is plausible to me, but I’m not ready to issue an intelligent opinion. My gut says that people will have to do some academic study to understand this concept properly, so I’m not overly concerned which translation they encounter. But again, your view sounds very plausible, and I will continue to consider it.
I currently have the CSB. The Church I attend are “KJV preferred”. Do you have a Bible that fits in between?
The NKJV is a good one. It is based on the TR just like the KJV. It should meet the approval of “KJV-preferred” churches.
Compare acts 7:45 from the kjv an w/e other version you want to use. ALL new bibles do effect doctrine amen 🙏
@@REWSTRMACuh…I hate to tell you, but Joshua and Jesus have the same name is Greek and Hebrew…Ιησού there. And given the context of Moses, Steven’s whole speech to this point, it’s clear that they are referring to Joshua. Also there’s no doctrine here. It’s Steven giving a recap of their history.
@@REWSTRMAC Wait what? It literally says the same thing, whatchu mean
Truth and honesty should be our objective. Love and mercy our method. Peace and unity our goal. Ultimately the Bible exists to show us who God is, who we are, and our need for redemption and a Savior. The Bible is not a god to be worshiped, but a message to be cherished and understood.
Amen and amen!
Love the way you expressed that!
No the Bible is the spoken word of God. That's why it is the Holy Bible.
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
2 Timothy 2:15 KJV
The words of my God that is to be worshipped. HIS words should not be corrupted. And that's how we cherish it. Not one jott or tittle should be changed. And we should stand fast on truth. And unite on that truth. The evidence is all there. Just look for it. You shouldn't blindly fallow this guy that is obviously filled to the seams with contention. And a scenic's only defense is to scoff. That's why he says things like big jerks... this guy is a clown. But a powerful clown. The words of our creator is something we should never be loose about. It's not a text book or a magazine. It is our doctrine for living life.
@@ernestbailey6617 what do you think this means?!
It's always been my personal opinion via belief in the sovereignty of God that the truths we need to know can be found in all translations of the Bible. Furthermore, the more translations we read, the better an understanding we will have of these truths.
That is my experience. And my theology. Sure, there are a few translations out there to stay away from-but it's by reading more than one that those will likely be revealed as misleading.
How do you feel about the. (TPT) ???
I am not a KJVO but I used it the most
I take Mike Winger’s view of TPT.
@@markwardonwords so burn it then?? 😁
I've read and studied other translations..... I had someone critical of me for this approach..... and they thoroughly derided the translation I was studying at that time.....SO I asked them what have you found to be the problem with "That" translation and give me the verses you find to be a problem with XXXX translation..... to which they replied, "I've not read it and I"m not going to read it either, why would I read trash?" SO I asked, "How can you denigrate thoroughly what you have not read?"
Right! Now, sometimes I feel safe rejecting books I haven't read. Deepak Chopra, for instance. But if a bunch of fellow conservative Christians are reading something or doing something, I can't just write it off. I need to engage it.
@@markwardonwords I realize various secular books..... but I read all English Translations because I think it's important to have a working knowledge of a translation..... I just love folk that call God's word trash, and then condemn a translation and tell me "only what they've heard" is the problem..... IF there is truly a problem with it, show me...give me examples...........
They can denigrate what they have not read by the spirit of the world..... Which has deceived them.
As a "Lego Aficionado" I am quite glad we don't get banned that often! Haha! I gotta say, this video was interesting. While I do think your "trusting the mistaken doctor" analogy does make sense, and is true in many, many cases of KJVO adherents, I fear that there's a small flaw. Acts 17:11 sets up the Bereans as a good example because they searched out what they had been taught and judged it by the Bible. Today, of all times in history, Christians have more access to research, learning, study guides, and resources than ever. Even a cursory glance at the NT verses that quote the OT will show immediately that God's inspired writers didn't consistently translate verses identically, nor did they quote them "word-perfect." Even looking at the margin notes and/or "The Translators to the Readers" in the 1611 make it abundantly clear that one simply cannot demand a "word-perfect" translation and declare any variation, even of a single letter, to be evil. While I certainly agree that the average churchgoer has no need to dive into the craziness and arguments of textual criticism, and should be able to trust their pastor, there's also a level of responsibility placed on every Christian to judge what they are being taught by the Bible, even if that means questioning their pastor. (Something that's certainly not emphasized in KJVO IFB churches.) I wonder, then, at what point the utter negligence of that duty becomes a sin, especially on a subject that, frankly, is so foundational to them and so often screamed about in those circles.
In other words, it may be nitpicking, but we do have a way to check "our white blood cell count" in regards to the KJVO subject. More, Christians actually have a duty to examine it.
Shelby, there is a flip side to what I’ve said, and you’ve nailed it. There are people in the KJV-Only world to whom your words absolutely apply. When I sense some openness from a KJVO brother or sister, I am willing to talk about textual criticism. And, yes, somehow it can’t be right that IFB KJVOs scream about textual criticism and do so in willful and culpable ignorance of what it actually is. Some KJVO leaders deserve stern rebuke for their divisive false teaching. I wish I could have made all these distinctions in my piece, but alas-even the internet has word count limits. =) I am speaking in that piece to the vast majority of Christian people with an orthodox bibliology about how to deal with the vast majority of (lay) KJV-Only Christians whom they will encounter. For those discussions, textual criticism is a red herring and a smokescreen and a briar patch, all in one. Also: when I see someone committing two doctrinal errors-one regarding preservation, the other regarding translation into the vernacular-I think I ought to start with an appeal to the clearer, easier issue; and I think I ought to start with the one to which the Bible speaks more clearly to Bereans.
Perhaps I am overcorrecting, swinging the pendulum too far back the other way. I don’t want to bind anyone’s conscience.
I see! Again, great points and thank you for the added clarity. You're right, your comments in the video are aimed at a particular audience and I think they hit that very well. Good job! To add a bit to what I said before, I'm not advocating for church members to dive into Textual Criticism, (arguing TR vs. CT, or Majority Text vs Alexandrian, or something like that) but just acknowledging the simple truth that one translation isn't the perfect be-all and end-all. Even being Textus Receptus Only allows for the MEV and the NKJV, as you've mentioned before. No matter the textual basis they use and love, I'm just for people waking up to the idea that more than one translation can be valid, and that's it's not a sin to consult something made in the last few hundred years.
Ah! That is a worthy distinction and an excellent point. I do feel comfortable saying that to KJVOs; that doesn’t violate my no-textural-criticism policy!
The only problem with multiple versions and study aids, study guides and the like is it discourages people from studying and memorizing the word of God, which is what God wants every believer to do.
I’ve read the KJV Bible SEVERAL times cover to cover, but if I was caught up in the world of all the multiple Bible versions, study aids and study guides, I would not have actually read the Bible and memorized key scriptures.
And then there’s the problem of 7 different versions say 7 different things ... so I’ll just pick the one **I** think is right. Well now who’s God? Are you letting God renew your mind through his word, or letting your mind renew Gods word? You know the mind that grew up on cartoons, TV, soft porn, violence and every other filth imaginable.
I’ve got people saved by quoting the plan of salvation (with Bible verses) from memory. I defy any multiple versionist to say the same thing. The Bible isn’t some intellectual exercise, it’s a spiritual book and it’s sharper than any two edged sword. There is no other version that cuts both ways like the KJV. Sorry.
Thanks for the wonderful and insightful video! Just found this channel and had to subscribe, looks like there is some great content here.
I hope so!
To me the KJV is the only version that rings true to my ears all the way to my soul.
I was raised on the KJV but can't quote a great number of scriptures. Therefore I do not have an old book memorized.
So why doesn't another version sound just as good or even better, since they are so easily read?
The KJV is truth to my heart. I can feel it deep within.
Question:
Why isn't another single bible version under attack same as the KJV?
I think the NIV gets *more* attacks. But such a thing can’t be proven.
@@markwardonwords But is the NIV attacked by other than KJV believers?
On a scale large enough to say that there is one? lol
@@markwardonwords, and rightly so.
Exactly! The devils want us defeated. I’ll die holding a kjv
The other bibles don't get attacked because you either stand as only using the KJV or your bounce to whatever version you like. KJV gets attacked so much because the churches that read it hold to whereas other churches using modern translations will freely move from translation to translation even using multiple translations in a sermon with the justification of "this one sound better".
You'll have to understand that modern scholars do not use the Bible to examine manuscripts, hence why they scream "oldest and best" without looking at church history. The manuscripts used by the KJV are found in Antioch, and the surrounding area, Antioch happened to be an ocean port, where the 1st mission trip and second mission trip was sent out of, and where the NT church rapidly grew and became the hub (End of the 1st century there was estimated 100,000 Christians living there. Mark Ward and other modern critics that don't believe in God's promises of preservation, inspiration, and ensuring the bible is available for every generation forever outside of the originals. Would have you believe that Alexandria where the manuscripts were hidden for 1400 years, copied by a school that does not believe in preservation, or the trinity, and believes that the Bible is not inspired. Based on their age is the most accurate manuscripts, we'll disregard that God has said nothing good about the nation of Egypt and assume that God preserved His word in a place where he told the king of Jerusalem to not even get a horse there.
Hi Mark. This is interesting and I have seen some of your other videos. I actually ordered your book today from an online book seller and am looking forward to reading it. I went from a staunch KJV Onlyist to a KJV "Bestist" ☺ I left the KJV only church. The pastor was trained by a very well known KJV only pastor. I can't seem to shake off the kjv only idea though. I guess I would say that I trust the KJV the most but I do use others, for example something on the total end of the spectrum, the New Living Translation. But I got to tell you I feel kind of guilty when I use a modern Bible. Now, I go to a new church that's bilingual Spanish and English. The pastor speaks Spanish and I translate into English so I know there is no such thing as perfect word to word translation. Nevertheless when a person is involved with something like KJV onlyism it's difficult to shake off. I'll keep watching your videos and read your book and I pray that this will help me think straight. Thanks for posting these videos.
Brother Claude, I understand so well. I remember when my conscience was bound like that. And I do not take the consciences of other Christians lightly. In this case, I think it should be 1 Corinthians 14 that should educate your conscience. Paul’s main application there is to tongues speaking, but his main point is something foundational: everything in church ought to be done for the purpose of edification. And when people insist on the use of “besom” instead of “broom,” “chambering” instead of “immorality,” and “emerod” instead of “tumor,” then edification is stifled at those points. People can’t be edified by words they cannot understand. And look at the comments on my videos on my channel. Instead of acknowledging this principle and simply saying that I’ve overestimated the number of dead words and false friends in the KJV, our KJV-Only brothers fight me tooth and nail. =( They cannot bring themselves to acknowledge either the scriptural principle or a single example of a false friend. To this date, after 49 false friends videos, I have not had a single KJV-Only brother acknowledge one specific example to me. And they continually speak of the KJV as perfect, something the Bible does not teach. These are the people who have bound your conscience, brother: they are not reasonable in the Phil 4:5 sense.
But now let me speak positively: just keep reading contemporary translations and see if you don’t end up in the same place I did: a place of gratitude for the understanding they brought me. Over and over again for 20 years, I've been helped by checking all the major modern evangelical English Bible translations-all I'm trying to do is understand my Bible. If that's your goal, then check multiple translations with a good conscience. May God bless you and guide you, brother.
@@markwardonwords thanks for the advice. I am doing much better nowadays. The pastor at my former church taught an extreme version of KJV only....KJV was the word of God and that was it. There is no equal in any other language, according to him. That church is also bilingual, and the pastor did not like the Spanish Bible that the Spanish congregation was using, the Reina Valera 1865 edition. So, true to form with this issue, the church had problems and split. The church I attend now is not KJV only, and I don't think a single person uses it. When I translate I use the NLT or the NKJV. Thank you for realizing that yes, we want to understand God's Word! I am not a betting man, but I would bet that even the most staunch KJV only person probably does not understand half of it. The concern I have sometimes with modern Bibles is the textual notes. I am not a Bible scholar, but I do kind of understand the issue of textual differences in the manuscripts and texts. But, at times these differences and textual notes kind of cause me to doubt. I am praying about this, but this is what sometimes draws me back to the KJV, and then I get all frustrated again. So, I kind of go back and forth. Maybe God allowed these little difference between manuscripts so that we wouldn't worship the Bible. Anyways, thanks again...I am sure you are helping a lot of people.
Brother Claude, this is a tough issue-I absolutely feel for you. There are probably two major orthodox ways of handling textual criticism. One would be, I think, trusting the people God has placed over you and not worrying about it. That has to be permissible for some people, right, because it just cannot be that every Christian has to figure out this issue for himself/herself? But if that doesn’t satisfy your conscience, go ahead and dig into the theological and other questions involved. Do some study and reading. Just acknowledge from the outset what your limitations are-whatever they are; I don’t know. If you don’t know Greek or Hebrew, for example, recognize that you’re ultimately going to have to take the word of people who do on a number of issues. Be okay with that. Don’t take on yourself the burden of knowing things God hasn’t given you the opportunity to learn. But much work has been done to help English readers dig into this issue, and I’d point you to my own KJVParallelBible.org to see for yourself, in English, every last translatable difference between the Greek New Testament edition underlying the KJV and the one underlying contemporary Bibles. I think that will be a faith-building exercise as you see 1) the vast, vast overlap between the two texts and the 2) utter insignificance of the vast majority of the differences between them. I’d also send you to an article I wrote for Bible Study Magazine: www.biblestudymagazine.com/can-we-trust-the-biblical-manuscripts. I can give you more reading recommendations after that. Judging solely by the quality of your prose, I think you can most certainly handle digging deeper. Read up on the issues. I’m happy to help. Contact me through my contact form at byfaithweunderstand.com if I can do more for you.
@@markwardonwords thank you! You are a blessing. I will subscribe to your website and your magazine. You have been a tremendous blessing! And you are correct....I am going to have to trust those that God uses.
@@chaplainclaude7384 remember friend that it's Jesus Christ who saves..
We're saved by his work alone, not because of some bible translation..
I also sat under KJV onlyist teaching for about five years who taught the KJV was the only one you should read..
I'm glad you are freed up from the trap of KJV onlyism..
I attend a sovereign grace KJV church. But the pastor is not kjvo. And after talking with him and him lending me mark wards book... I purchased an ESV. I love the KJV and the ESV... essentially what I’m saying is I love the word of God.
Excellent! I love the KJV and the ESV, too! The ESV is the KJV’s grandchild.
Good job as always.
Thanks for watching, David.
Thank you for your salt in your speech. I’m KJB only - also a fan of Ruckman though I don’t agree in all his teachings. I credit all bibles to be able to lead someone to salvation. The fruit I’ve seen from KJB only folks in my area and in the independent baptist circle is always about serving Jesus whole heartedly, witnessing and street ministry and studying the Bible nonstop to find the truth on doctrinal matters. There is a critical spirit that can come along with that, because we’re so exposed to doctrine and preaching all the time that we can be hard on our other denominational brothers and sisters and I’ve been guilty of that. But from what I’ve seen, the KJB is the “final authority” in all principles of faith and doctrine. The fact that it’s a Bible with both testaments being in ONE language, with chapter separations that were definitely Spirit lead - see Isaiah, 66 chapters with each chapter pertaining to a book of the Bible in the same order the canon is organized - English being the worlds second language (almost every country requires it) - and this principle I like to add that is strictly my opinion: if you were to learn a sport you must conform to the terms being used to learn it, im in medical school and need to learn the language to be able to perform correctly and it isn’t easy words. I believe God knew, the closer we got to the end the more reprobate and back slidden Christian doctrine would be and I believe He chose the perfect time period to have a perfect translation. Similar to God choosing the perfect Roman period for His son to be crucified. I love my brothers and sisters who use different bibles, if you are saved you have the Holy Spirit to guide you, I whole heartedly believe eventually Christian’s will come across the KJB lead by God and it’s not a salvation issue if they deny it. What I love about one Bible is the unity in the church. We can all agree what a verse is saying and can doctrinally move on or go deeper. And we can keep each other in check. I’m willing to agree to disagree with you, but I don’t find the KJB that hard to read once someone taught me how to read it. Similar to Phillip teaching the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts how to read Isaiah. And the Bible also tells us itself when words change and what they mean, here’s my verse reference: “(Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to enquire of God, thus he spake, Come, and let us go to the seer: for he that is now called a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer.)”
1 Samuel 9:9 KJV
The king james is consistence in its wording that a particular word used will stay the same unless otherwise noted in the context.
Love you brother.
Thank you for writing! Using one translation-be it the KJV or the NASB-is indeed useful for Christian unity, both within individual churches and between churches. I miss those days. But I'm afraid I can't find any Bible verses telling me that I must look for a perfect translation, or that I will get one at all. It simply isn't true that "almost every country requires" English, my brother! We simply have no authority to claim that the KJV is itself revelation of God. The KJV translators certainly did not do so:
Let me quote from the KJV perface:
"[There is] no cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current [that is, circulated], notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For [we ask:] whatever was perfect under the sun, where Apostles or apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?"
Summarized (and shortened) in contemporary English:
"There is no reason why the word of God stops being the word of God when it's translated, simply because some imperfections and blemishes occur in that translation. Was there ever anything perfect in this world aside from those things that were done by apostles?"
The KJV translators go on to argue that we still call a man handsome even if he has some warts on his hand. They say that we judge things-and ought to judge things-by their predominant character, not their exceptions. This means that other translations can be good besides the KJV, and it means that the KJV translators did not regard their work as perfect.
The KJV translators were not KJV-Only. They believed their work was good, but they admitted that there were some Hebrew words they weren't sure of the meaning of. They specifically denied enjoying "an extraordinary measure of God's Spirit" that "privileged [them] with the privilege of infallibility."
Where in the bible did anyone practice either street ministry or randomly knocking on strangers doors? Always meetings we held in the synagogues or peoples houses where folks had to go their by choice, or held outside of town where people had to make the effort to come to hear him. The only times Jesus taught in the street is when people addressed HIM.
@@markwardonwords What would you say about using TNIV?
@@flintymcduff5417 Apostle Paul in the book of Acts? ch 14?
@@Bible_bits I’ve read the entire thing. My comments on it are embedded in my “NIV Is Best” video.
I don't want to read some new translation saying "then Moses yeeted apart the sea fr fr no cap".
If such a translation comes out, I’ll make a video critical of it, I promise!
Read your book "Authorized - The use and misuse of the King James..". Wonderful and graceful approach to this controversial issue within the Church.
Thank you, sir. I appreciate your kind word.
A very thoughtful and loving presentation! I know people with Master's degrees who struggle to understand KJV. I have long thought of the similarity between keeping the Scriptures in Latin and keeping them in early 17th century English. Needing an extra tome to understand words makes 'Sola Scriptura' rather moot.
I try to be careful not to exaggerate, but in places I simply don't believe any contemporary readers are getting the intent of the KJV translators.
How interesting then, I started reading the KJV when I was 12 going on 13 years old, and I've never had a problem understanding it at all.
@@josephtracey4411, and I thought the very same thing! It wasn’t until I started reading other translations that I realized how much I was misunderstanding. The KJV is an excellent translation-but if you’re going to read it exclusively, you need to understand that it was translated into a form of English no one quite speaks or writes anymore. So there are going to be some places where you think you understand but, because of language change, you’re going to miss the intent of the KJV translators. For help discerning when this is the case, I encourage you to check out my “Fifty False Friends in the KJV” series on TH-cam for help reading the KJV! th-cam.com/play/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc.html
@@josephtracey4411 I grew up in the Episcopal Church prior to 1970, and the scriptures were always read from the Authorized Version, not to mention the liturgy similarly worded. Like you, I was acquainted at an early age with the way 17th century English worked. Folks who are older are less flexible in adjusting to different language patterns. Mark also makes a good point that someone may believe they understand when they actually misunderstand the words. (We can also misunderstand the NIV or the ESV, in all candor. Sincerely believing is not the same as accurately understanding.)
@@johngeverett I was born in 1985, so I started reading God's word around 97, or 98. I've always found it easy to read, so it just suprises me when I hear of people struggling to understand it when they read it. I tried reading the NIV a few times but it was ridiculously confusing to me, I kid you not. Before I got saved I hung out on "the streets", so to this day I can go to about any hood out there and talk to people and understand them perfectly, as well as being acquainted with the works of Shakespeare, on the other end. So it really suprised me when I found the NIV confusing and unintelligible. But, as we say in ebonics, "Ain't no thang, but a thang...".
Ha ha I caught that “as sure as Sheol”
Good video . You mentioned that you have a follow up video . Not sure if this is answerable, I will ask it . What about the KJVO folks that believe that the KJV corrects the Greek and Hebrew. You have any ideas .
Blessings
Bill
I think they are a minority and that they are usually too far gone for rational appeal. :( But still, I’m more hopeful that an English-focused argument will help them rather than a Greek-focused one.
I agree . It’s been a frustrating argument I have ran up against lately. Hoping to find way to reach them.
At the moment prayer is our best tool . Again thank you for your work.
Blessings
I got that too! Very witty, Mark.
If it corrects the Greek then preservation has not occured. And the doctrine of preservation of God's word in it's infallible entirety is clearly taught in scripture. In fact this is a central cause for kjv onlyism in my opinion. It is a limited or tradition locked minds way of understanding preservation.But the "correct the Greek" view cuts against the kjv only argument. It's says God breathed out his word, let it get muddled, and needed it fixed. Which means God didn't preserve the bible??? Its absurd. And heretical. I've heard it a lot but it's absurd.
Mark, I was that way so there’s definitely hope. But, I was thinking about it, don’t we all in a sense feel a translation can correct the Greek since all Greek manuscripts themselves are only copies of the autographs? Here’s what I mean:
1. Jes is Lord
2. Jesus is Lood
3. Jesus si Lord
Let’s say these three sentences represented variances in the extant manuscripts. It’d be easy from comparing them to figure out what the original said. So if we in our translation wrote, “Jesus is Lord” would it not be safe to say this is superior to the above three and could this correct them? If I’m wrong please explain.
Great video! I actually first logged onto the internet an innocent NIV reader who thought it silly to appeal to outdated English. I was radicalized because of 2 arguments: 1. The Vatican is involved in new translation work and text criticism (Jesuits invented paleography!) This made an impression on me because of my senior high school English study of the attempts to publish English Bibles. I read just enough John Foxe to never trust a Catholic, ever (St Bartholomew’s Day massacre anyone?) 2. The proof texts for word-level, absolute preservation. It seems to me that this 2nd point should be the main focus. Arguments are ferociously defended by those convinced that conceding the smallest textual vagary amounts to treasonous apostasy (even if they’re already eternally secure 😉.) For the committed proponents, a tiny crack in this dam will inevitably result in major cognitive dissonance and/or serious re-evaluation of the whole belief system. For me, it was important to see a clear path to honest acknowledgment of textual pluralism that didn’t give any ground to academic infidelity. Fear is the power behind this. At least for me it was.
Yes-this is excellent. And I think that appeals to dead words and false friends are the gentlest way to crack open the false and ignorant bibliology of people who think that a single syllable changed in a translation means adding to or removing from the Word of God.
@@markwardonwords People, dont believe him. They are coming out with a vaccine which is created to eleminate your fundamental thinking. Your Godly ways of seeing the world for what it is.
Just check it up yourselfs, its called 'FunVax'.
I may have Autism.. But im not dumb. I can smell the shit down their agendas..
20years of my miserable life I spend together with these people, believing they would show me the 'Truth', but all the give me is weak arguments/stories or their testamony's to make atheists 'Believers' rather than Deciples/Followers.
KJV Only, is probably the best thing that ever happened to me. No need of 'bible scholars' more to proove the obvious.
@Leonardo P Im sorry, I didnt know the Bible could be outdated by scholars.We must have simply very different views on this, no offense.
Could we get an NLT version of this testimony please? 😅
I agree with your main points (thank you), and the intelligibility argument is persuasive, though I do think it's risky for Christians on any issue automatically to 'trust their pastor'; and it's also a risky thing for pastors to be put on a pedestal - like we trust a doctor! It's always, on all issues, important that we study the Scriptures for ourselves. But of course most people do not have the time or inclination to study textual criticism - so, it's not simply a case of studying the Word to resolve this issue.
Right. The Bible doesn't address textual criticism. But this is hard to understand without at least some background in Greek and Hebrew. I don't mean, of course, to put pastors on pedestals. But if you trust your pastor to pastor you, in general I'd say that's where you start with textual criticism: trust his view, then do some homework.
Amen. This guy is a gifted teacher. God bless you.
Huh?
Wha?! =)
Appreciate the clarity and charity of these videos
Thank you, Jonathan.
Great video Mark! You gained a subscriber! :)
Many thanks!
Your book is coming to me day after tomorrow. How wonderful to find you on video. I love the KJV...It's what I grew up with and memorized ....I realized late in life that I don't understand the English fully. One point I have thought of is the magnificent efforts of the compilers of the KJV to produce a product that could be understood nation- wide. I'm sorry but, a "scouse" speaker, even today, from Liverpool, will have trouble being understood by folks from East London or Northumbria....or by me in the US. I know....I have Liverpool relatives who speak Scouse! I made an effort to understand it...and, am now doing the same with the Bible I love. I use a lot of versions....NIV, New Jerusalem, NRSV, Etc. I'm about to tackle the Geneva.
All I have to say to the conspiracy theorists is read "The Translators to the Readers" that SHOULD be in your King James, do a re-think and put some WORK into understanding God's word.
Thank you for writing what, I think will be a glossary for the KJV. If you read Chaucer, you need one...and Tyndale...and Coverdale ..
I've just begun....looking forward to your book!
✔ Thank you!
wow an actual channel with the personal creator of said channel who responds to comments thats rare
It’s all A.I., sorry.
@@markwardonwords
so whats the point or what are you trying to gain from taking someone away from a certain bible i mean do you honestly care who likes said bible ? dont you think you would feel less stressed if you were to just let that individual read whatever ? in the end it does not matter its not like you will magically turn them from heading to Hell or not because most will be going there regardless which version they read
Trying to regain unity with my KJV-Only brothers. I don’t mind that people read the KJV-I read the KJV. I mind that people are divisively turning exclusive use of the KJV into a doctrine.
@@markwardonwords
dont you think that unity with God alone inside you might be more gainful than what other supposed brothers might offer ?
@@markwardonwords you are not to busy to respond you just lack intelligence go on now be silent !
1:26 not true, I became KJVO when I decided to compare the translation verses to eachother.
The KJV is an excellent translation-but if you're going to read it exclusively, you need to understand that it was translated into a form of English no one quite speaks or writes anymore. So there are going to be some places where you think you understand but, because of language change, you're going to miss the intent of the KJV translators. For help discerning when this is the case, I encourage you to check out my "Fifty False Friends in the KJV" series on TH-cam for help reading the KJV! th-cam.com/play/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc.html
When I was young I attended a Bible believing Baptist church. While not KJV only the pastor preferred the KJV. But there were quite a few especially among the younger with Living Bible and Good News and perhaps NASB 77. I never heard of the KJV only movement until my mother transferred to a new church after I went to college. While they’re not hardcore in the belief you can’t be saved by other translations they do believe the KJV is the perfect word. I like it just fine but my preference is the NASB.
I hope more and more KJV-Onlyists will at least watch my False Friends series so they can read the KJV with understanding.
Which video is the sequel?
th-cam.com/video/3O-PoUChXy8/w-d-xo.html
Thank you for the realistic perspective against kjvo. I myself believe in the KJV. I have the same less-than-complete confidence in the modern translations as most would, but complete confidence in the KJV.
Anyway, I thought I'd ask a question. What if 400 years after the book of Genesis was written in Hebrew, it contained some words that were no longer in ordinary use? Should the Hebrews update its language, in such a case? And the same thing with the Greek of the New Testament. What if 400 years after Matthew was written, people realized there were a few words of Greek not really in use anymore, or even now with the opposite meaning? Should the Greek that Matthew penned be updated for the Greeks?
Thank you for your time
It all depends on how much Hebrew and Greek had changed, and how much trouble that was causing. Knowing precisely when to draw the line is difficult, but today the Greeks have their own translation of the Greek New Testament. I would probably want to wait as long as I possibly could before translating the Hebrew Bible into contemporary Hebrew and the Greek New Testament into contemporary Greek; obviously, I’d feel safer sticking with the inspired text. But at some point, every language changes enough that older literature has to be translated. And the KJV is not inspired; it is a revision of a revision of a revision. I don’t feel as much of a burden to hold onto its archaic terminology.
Beowulf was in English (and comes 1000 years after the birth of Christ), but has to be translated into English.
@@markwardonwords During Sunday School class this morning, the teacher was talking about Preachers who wear skinny jeans “and reading the latest noninspired Bible”. I didn’t say anything, but I was a bit surprised that he actually said that. I guess I never realized before what their true thoughts were about other translations. I thought that they just wanted to stick with the KJV out of tradition and/or that it was the best translation. I never realized until today that the KJV only people actually believe that only the KJV is inspired, thereby meaning that all the rest of us reading other translations, are reading uninspired imposters of the Bible? Wow.
You mentioned that the KJV is not inspired; that it is a revision of a revision of a revision. Please explain for me the revisions of the KJV. Thank you!
@@tamarafox1585, based solely on what you've told me and nothing else, I'd encourage you to go back and talk to that pastor who loves 9Marks. In my experience, despite political differences, you will get much better Bible exposition from someone in the 9Marks orbit than from someone who thinks that the ESV is not inspired. I have rarely heard responsible Bible preaching from people and churches who drop comments like that. =(
No matter what version you read, I would like anyone to logically state why these verses are “inspired”. To me it is simply Paul writing a letter to a fellow Christian and the first few lines are how he opened up his letter and addressed the intended reader.
“Paul, a prisoner of Jesus Christ, and Timothy our brother, unto Philemon our dearly beloved, and fellowlabourer, and to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and to the church in thy house:”
Philemon 1:1-2 KJV
I am a deprogrammed KJVO lol. You can cover a lot of ground with the NASB . I was using the NASB as a study aid for my KJV. I use John Gill commentary , so my KJV is right there open for reference.
My KJV is always open next to my other versions in Logos and BibleWorks. Every day for almost 20 years, since I started using Bible software in earnest in 2003.
Excellent. Yes, be patient!
@@markwardonwords Thank you Mark -
I kinda believed KJVO for a bit then stopped. Hard to read as non-native speaker, archaic words, etc. It is objectively incorrect to say the KJV contains as much information as the Greek, because Greek has gender, and the fact that English does not have gender has actually caused some interpretation debates (biggest one I am aware of being Eph 2:8-9).
For those who believe there are preserved versions in other languages, there is another simple question you can ask: what is the preserved version for Chinese? Practically the only used version is the CUV or some revision of it. It is basically the equivalent of the KJV for Chinese. However, it is actually a translation of, you guessed it, the Westcott Hort version (it still follows TR though). Unfortunately this does mean that its accuracy suffers due to a double translation of the original text.
This is actually a very, very important point, because the more sophisticated proponents of KJV-Onlyism make God's choice to use a translation an imprimatur on the text underlying that translation. That is how they get from verses that (allegedly) promise perfect preservation to the insistence on one particular English translation; and that is how they get from that translation back to the (allegedly) perfect-in-every-jot-and-tittle text that underlies it. When you ask, "Which TR is the perfect one?" their answer is, "The KJV." That is E.F. Hills' answer. But none of them can explain why English should be privileged over Dutch-or over Chinese.
Would I be correct in thinking that this KJV-Onlyism, that you seem to be so concerned about, is mainly a Baptist Church issue?
Mainly, yes. But not only. Something incredibly similar is in Reformed Baptist circles, and I’ve seen it among charismatics and others.
@@markwardonwords Thank-you. Also, I was wondering if you did any reading in a book, "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated" by Benjamin Wilkinson. I believe it was published in 1930, which is before most of the modern translations came out. I am thinking that there was only the original English Revised Version and the American Standard Version at that time. Anyway, if you did read it, I was wondering what you thought of it.
@@ronaldbeaton3524 That's one I haven't gotten to. It's been a long time, though, since I heard anything new in this debate. I suspect-especially given the seminal role that book played-that I've heard most of what he's said. But I don't know for sure!
@@markwardonwords Ok, thanks again.
There are also some Pentecostal groups and even denominations that are KJVO. They are generally much closer to the IFB world in beliefs than they would admit
really appreciate this video. This is so relevant for me right now because I had a big debate with a friend who put his faith in the kjv being the perfectly preserved word of God because of the textus receptus. He said that he wouldn’t want to be a Christian if God didn’t perfectly preserve his word. I’m very concerned about this rabbit trail he is going on.
Right. It's a trap. If the Bible doesn't teach someone's proposed "doctrine," he doesn't have the authority to advance it or even the right to believe it.
God promised to preserve his Word, never said it would be preserved in English..
He did preserve his word, and I see the inherent legalism in KJV onlyism.
The venomous rhetoric I have seen sitting under five years of KJV onlyism I think that it's caused more damage to the body of Christ and the great commission..
Mark,
Thank you for the video. Let me state for the record, I am not KJVO, but I am KJV 1st.
Your argument presupposes that KJVO people are ignorant, when in fact they are the exact opposite. I have dealt with KJVOism for about 6 years. When I began, I was introduced to James White’s KJVO Controversy. I latched on to this book and used much of its argumentation to deal with people like Will Kinney and other Ruckmanites. In the process, I was led by the Lord to renounce my association with modern textual criticism, and renewed my trust in the KJV as the most trustworthy English translation.
I am a student of both the Hebrew and Greek, and I exegete the text of scripture daily in our morning devotion. I am fluent in NT Greek (Koine and Minuscule Script). While I am not ignorant to some of the words no longer used compared to modern English, I think the modern critical text to be a degradation of the language. My contention therefore is this: rather than hand my congregation a modern version that explains the meaning of words or makes the Bible understandable to the masses; I prefer teaching them to do the very exegesis that I myself engage in. I instruct people to search the scriptures daily. Digging in to the original languages, to find the meaning of words, allows the Bible student to do the digging and find the treasures within. The reward is so much greater, as opposed to having it done for you.
I would also point out that your use of 1Cor. 14 is misappropriated. Paul was speaking about tongues in that text. He was talking about two different languages. In this video, you are speaking of one language. Home schooled children, raised on the KJV, have no trouble understanding the language.
I knew a man that was saved in prison. He was functionally illiterate. After his salvation, he asked the Lord to help him read the word. The Lord taught that man to read and write in his cell, with a KJV Bible. Mario is with Jesus today, but I have never met a man, before or after, that knows the word of God better than Mario.
My reason for trusting and using the KJV is based on its faithful and trustworthy translation of the Byzantine text they possessed in 1604-1611. The modern critical text is ever changing. It will never be complete. If I live another 20 years, there will be many more English revisions, but the KJV will be the same.
I will never condemn a believer for their choice of versions, but I will always instruct believers to trust the KJV as the most trustworthy English translation.
I used the NASB 77 for many years. I never moved to the 95, but now we have the 12th revision of the NASB known as the LSB. Will this be the last? How many more revisions will the NASB undergo before they commit to it as their final authority? The ever changing face of the modern critical text... how can you trust it?
Finally, your source text...Codex Sinaiaticus. While text critics boast of its authenticity, based on its age and relation to the autographs (the oldest and most reliable), these same critics fail to inform the people that the manuscript is far from trustworthy. Codex Sinaiaticus was written in a Greek Orthodox monastery, which has been protected by Islam for over 1,000 years. There is a Muslim mosque in the center of said monastery. At this point, I am reminded of Paul’s words in 2Cor 6:14 “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers.” If a Muslim presence (where a supposed Biblical manuscript was found, which would convince the world against the KJV, and create the greatest division) does not alarm you, I must question which spirit has guided such a find. 1st Cor 14:33 speaks of the confusion caused by tongues, but the truth that God is not the author of confusion is clear. Who then would create such a lie, that the church would be so greatly divided? Question: did God create this confusion? Have you examined Sinaiaticus? The document itself makes me question its authenticity. It is not only missing 13 OT books, but it is full of pseudepigrapha: Gospel of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas and the infamous Apocrypha. How can an intelligent believer as yourself trust such a document? The modern critical text is no more trustworthy than its founding documents.
While your case against us poor, ignorant KJV believers is polite and apparently respectful, it is anything but truth. Islam hates Christianity! They will stop at nothing to degrade and belittle the foundation of our faith. We trust the word of God as our foundation of faith. I have never known a Muslim that did not question the authenticity of the Bible. To have a hand in on its corruption does not surprise this preacher. It is therefore my conclusion that the modern critical text is not to be trusted. It has brought nothing but confusion to the body of Christ.
Thank you for your time. May the Lord have his way. Peace in Jesus name.
My brother, not all proponents of KJV-Onlyism are ignorant of Hebrew and Greek. But I certainly was, and everybody I knew was, including my (otherwise good, and I mean that) pastor.
If you and your children have no trouble understanding the language, then your use of the KJV is in no way a violation of 1 Cor 14. More power to you!
But I suspect that if you will watch my Fifty False Friends in the KJV series (th-cam.com/play/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc.html) you will discover that you and your children actually were having trouble understanding in numerous places but did not know it. You have been tripped up by what I call "false friends." I'm the editor of Bible Study Magazine; of course I encourage Bible study. I encourage KJV-Onlyists to skip the anti-KJV-Onlyism material in my videos but learn how to discern "false friends."
And the thing is that the KJV is not the only translation based on the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus. The NKJV and MEV translate those same texts into contemporary English.
@@markwardonwords ... and I use them both. I use the 1560 Geneva, along with Stephanus 1550 and Beza 1567. I also use a copy of the Septuagint. I have been where you are, and I believe I have moved on. It is my prayer that as you go deeper, you find the truth that most KJVO folks cannot express. The KJV is the most trustworthy English translation we possess. There is no comparison! 31 years of study, by the grace and guidance of the Holy Ghost.
Thanks again for your time. I believe you are sincere. To me, that is one step closer to Jesus. Giving God the praise for all things. Peace to you Mark.
And for you to believe that I am sincere is itself a step-a grace of God. I genuinely appreciate that, brother! And I sincerely do not mind if you prefer the Byzantine family of manuscripts and one of the TR editions, such as Scrivener's TR (the one generally used in KJV-Only circles). The Bible does not tell us how to reconcile differences among manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. It does tell us that edification requires intelligibility, however. This is the principle I urge upon you. I therefore encourage you to watch at least some of my key videos in my Fifty False Friends series. They can only help you read the KJV with greater understanding. I myself didn't realize that I was misunderstanding these words because of language change. Here are three of my own favorites:
"Halt"
th-cam.com/video/y4WnlmubwFs/w-d-xo.html
"So that"
th-cam.com/video/04f3P85d-ZE/w-d-xo.html
"Study"
th-cam.com/video/Nzgmi6I2HIE/w-d-xo.html
@@markwardonwords
I have seen many of your videos. We have spoken in the past. I will look at your links. Thank you for staying open to the online congregation. I am sure we will have a meaningful dialog together. May the name of Jesus be praised.
@@Pastor-Brettbyfaith Funny because "ghost" is the supposed spirit of a dead person.
Did you actually say “Sure as Sheol?”
I am totally stealing this. Thank you, brother.
;)
I just watched this for the whatever number time and just now heard that! I cracked up!
I have to admit, when I think of people who are KJV only I tend to have an automatic negative association. I tend to think words like legalistic, judgemental, superficial, concrete thinking, humourless....
The first church I ever attended was KJV only and I remember feeling like I never fit in. I felt like I needed to put on an act if I was to ever be accepted by the people there, and I don't like to be phony. Not to mention I didn't find the KJV easy to read at all. It put me off reading the Bible altogether.
I left the church but still held my belief. A couple of years later, through someone at work, I attended a charismatic Baptist church - which would have horrified people from the first church - who were very cessationist.
I was introduced to versions such as NIV, NLT and ESV and finally fell in love with reading the Bible and ultimately experienced the love of God - which was based on relationship not just head knowledge.
I still find I have a mental barrier up when I see comments with scripture references ending in (KJV) and I'm not sure how I go about bringing down this barrier. I know I shouldn't have this attitude, as you said, they're only trusting what they've been told by their pastor
I had a good experience in the KJV-Only church I attended in high school. My teachers were godly and gracious-and even fun. =) I really loved them, and I still do. I go soft on their bibliological errors-and errors they were-because I accepted them, too; and because they were part of a system that didn't give (hardly) anyone the Hebrew and Greek tools necessary to get to the bottom of the claims that were being made. Very few KJV-Only pastors, in my experience, have had more than four semester of Greek. Many have had just two-most (this is not scientific, just my guess) have had none. How was anyone supposed to check out the claims being made? There are a lot of reasons to show charity here.
@@markwardonwords I've watched a number of your videos since I wrote that and also read a lot of the comments. I see that there are a lot of people who grew up in KJV only churches who really love God and are genuine, down to earth people.
I'm probably not your target demographic, as I'm almost on the other end of the spectrum - avoiding KJV due to negative association. But I'm glad I landed here as you've begun to help me overcome my stereotyping of a certain group of my brothers and sisters in Christ :-)
Nobody cares about your attitude. You are not important. But - See here’s where you’re wrong. People aren’t reading a kjv because their pastor told them to, slow person. They read it because God told them to. Everyone didn’t get saved in church. They started reading a king, James Bible on their own, and they didn’t need any of the other foolishness. That’s number one. Second there are people who attend churches and listen to pastors who do read from demonic versions. But they are not God. They will never force us to read what we know is not God’s word. I was attacked 23 years ago by an entire church who only read niv-including the pastor. Do you think I care? He wasn’t God. I refused to read it, because I have a backbone and I know it’s written in my heart. It’s been 23 years and I haven’t backed down yet. The pastor I currently listen to feels it’s OK to listen or read devil versions. That’s his problem, I absolutely will not. I’ll stand against him, like I did the others. So you can go somewhere with that that’s what their pastor told them to read. Because you don’t know why people read a kjv. And honestly it’s none of your business. Last I checked-that’s between them and God. But she will continue to lose sleep over this because we will continue to stand on. Gods word king, James Bible no matter what you all, who are going back to the dust don’t like.
I don't care what version someone reads ... as long as they do.
I sympathize with what you say-but I do care; I’m opposed to people being told they have to read only one translation, one that they can’t fully understand-one that doesn’t fully meet the 1 Cor 14 standard.
But I should clarify that I’m not saying everyone should throw away the KJV. I haven’t.
I care - the Message, Passion Bible, Mirror Bible, the NWT. I wouldn't anyone reading these. Same as the KJV - trying to understand it's archaic English and trying to sort out what it means is not making life any easier for new Christians at least let alone people who struggle with reading anyway.
As long as it is not the NWT or something like that
I got saved in 2020 and read the ESV exclusively until a few months ago.
I was raised to believe that KJV reading was hard. When I actually picked up a KJV Bible, I discovered that this simply isn’t true. I did more research on the KJV only position and discovered that the claims are true. I was operating off of blatant ignorance fueled by false presuppositions.
I don’t hold my KJV beliefs because of any pastor or false authority. I believe my beliefs because I have persuasive evidence to back them up. I can show you specific examples of how the modern versions compromise the inerrancy of God’s Word.
As somebody who would have agreed with you in the most recent past, I acknowledge this video as a very frustrating strawman argument.
The KJV is an excellent translation-but if you’re going to read it exclusively, you need to understand that it was translated into a form of English no one quite speaks or writes anymore. So there are going to be some places where you think you understand but, because of language change, you’re going to miss the intent of the KJV translators. For help discerning when this is the case, I encourage you to check out my “Fifty False Friends in the KJV” series on TH-cam for help reading the KJV! th-cam.com/play/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc.html
@@markwardonwords The 1611 was translated into early modern English. There's very little opportunity to misunderstand it.
@@vinniebasile9404 I misunderstood it repeatedly because of language change. I demonstrate this clearly in the video series I linked to in the previous comment.
Actually I just realized that the position that the KJV is perfectly preserved but not inspired might not even be a consistent position. Because the original manuscripts have no punctuation, the translators must add punctuations. Where punctuations can change meaning (eg. Rev 3:10), the translator must have received the correct meaning via oral tradition. However, this does not appear to be the case - the Tyndale translates Rev 3:10 differently from the Vulgate due to punctuation, which the KJV then follows suit, and because of this the verse is often used to support partial rapture when a different translation would not.
Also I recently heard about an inconsistency between Genesis and Luke regarding the genealogies which can be attributed to a copiest error (repeating the end of a previous line), so that goes against perfect preservation directly.
This is similar to a case I've made elsewhere: for the KJV to be a perfect but not inspired translation is impossible, because a perfect translation requires additional revelation at every place where the original text is even slightly ambiguous.
I won't enter into discussion of textual criticism on this channel (not at this point), so I won't take up your point about Genesis and Luke.
Looking into this topic myself. I do see how some current translations have altered words and that has given a verse an entirely different meaning. Also some verses have been totally left out. Not sure this means your salvation is in question, only an accurate understanding of the verse might be in question. Language does change for sure but I dont know that bible translations should follow suit. It's only a matter of time before the "Urban Dictionary " version comes out. Probably not going to be the most accurate, right? Anyway, love ya brother.👊🏻
Trace, thanks for asking some key questions!
1) Current translations only "alter words" or "give verses an entirely different meaning" when the original either calls for it (i.e., the KJV translators missed something) or the original language allows for it (i.e., the KJV translators took one option but modern scholars lean toward another legitimate option).
2) No verses have been "left out" of modern versions. At the very least, defenders of the KJV need to acknowledge the possibility that a few verses were added to the editions of the Greek New Testament on which the KJV is based. This is a complicated issue; I encourage you to dig into resources here: byfaithweunderstand.com/2020/09/03/answering-a-question-i-get-all-the-time-the-places-to-start-in-studying-new-testament-textual-criticism/
3) By definition, if a language changes, translations have to follow suit or they are no longer translating into that language. I love the C.S. Lewis quote on this:
"The Authorised Version has ceased to be a good (that is, a clear) translation. It is no longer modern English: the meanings of words have changed. . . . The truth is that if we are to have translation at all we must have periodical re-translation. There is no such thing as translating a book into another language once and for all, for a language is a changing thing. If your son is to have clothes it is no good buying him a suit once and for all: he will grow out of it and have to be re-clothed.
"We ought therefore to welcome all new translations (when they are made by sound scholars) and most certainly those who are approaching the Bible for the first time will be wise not to begin with the Authorised Version-except perhaps for the historical books of the Old Testament where its archaisms suit the saga-like material well enough."
Thanks for the additional info, Mark. I'll check it out. Definitely not something for us to divide over.
Here's the thing for me on this KJV onlyest subject. I've spent hours and hours reading on the subject of how our English bibles came to exist. I was raised on the KJV, but graduated onward to the NKJV, and then, now, 50 years later, I use all my various translations in doing research on a particular Christian subject. I truly and most profoundly believe in the sovereignty of God, the Providence of God! God rules! I cannot express that more strongly. If the KJV is THE perfect word of God, and is truly superior to any other English bible then or now that is available; then why did God, in His infinite authority and wisdom, orchestrate the creation of this wonderful, safely-held cache of extremely ancient manuscripts for a thousand + years, of His holy scriptures that predate any Byzantine texts in existence we had, up to then, in a cave???? Are they not to be used by His children? Are they not to be used to show where previous errors were made in earlier translations? Or, are they to be relegated back to the cave where they rested for a full millennium and saying to God; “Never mind. We got this?” PREPOSTEROUS!!
Unless God promised perfect preservation AND constant access to the perfect text to anyone who cared to find it (or to the church at large?), you are right! And I don’t think he promised either of those things.
We as christians need to hold on to our KJV Bible as long as we live. God has uniquely blessed it in the history of England & America, in the great revivals, in the worldwide missionary movement, in the personal lives of believers more than He has through all the rest of the versions put together. The KJV Bible is the most beautiful, the most powerful, and the most reliable of any that we have or ever will have, until Christ returns.
The KJV is an excellent Bible translation-into an English that is no longer fully understood. Watch my Fifty False Friends series. th-cam.com/play/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc.html
@@markwardonwords I'm very doubtful you struggle with understanding the language of the King James Version.
@@TheCableStrain Then I urge you to watch my Fifty False Friends in the KJV series here on TH-cam. Many, many of them were words that tripped me up. A few were not. th-cam.com/play/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc.html
@@markwardonwords you seem to desire to put the King James Bible in the category of archaic, as you demean the use of the King James Bible. You could just use a myriad of Bible translations you count as acceptable instead of attacking the KJV as "an English that is no longer fully understood" since you find it difficult. But in reality you want others to stop reading the KJV and choose any other option besides it.
@@TheCableStrain My friend, is Tyndale's translation "archaic"? Is it demeaning it to say so? I do not want others to stop reading the KJV; I certainly haven't stopped using it in my Bible study. But, again, I urge you to watch my Fifty False Friends series. I think you'll see that I mean no criticism of the KJV: none. I love it, and I believe it to be of very high quality. th-cam.com/play/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc.html
The Literal Standard Version which is a re-version of Young's Literal Transition. It got out these year 2020. The same TR Text and Hebrew Text that King James Version use from this Version.
I've seen it. I worked with a colleague on principles for a literal translation. It's tough work!
@@markwardonwords To be honest it's easy published a public domain bible like the KJV and ASV for example. But I learn many folks out there use the KJV or ASV and fixed some stuff in the text and sell it. Especially those Hebrew-Root movement Bibles do just that. They change Lord to Yahweh.
It is not a revision of Young's. Don't know where you got that idea from. It is a great translation.
@@flintymcduff5417 it is a revision of youngs. they say it is and you can tell it is
Is it possible to be KJVO and compare with other versions?
Some do!
The alternate title "King James Preferred" is favored among those who consider all modern translations to be inferior without considering all modern translations to be useless. Strictly speaking, "King James Only" means that all other translations are off the table. (In practice, "King James Only" can sometimes mean "From Tyndale to King James Only" or "King James Only for Us, but We'll Still Fellowship with Those Who Use the New King James.")
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Study
Study
Study
People don’t want to study, Spanish is my first language but I love KJV.
My friend, I love that verse! I'm the editor of Bible *STUDY* Magazine. =) I would LOVE to hear your thoughts on the video I did about that word, "study." Here it is: th-cam.com/video/Nzgmi6I2HIE/w-d-xo.html
@@markwardonwords you know what the problem really is? YOU WANT TO BE like God, you want to say and decide what you think it means but Study simply means Study whether is in books or in anything
Webster 1828 : Study: 1. Literally, a setting of the mind or thoughts upon a subject; hence, application of mind of books, to arts or science, or to any subject, for the purpose of learning what is not before known.
So yeah WE SHOULD STUDY.
¿Que dice el Español? Reina Valera 1909 dice, "Procura con diligencia." ¿Y por qué?
@@markwardonwords mejor que dice la 1602 purificada amigo 😊
15 Estudia con diligencia presentarte aprobado a Dios, como obrero que no tiene de qué avergonzarse, que traza bien la palabra de verdad.
@@markwardonwords why is it the older the version the less corrupt it is 🤔
Turning people away from the KJV pure word of GOD. You have blood on you're hands.
The KJV is an excellent translation-but if you're going to read it exclusively, you need to understand that it was translated into a form of English no one quite speaks or writes anymore. So there are going to be some places where you think you understand but, because of language change, you're going to miss the intent of the KJV translators. For help discerning when this is the case, I encourage you to check out my "Fifty False Friends in the KJV" series on TH-cam for help reading the KJV! th-cam.com/play/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc.html
@@markwardonwords I find the KJV the easiest to read. I made a KJV Documentary. Go watch it. What your doing is very satanic
You are right, I haven’t heard this argument. And, I think it IS the best argument.
I pray it will be useful to Christ’s sheep.
Dear God💗💞💞🙏in heaven, I come to you in the name of Jesus. I acknowledge to You that I am a sinner, and I am sorry for my sins and the life that I have lived; I need your forgiveness.
I believe that your only begotten Son Jesus Christ shed His precious blood on the cross at Calvary and died for my sins, and I am now willing to turn from my sin.
You said in the bible that if we confess the Lord our God and believe in our hearts that God raised Jesus from the dead, we shall be saved.
Right now I confess Jesus as my Lord. With my heart, I believe that God raised Jesus from the dead. This very moment I accept Jesus Christ as my own personal Savior and according to His Word, right now I am saved. Amen.
Praise God for the salvation available only in Christ!
I’m a KJV onlyist, and I didn’t come to this conclusion based on “trusting my Pastor”. I came to this after YEARS of being a Christian searching for the truth and in and out of churches using various Bible “versions”. I’ve seen Christians on both sides of this and know the issue.
The facts are: Christians who are not KJV only usually do not know their Bibles. The exact opposite of what you say. I’ve read the KJV SEVERAL times cover to cover and have several verses memorized, and can quote them to people to get them saved.
Before that, I used to have certain verses memorized in the NKJV. But most “multiple versionists” don’t. In fact, most have no idea what the Bible says on any topic and are the ones actually “trusting their pastor” to tell them what the Bible says. I would try to talk to people at church on Bible topics and got a lot of shrugs, and subject changes.
At the KJV-only church I go to now, people quote the Bible to each other and use the Bible to preach to the lost (soul winning). No church that is not KJV only does this that I’ve ever seen. And as an actual Christian, who believes the Bible, this was my burning desire for years.
And not only that, EVERYONE has their Bible open during every service, and we are all actively reading what is being taught and being the Bereans. At the NASB and NIV churches I went to NO ONE looked at their Bibles, and the last one had them on an overhead projector with multiple versions compared, and the Pastor telling us which version is best. So that makes HIM God, not the Bible, because he picked and chose based on his human wisdom what was best.
So you, sir, are completely wrong in your assumptions. Not only that but your attempts to discredit the KJV false friends using a lexicon are laughable. A Pastor who actually speaks Greek and Hebrew has put out a video demonstrating what the actual sentences say and how you are wrong. But saving even that, the KJV scholars knew Greek and Hebrew and you don’t. So why would I trust you to correct them?
The KJV-Only church I attended in high school taught me to be a Berean, too. I’m not condemning all KJV-Onlyists. But I am opposing their doctrine: no Berean will ever find a verse telling them to look for a perfect Bible translation, or to use only one Bible translation.
@@markwardonwords Ok so who gets to pick which Bible is actually saying what God meant it to say? When you don’t believe ANY Bible is perfect then ultimately YOU become God. You look at what all the versions say on a specific verse and then pick the one YOU think is right. There’s a huge and glaring problem with that which is what actually convinced me to become KJV only:
Pro. 16:25 There is a way that seemeth right unto a man,
but the end thereof are the ways of death.
The question becomes, if no Bible is a perfect translation, why should we believe any of them? Why should I base my whole belief system on a flawed foundation? At some point, as someone who read the Bible versions a lot and actually wanted to know the truth, I came to the conclusion, there was a perfect English translation somewhere that could correct me rather than vice versa, and the only one that anyone made such a claim about was the KJV.
Friend, I've written an article on this: drops.forwarddesigner.net/Ui0YHx
I'll add, too, that I can absolutely imagine why God might give us a perfect Bible in each language. It's surely possible; all it would take is an added act of inspiration-what the KJV translators call "an extraordinary measure of God's Spirit-and we could have this. But it's like the immaculate conception of Mary (the idea that she was born without the taint of original sin): God could have done it that way, but to insist that other people believe it, to accept it as a doctrine, is to arrogate to yourself an authority you do not have.
Well, thanks for the gross generalizations. You obviously need to get around some other churches. The Brethren church I went to for Bible studies all had their Bibles open and used different versions. The first church I belonged to as a new Christian had their Bibles open during the Sunday service and at bible studies. The KJV translators never intended for this version to be enshrined as the "one true version" at all. I really do thin you listened to this video with an open mind to be honest. I also know many Christians who do independent Bible study and are far from just listening to the "pastor" - yet another gross generalization from you.. So can you translate Greek and Hebrew?
@@eternalgospel1611 So how do you know the KJV was that Bible?
Thank you, I do believe the devil has used this KJV-only idea to start fights between believers. When they are busy arguing a particular word they are not speaking about the principle in the entire passage that has great meaning for the believer. It is a red herring that causes division even if those who believe it don't realize the damage they are doing.
Yes-the entire conflict is so entirely regrettable. Sometimes I cry out to the Lord with sorrow and confusion: *Why do people fight so hard against their own good?*
The "devil" doesn't want you having the TRUTH - that ALL versions STEAL Jesus' Deity, but I guess that is not important??
It's interesting...but based on biblical precedence, is it reasonable to assume that the devil has used the scholarship-only approach to "there isn't a tangible perfect Bible in existence today just 'faithful' translations to the original" in the same vein? I find it relatively inconsistent that the one standard to criticize the kjvo crowd is not often applied to the scholarship-only crowd. Here's an interesting idea - can we judge God's opinions of translations, copies, "revisions", etc. based on biblical precedence rather than human scholarship and tradition? Or would that be considered a sacred cow and thus confine one to the eternal abyss of kjvo cultism?
Thanks, I was given a KJV at new birth but there is a bit of Catharism found in KJV that I do not go for, but being one that used the KJV for years find it hard to move away. I do not get into talks about it. I only have said it's what was given me by the the Lord. MEV that sounds like KJV, but ESV is not MD fries taste any better.
I usually don't get into these debates. But the NIV Deuteronomy 22:28-29 states that a woman must marry her rapist. Where the KJV refers to two consenting individuals.
Just one example I came across recently.
While up for debate, I'm of the opinion that the clarification listed in verses 25-27 applies to the act mentioned in verses 28-29 in addition to the act mentioned in verses 23-24. The Bible was written for a "high context" audience, as those were the primary kinds of audiences back then. The kinds of audiences we have for books today are primarily "low context" audiences, where nearly everything needs to be spelled out. High context pieces of literature don't usually repeat the same details over and over, and instead allow the inferences from what was stated earlier to stand. I'm admittedly making assumptions here a little bit, but if the Bible were written for a low context audience, it likely would actually repeat the clarification, as say something like, "But if out in the country a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man shall be punished. Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving punishment. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, for the man found the virgin out in the country, and though the woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her." Since it was instead written for a high context audience, it instead expects the reader to remember what was explained earlier, rather than restating it.
If u dont believe there is a perfect word you don't believe God at all.
The original manuscript is the perfect word of God. Any translation is going to be translated as perfect as we can make it. The best part they all bring you to Jesus Christ 🙏
@@ChrisWard0 the thing is chris the lord promised to preserve his word from generation to generation, that's a promise, so if u believe him then there is a pure word and that is the kjv in our language.
@@johnyates7566
Correct. A key item in the communist manifesto, is to undermine a nation's faith in the real KJV bible.
The KJV was the only bible permitted in America till I was 12.
@@DouglasNicholson-ff6ep you're one of the Kjv-only peeps i suppose?
@@theepicenter4106 Peep? A mocking spirit?
THE Spirit in me, bears witness to every jot and tittle of the only Bible permitted in America BY Christian men, till I was 12 years old...and for very very good reason.
So what specific scriptures do (YOU PERSONALLY) reject in the Good Old KJV?...
....The only Bible that has no copyright, and royalties because it wasn't inspired by man.
With all due respect, I don't think that video does a very good job of arguing the case against KJV because it avoids the fundamental reasons why the KJV is more reliable and why the modern versions are corrupt.
It's very little to do with archaic vs modern language- almost any Bible made before 1900 will be more reliable because it will likely be based on the Textus Receptus, a weight of agreeing scrolls dating back to the 2nd (and possibly 1st) century. The more modern translations (like the ones you recommend) contain hundreds of corruptions because they rely on other texts heavily favoured by Roman Catholicism, which were supposedly earlier yet were discovered much later. They not only change meanings but also leave out numerous important verses and thereby subtly alter fundamental Christian doctrine, making Christ less than He ought to be. That is very dangerous.
Check out those lectures, they say explain the issues far better than I can:
th-cam.com/video/tNv-zzpIwBs/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/RqBEuxGY7DI/w-d-xo.html&pbjreload=101
And in case you don't have the time or inclination for that, here's a couple of brief lists regarding some of the changes made in modern versions. I'm sure you will see why they are cause for concern:
helpersofyourjoy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/THEKJVvsModern.pdf
www.triviumpursuit.com/downloads/kjv-vs-modern-versions-columns.pdf
Nickolas, I very much appreciate you not only saying you give all due respect but actually giving it through your tone. This does not go unnoticed: thank you.
Friend, I am all too aware that the mainstream case for KJV-Onlyism involves textual criticism, and I've seen the materials you sent-plus far, far more. But I have quite self-consciously chosen to avoid this topic, 1) because it is irrelevant to my central case, 2) because I believe it is counterproductive to argue over texts written in languages people can't read, and 3) because the NKJV and MEV use the same textual basis (OT and NT) as the KJV. That last point is most important: I do indeed use the critical text, and I am not persuaded by the case against it; but someone can disagree with me 100% on textual criticism and still agree with me 100% on my case for English readability. The NKJV and MEV use contemporary, intelligible English as 1 Corinthians 14 suggests (or, I'd say, instructs!). You can have your TR and read it, too. =) I think faithful Christians can disagree over textual criticism; I'm genuinely happy to see people using the NKJV or MEV if they prefer the TR.
@@markwardonwords Thanks for getting back to me. I'm certainly not looking for an argument, just the pursuit of truth in Christ Jesus and I do believe that scripture is God's inspired word so either the more modern translations are right (with all of the omitted texts and changed meanings) or the older translations are right... or both are wrong. They can't all be right.
Would you say that leaving out hundreds of words and entire verses is less concerning than the use of language that some may find harder to understand? I agree that some of the KJV language is tricky but I'm inclined to set aside the readability issue because I think people can look up words when they're not sure of the meaning (in fact more often than not the tricky words are defined in the margins). Plus the majority of the language is easy enough to understand. You listed a bunch of archaic words but the weight of the text is very straightforward for anyone with a fair grasp of the language. We can refer to the Strong's concordance etc whenever we feel the need.
But how do you reconcile the missing verses and alterations found in newer translations? The changes in meaning and the implications of those changes? Leaving out words that are plainly there in the source texts. Even the NKJV has been changed in places and is no longer faithful to the numerous agreeing original Greek texts the KJV was based on. I'd like to know how you get around these issues. Thanks for your time, I appreciate it very much.
@@NickolasNothing, again I thank you for a respectful tone! I don't usually get asked these questions this way. Thank you!
If you have not yet listened in detail to the "other side," I have a post here where I give some recommended reading and listening. byfaithweunderstand.com/2020/09/03/answering-a-question-i-get-all-the-time-the-places-to-start-in-studying-new-testament-textual-criticism/ I especially recommend Daniel Wallace's Credo House course and Dirk Jongkind's little book. I've also gone to the extreme trouble of displaying, in English, every last difference between Scrivener's TR and the critical text at kjvparallelbible.org. All your questions have answers, and they deserve them. I would encourage you to consider that the vast majority of biblical inerrantists who can read Hebrew and Greek, such as myself, do not hold your view. Very doctrinally conservative men, such as myself, use the critical text: they deserve a hearing. I won't reinvent the wheel, however. I'll simply direct you to the best answerers of your questions. (I also recommend the top pro-TR voices, in my opinion, in that post above.)
As for the NKJV using different base texts than the KJV, that matter is not as simple as your comment makes it seem, I'm afraid. I've written about this here: 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/
@@markwardonwords Thanks for getting back to me again. I appreciate your expertise and opinion but honestly, I still don't see how 2 differing texts with sometimes contrasting meanings can be reconciled- surely only one can be correct. God is not the author of confusion, nor is scripture open to private interpretation. It must either be one or the other, not both.
Do you think that sometimes seminary and similar theological establishments can take people away from the truth, rather than towards it? I find that the doctrines/ wisdom of men tend to creep in and take over at times, ever more as 'that day' draws near and the church continues to fall away from sound doctrine (which is why I'm so concerned with this subject). I mean no offense though and do have a lot of respect for your level of education and study (the Bereans and KJV 2 Timothy 2:15 are behind you there... although that is one of the changed verses). I just don't think this matter is necessarily something that requires that depth of expert knowledge, since we can all now see the original language words and how they have been translated in various different verses, depending on the context. We can all find out which texts the translations are based on, how many agree with one another etc. and whether the early church teaching agrees with them or not. Either the translation is consistent or it isn't. Either it is true to the agreeing source texts and in keeping with the weight of scripture or it is not. It can't be completely accurate in both older and modern translations because in places they disagree.
Anyways, I'm neither a scholar or an expert so it will take me some time to go over the resources you've shared. I will have a look through and may well return to pick your brain on this matter some more, if you don't mind. Thank you kindly for being so patient and for sharing your wealth of knowledge on the subject.
Grace and peace to you my friend, in Jesus' name.
Nickolas, I keep saying this... but your respectfulness is truly exceptional. Put some time into one or more of the resources I’ve sent and get back to me, and I will put some time in for you, too, my friend, to discuss and answer questions. This is what I’m here for! I’m sensing that it’s going to be hard, though, to proceed in discussion until you get through Wallace and/or Jongkind. I mean no insult, but some of your questions reveal simple misunderstandings that would take time to untangle-misunderstandings that the most responsible people in the KJV/TR camp would also call misunderstandings.
Please use my contact form when you're ready to talk further. byfaithweunderstand.com/contact
Thank you for this. I have been a Christian for 27 years and never heard of such non sense but had to deal with this bc i met someone who is trapped by this. Thanks for ur video though, i appreciate it.
all i am going to say if you can understand kjv you deserve a medal
by that logic, so would understand the original language which you dont know
Westcott losing his ability to talk for changing God's word should give you pause - not to mention the number of times Jesus is taken out of ALL Bible versions AND his entire deity is taken out in 1 Timothy 3:16.... BUT you want to play with Bibles with Scripture REMOVED against the warnings in Jeremiah and Revelation? Have at it. There are a couple Bible version Editors who also went MUTE for changing God's word. Research it..
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.
Give me one example from the Greek or Hebrew where Scripture has been removed, and don't use some English translation of the Greek and Hebrew to do it.....................
Is not about the KJV, is about having the best translation in our language, because God did promise to protect he’s words forever,
Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
If he preserved them where are they? That’s when we should Study and try to figure out where they are, obviously Old Testament is Hebrew new is Greek, but in English for many of us Bible believers the KJV is the best most pure word of God, because the history of the martyrs that died protecting the word of God mean a lot to us, not because our pastors told us to believe that but because we study it.
My friend, the "them" in "thou shalt preserve them" does not refer to the words of God but to the poor whom God protects.
And again I must urge you: watch my video on "study" and tell me what you think of it! th-cam.com/video/Nzgmi6I2HIE/w-d-xo.html
@@markwardonwords again you deciding what it should say when the context is in verse 2:They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak.
Obviously it’s about mankind and verse 6 talks about God’s words being pure.
Again Study.
My friend, the Hebrew pronoun "them" in "thou shalt keep them" is grammatically masculine; this and the context both suggest strongly that the antecedent of "them" is the (masculine) "poor" of verse 5, not the (feminine) "words" of verse 6.
You speak Spanish; you know how this works.
@@markwardonwords
6 Las palabras del SEÑOR son palabras puras; como plata refinada en horno de tierra, purificada siete veces.
7 Tú, oh SEÑOR, las guardarás; las preservarás de aquesta generación por siempre.
Valera 1602 purificada
"Sure as Sheol." I love it!
Great content!.. Wait, you reply to all the comments too?? How cool is that?? Haha..
Don’t know how long I can keep it up! A lot of the comments from critics are the same, and it’s a field I know fairly well. I can usually answer quickly!
Hello sir Mark! I just happen to stumble upon our little chat here again after a year!
I have a request if you would be so gracious... Please be on Spotify! Haha.. I watch your videos from time to time and I'd be able to munch in a bit more if I'm able to listen to you during my daily commute! I started my own channel there (unfortunately don't have time for it right now) and it's pretty easy to setup, especially since you already have videos... All you have to do is upload just the audio!
God bless you and thank you for your humility and ministry!
I am KJV Only, and have rescued many from the trap of having no final authority higher than their own ever-changing opinions and philosophies.
My friend, the Bible in Hebrew and Greek is my final authority.
@@markwardonwords there are more than 5,000 Greek texts, so I can only imagine which ones are your final authority, since you did not specify. But anyway, God is the author of languages, and putting His words into a new language has never been a problem for him. I have all of God pure, inspired, preserved words in one volume.
@@henrylaurel4476 it is quite simple really. The book that I read from daily, study, and rely upon for the knowledge of salvation contains the following: Proverbs 30:5 (KJV) "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him." If "every word" is "pure", why should that book NOT be my final authority? That is an honest question, Henry. If you KNOW that the King James Bible is NOT the word of God, or NOT pure, please enlighten me, for I am an honest seeker who wants the book which contains ALL of God's pure, preserved, inspired words, so that I can read them and live by them.
@@henrylaurel4476 interesting reply. I asked you: "If you KNOW that the King James Bible is NOT the word of God, or NOT pure, please enlighten me; if every word" is "pure", why should that book NOT be my final authority?"
And for the record you could not show me that the King James Bible is not the word of God.
You could not show me that the KJB is not pure. You could not show me why that book should not be my final authority. You offered nothing at all. So my question for you is, since you do not condemn the King James Bible as NOT the word of God, and you do not accuse the KJB of impurity, nor state any reason why that book should not be my final authority, then wherefore do you call it "HERESY"?
@@henrylaurel4476 Ok, clearly you are not willing, or more likely unable to answer the questions put to you. Your rage and bitterness against truth and followers of truth is the most telling thing about your character. My prayer for you is that you will set aside all traditions, and seek truth where it can be found, and while you are still able to seek it.
I am Kj only because:
1) it is the salvation of God that is given unto the Gentiles that they'd hear it (Acts2828kjv)
2) it gives the whole story unlike other fake Bibles
3) it's only for man
4) it doesn't delete the term man at numerous important locations
5) doesn't leave out verses like the fake Bibles
6) doesn't leave out the name of the Father and the son and the holy ghost like fake Bibles
7) it tells you who your enemy is unlike fake Bibles
Rage, are you telling me that the Bible I read every day for devotions, the one that is based on the same Hebrew and Greek texts as the KJV, namely the NKJV, the one that has brought me closer to God, is fake? My brother, these are divisive words.
@@markwardonwords
They're not from the same manuscript, so please stop lying.
Yes the book that you use 'foe' devotions is absolutely fake.
Let's compare the 2
@@danielwalker3319 You are right...and the manuscripts used for the KJV are less accurate.
Stop making up fiction. The KJV is not the only right translation. Nowhere can you defend that through the Biblical text or historical record.
@@akadwriter
I'll challenge you on that, yes the KJV/1611 is not only God's word but is also the very 'salvation of God that is sent unto the Gentiles that they'd hear it' (Acts 2828).
I challenge you to tell me something simple, tell me what a Gentile is without a KJV (Gods word).
@@danielwalker3319 Which exact Scripture says that the KJV is God's Word???
I come across new words in books that I read I always have to look those up
Indeed! So do I! But in contemporary books, there's one kind of word you won't have to look up: "false friends," words that have changed their meaning over time in ways that you can't detect. I train people how to recognize and verify false friends in the KJV. th-cam.com/play/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc.html
@@markwardonwords oh ok cool Ill check them out thanks 🙏
First, dear Brother Mark, I have recently subscribed and really appreciate your videos. Second, I was at one time a KJV-Onlyist, so this video is frighteningly necessary.
Welcome aboard! And, yes, TH-cam makes it possible to fill a niche in a way no other platform does. And this is, you and I know, needed.
There are over 3100 differences between KJV and The RSV. People can use whatever Bible they wish. 2 Timothy 2:15 says to “Study” btw no other version says that. Yes a dictionary or a computer showing multiple translations may be required. Look at the groups that uphold the KJV, they are typically fundamental Christians. We have faith that God has given us his inerrant Word. Therefore, that Word is precious to us and we believe the Word was given by God through inspired men and translated by appointed people. Not many Christians take the Bible as the inerrant Word of God and that, my friend is why Christianity is in the mess it’s in today. Plus there are many good reasons to trust the Masoritic texts vs. Alexandrian texts. Even though Alexandrian texts may be older, Egypt and North Africa were hot beds of Gnosticism and many references to the deity of Christ are left out. We may seem like jerks, but far be it. We try to be strict in adherence to God’s Word, but we know that our hearts are eternally wicked and our attempts are as filthy rags. We give all glory to Christ that died and shed his blood to cover our sin debt.
The last two sentences describe well what I liked about the KJV-Only church I was in in high school. We knew our righteousness was as filthy rags. Amen!
All the same… There’s a reason only the KJV uses “study” in 2 Tim 2:15, and I’ll be you’ll be surprised to find out what it is! th-cam.com/video/Nzgmi6I2HIE/w-d-xo.html
Watch Sam Gipp's critique of the NKJV. There are numerous occassions where a simple word from the KJV is changed to something most people eouldn't recognize.
And never does he read these examples in context or explain with care or charity why these changes were made.
@@markwardonwords Um, virtue-signal much? I have a fairly broad vocabularly and didn't recognize half the words. Terebinth tree for oak? Satrap for prince? And Path of Heres for sunrise?? C'mon, man. None of this helps.
@@harrylime9611 My friend, let's take those three. Can you 1) quote them in full in both versions and 2) offer a charitable explanation for why the NKJV translators might, in these three places, have chosen more difficult wording?
@@markwardonwords Why would God hide His true word for centuries in a cave?
The Gospel of salvation of our souls: 💜💕❤️❤️💞❤️📖✝️🕎💡💡❤️❤️💞💜💕For what I received I passed on to you as of [first importance]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time,
Right!
Hallo everyone, hope you will help me, I’m working on translation of the gospel of John (kjv) me my own language, I look up in koine Greek if I feel something wrong, I find mistakes here and there.
Had you find any errors I should look into🤷🏼♂️, hope to correct as many as possible 🙏
(Just realized I’m born the precise same day as king James was, what a coincidence 😳🤓😂🙈)
“I can do all things through verses taken out of context.” -> your entire video
Yes, it's true: my KJV-Only brothers often take verses out of context, sometimes because they don't know the dead words and/or misunderstand the false friends.
"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."- Isaiah chapter 7 verse 14, KJV.
The "newer versions" like rsv TEACH HERESY. "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman[b] shall conceive and bear[c] a son, and shall call his name Imman′u-el."- Isaiah chapter 7 verse 14, RSV.
"Is not my word like as a fire? saith the Lord; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?
Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith the Lord, that steal my words every one from his neighbour."- Jeremiah chapter 23 verses 29 to 30.
Which newer versions say this?
@@markwardonwords The Rsv, nsrv and others. Isn’t that enough to prove they are making heretical changes? How many examples do you need?! Matthew was written FIRST according to all records. Even say it was in Hebrew first . Yet they push Mark as first and remove the resurrection of Jesus Christ from it. Do you understand? They are saying Mark was first so they are saying ALL the gospel are wrong about resurrection of Jesus Christ and not just Mark 16. The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God!
@@MichaelAChristian1 What others, my friend? If I grant that that's a heretical change (and I actually don't), the fact that the change was made in the RSV doesn't mean that the NIV is heretical. In fact, the NIV has "virgin" there. So do almost all major modern evangelical English Bible translations.
@@markwardonwords You don't consider it heretical to remove the virgin birth? Then you are a heretic as well. Yes some do. Now you have been shown HERESY in the RSV, will you denounce the rsv or do you embrace the lie? Again you claim it is "just a translation". So one is CORRECT is one is FALSE. Which one is it? Then we can go on to the niv if you want. But if you don't even believe the virgin birth then there is no point.
If you think the RSV is wrong, then use the ESV instead. It's essentially just an updated RSV with tweaks to controversial passages such as Isaiah 7.14. There. Problem solved.
But I would argue that the RSV is correct here. Isaiah was telling King Ahaz that a pregnant woman was about to give birth to a child who would not reach maturity until Judah's two enemies had come to naught. Ahaz would naturally live to see this prophecy come true. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a sign to him. The birth itself wasn't a miracle (since the Hebrew word here doesn't require the maiden to be a virgin), but the timing of the birth was a marker to keep track of divine providence in these seemingly-dire circumstances. Isaiah didn't have any future figure in mind, even if the Spirit inspired him to say something that would have a second and less obvious application to a future generation.
Matthew later recognized that the language of Isaiah's prophecy (especially as it read in Greek) prefigured the virgin birth of Christ. But it would be wrong to assume that Matthew simply thought that Isaiah spoke directly of Jesus to Ahaz. Compare Matthew 2.15, where he quotes Hosea 11.1. Surely he didn't think that Hosea was directly speaking of Jesus here. Rather, he recognized that this reference to Israel's exodus in Hosea's prophecy prefigured the journey of the young Christ to and from Egypt. The metaphorical "son of God" in the Old Testament passage foreshadows the only true Son of God. Thus, you give Matthew too little credit by saying that the RSV misunderstands Isaiah 7.14. His citation of that verse is far more sophisticated than a mere surface-level proof text.
I once witnessed a person make an argument for KJVO by citing scripture which he misquoted due to not understanding 17th century English.
This happens all too often. "Remove not the ancient landmark" is one of the passages used for this purpose, as is "Study to shew thyself approved." These poor brothers and sisters are getting tripped up by false friends in KJV English; they don't realize they're misunderstanding. =(
@@markwardonwords reading some of your replies to comments and while watching this video it occurred to me that perhaps it's a good thing that exact, perfect word to word translation isn't possible. It seems much more realistic that perfectly explicit words aren't possible between a perfect God and an imperfect mankind.
Putting this at the top of my KJV webpage.
Why?
@@theepicenter4106 It's a good overview, although the title will probably not attract KJV only people.
@@marklehigh1040 im confused... Are you a Kjv-only guy?
I am a KJV Bible Onlyism because of the historical backgrounds of how the bibles came to be. 99% of doctrinal truth came from Antioch, Syria whereas, the modern bibles came from Alexandria, Egypt-- a type of the world. God said in HIS Word that it is inspired by God and preserved from this generation forever. Period. The backgrounds of how the bibles came to be are so evident coming from a pure text or coming from corrupt texts. We have to demand a perfect bible or we call God a liar. Don't you think God Almighty would give us 1 perfect bible? It's not about personalities it's about the backgrounds of how the KJV Bible came about. Study Dr. Ruckman, Robert Breaker and Dr. Gene Kim on TH-cam.
Jackie, I urge you to watch the seven-part series coming out in July on my channel. We talk about this two-stream view.
OK the question comes to authority in matters of biblical truth. When you too study the Bible and trace decades before, how can you convince Believers in believing and accepting over 200 Bible translations? The devil knows if he can bring dissention to the Body of Christ, he will use doctrine to separate Believers. Dr. Ruckman, Pastor Joshua Stephenson and Robert Breaker on TH-cam discuss, "Why I Believe the KJV Bible onlyism."
@@jackiechantengco3136 You don't have to accept 200 Bible translations. Mark Ward tends to restrict his endorsements to the major modern Evangelical translations: the NASB, NKJV, NIV, NLT, ESV, NET, MEV, and CSB. If you believe in the "two streams" perspective, then you can cut that list down to two.
@@MAMoreno Psalm 12:6- 7 says, "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." I don't need to take the words of any scholar, because my truth comes from God HIMSELF. His Word is preserved from this generation for ever. Period. Why would God have "all those other, close translations?" It's as if scholars, or those who think they are scholarly telling people that God, Almighty can't even preserve His own Word? That we His children don't need close, call translations but just 1 perfect, without error Word of God. Does that make sense that God would even consider making close, call translations? I encourage you to study Dr. Ruckman, Pastor Joshua Stephenson, Robert Breaker and Pastor Gene Kim who all are on TH-cam. There you will find their biblical reasons why the kjv bible onlyism argument is supported by biblical truth.
@@jackiechantengco3136 The KJV translators didn't intend for the word "them" in verse 7 to refer to the "words" of verse 6. Hence why they said in the margin, "Heb. him.i.euery one of them." In other words, "The Hebrew word means 'him,' but we've translated it as 'them' to make it clear that it's not just one man who's being preserved."
Those same translators said that even a mediocre translation of the Bible is still God's word, so they wouldn't agree with your insistence that any English version is perfect (or that one needs to be perfect in order to be useful). The scholars behind the KJV set out to improve upon the major English translations that came before them (specifically the Bishops' Bible and Geneva Bible), and the scholars behind the newer versions are setting out with the exact same goal.
And I think I've seen, heard, and read enough Peter Ruckman to evaluate the quality of his doctrinal positions. His problems extend far beyond his ideas about Bible versions. (But if I had to say something nice about him, I do like his use of artwork as visual aids during his sermons. The sermons themselves, not so much.)
Jesuit.
Question...people who hold to KJV onlyism...what is their response regarding the Bible in 1515? Or earlier? Do they discount the Geneva Bible or earlier versions as being unreliable?
The extremists accept only the KJV. The mainstream views those as legitimate but superseded.
@@markwardonwords thank you for sharing. So, extremists would argue christians prior to 1611 did not have the Bible? That mankind was out of luck for centuries until the KJV was commissioned?
In my experience, extremists have a difficult time giving clear answers to simple questions. if you got that far with one of them, they would turn again and rend you as Matthew 7 talks about.
@@teamrecon2685 extremists would say God was preparing the bible during that time
Usually nothing they only accept what traditions theyve been brainwashed to accept from youth. They cannot grow and usually because they dont have a Personal relationship with Jesus.
It’s not simply that they believe KJV is “the best.” I mentioned today that I own “KJV and other” Bibles, and the response I got was: “There are no other Bibles in English. Theres the AKJV and counterfeits.”
Yes, this attitude is all too common. But there are more reasonable versions of KJV defense.
@@markwardonwords See my note about oxen. A tidbit to point out when you’re discussing beeves.
One of the worst things about the KJV-Only lie is that it denies the validity of the Bibles that predate the KJV. Tyndale, Wycliffe, Geneva, Bishop's Bible...all of them paved the way for the KJV, all of them were pathbreaking works, all of them were translations of the Word of God...and yet KJV-Onlyism disregards them as abominations. Even the Modernized Geneva Bible, which is currently updating the language of the Old Testament from the 1599 original, has been getting slammed by KJV-Only cultists. They don't even want an earlier version of the Bible to be acknowledged, much less updated and read.
The arrogance and selfishness are astounding. Nobody denies the historical importance of the KJV. Nobody denies it's still a popular translation. But to claim it and it alone is the only valid Bible and that not even the translations that preceded it are worthy is a knowing, willful, and blatant lie. And it's one I do not, cannot, and will not tolerate.
The KJV is the standard. Many, many scholars have studied it an critiqued it. Any errors are well understood and documented. Other translations essentially bypass all this work.
Or what if they build on it, my friend? This is what the KJV translators said they were doing. Read the preface: they said they were polishing work done by others. Translations in the line of the KJV, like the NKJV and ESV, self-consciously take up that same work. Why are the KJV translators the last ones permitted to do this kind of work? I use the ESV as a preaching Bible precisely because it is in the line of the KJV.
@@markwardonwords -- There have literally been centuries of commentators on the KJV. Errors are understood and well documented. Serious students of the Bible understand this. Even the most "fundy" preacher knows this. Most serious folks in a fundy church know this.
The "new" translations are taken for granted whereas the KJV has literal centuries of intelligent questioning. It you want a serious look at scripture, start with the KJV and work back and forward. It's silly to start in something from the 1900s.
There is a great value in the reputation the KJV has of being “tried and true.” With this I seriously agree! The fact is, however, that the NKJV and MEV don’t start in the 1900s. =) They build off of the KJV. They are very, very similar to it. I do think the NKJV could have chosen less often to depart from KJV precedent, but I’ve been listening through the NKJV this year, and I still say it is very, very similar. Trustworthy people can make errors (you yourself acknowledge that the KJV translators made some errors); but the people who made the NKJV and MEV are indeed trustworthy. They did good work essentially revising the KJV text.
How to rescue someone from absolute confusion:
Give them a King James bible and tell them its the perfect word of God in English.
Every other English translation after the king James is an abomination
#KINGJAMESONLY 🙌🙌🙌 thank God for the King James bible
Jason, you’re young, my brother. Take some time to listen and respond to what I’ve said on this channel. Listen through my actual case, perhaps by going through the seven videos in my Authorized series (th-cam.com/play/PLq1Aq0ucgkPA18L9HH_HC4IEgUNvMxsku.html). Then reach out to me with a comment; I’ll interact with you.
@@markwardonwords I will not stray to the right hand... nor to the left... people who promote the modern versions put doubt in the minds of people about whether they are reading God's word or not... they're like the serpent in Genesis 3. There is to much confusion and disagreement among the new versions... it has Satan's fingerprints all over it:
"Yea hath God said?"
God promises that he shall preserve his word to ALL generations (psalm 12:6-7)
Apart from that I cannot unsee all the corruptions of God's word and changes in doctrine that have made their way into the modern translations... teaching that salvation is by works and not by faith only for example... and also all the verses that have been removed from modern versions (eg Acts8:37) to hide certain teachings of the bible
I cannot undo all the times that I have read through the king James and all the study I have put into it and have come to the conclusion myself that it IS God's perfectly preserved word
And if that's not enough: you cannot negate the way in which God answered my prayer asking:
"Which version of the bible must I read"
and God showed me: "the king James"...
and he added some sprinkles ontop: "the modern versions are perversions of his word"
To anyone: If you are saved we'll argue this point in heaven...
If you're not saved:
...BELIEVE on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou SHALT be saved...
Acts:16:31
@@user-sy4ec3em5o, at the very least, you should recognize that-as I told another person in your position once (th-cam.com/video/Oeb88eqfA6k/w-d-xo.html)-your view requires you to question the salvation of the vast majority of evangelical Christians who can read Greek, and the vast majority of evangelicals in general. That would include the KJV translators, who specifically denied the position you are advancing here.
@@markwardonwords salvation is not dependent upon what version of the Bible you read... that is the worst and dumbest argument I have ever encountered🤦♂️
Salvation is a free gift! Received ONLY by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts16:30-31, Eph2:8-9) if someone reads the bible in Greek, Hebrew, German, Arabic... or even if they read an English "version" that is not the king James... guess what... if they believe in Jesus: THEY ARE SAVED!
Jesus stated in Mark 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Mark:16:16
If someone BELIEVES and is baptised they are saved
If someone BELIEVES and reads the NIV they are SAVED
If some BELIEVES and reads the ESV they are SAVED
If someone BELIEVES and reads any bible in any language they are SAVED
If someone BELIEVES and murders people for a living... they are SAVED
BUT the person who does NOT believe... they are damned. The only thing you need to do to be saved is BELIEVE on the Lord Jesus Christ PERIOD
But I have a feeling you don't believe that because the critical text does not contain Mark16:9-20...
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. Matthew 24:35
I fully agree! But what does this mean, friend? Which words will not pass away? English ones?
@@markwardonwords words translated accurately from one language to another have been preserved. “Amigo” translated from Spanish to the English “friend” has not passed away; its exact meaning has been preserved through translation. When the New Testament Greek quotes the Old Testament Hebrew, the Hebrew words have not passed away; they’ve been preserved through translation. Proverbs 30:5 tells us that “Every word of God is pure...” Every word. Grace be to you, amigo. I certainly hope the Lord leads you to the truth of his beautiful and perfect Authorized English Bible!
I was saved not by words from KJV but from the "good news." I don't know what version of the Bible the late Evangelist Reinhard Boonkie was using while watching him on TV, but all I know God convicted my militant heart that night and brought me to the Kingdom of Light of the Lord Jesus Christ!
I've been using NIV for almost two decades until I was studying deeper teachings. Then, personally found out that it was a corrupted translation! Now I'm using KJV for doctrinal study side by side with Expository Dictionary on Biblical words and a Bible Commentary. I'm also aware that KJV is not perfect, simply because there are words in Hebrew and greek language that has no exact translation or equivalent into english language, so what we have instead were "transliteration."
We should put our focus on the unsaved not the saved.. for the Lord is able to save us to the uttermost (Heb 7:25).
@@reykaisertv -- That the KJV is perfect is an assumption on your part. Please point us to those passages in the Hebrew OT and Greek NT where we are taught that an English translation made about 2100 years after the completion of the OT, and over 1500 years after the completion of the NT will be a perfect translation.
@@gregb6469 God promised to preserve his words (Mat. 24:35, Psa. 12:6-7, Mat. 5:18, Isa. 40:8, etc.). I propose that his perfect, preserved words are found in the KJV. One reason out of the many that I have for this proposition is that it follows the line of preserved Bibles, erasing no verses or words. Where do you propose that God’s perfect, preserved words are?
How much of the KJ is translated wrong?
Very, very little. It's an excellent translation--into an English no one fully speaks anymore.
The King James Version is perfect, please read the letter in full from the translators in your KJV and let no man deceive you.
@@boldasalion6436 you are in theKJV cult, there is so many errors in it all bibles I even have a Greek Codex Siniaticus. And it has errors in a book I have written about the Siniaticus it says it has 27,000 errors. I don’t care what you believe the King James is far from being perfect. A person that has read the Bible enough will tell you the Bible is one of most imperfect books there is. Get your head out of the sand and open your eyes.
Things like virgin birth.
They don't claim it's perfect.
In fact they claim there could be imperfections.
Also to be perfect, it would mean it would require no translation notes that show other possible meanings. (Which the 1611 kjv had)
trap? how about choice?
The Bible does not teach KJV-Onlyism, my friend. But if you choose to read only the KJV, I encourage you to watch my Fifty False Friends in the KJV series to at least discover the meanings of KJV words you don’t realize you’re misunderstanding. th-cam.com/play/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc.html
It's not a trap. It's wisdom.
My friend, if the Bible does not teach us to use only one translation, it is not wisdom. And please do interact with what I said in the video. You might find some things to agree with.
@@markwardonwords please do your research on modern versions.
Brother, all this I have done from my youth up. Please watch some of my videos.
Third Millennium Bible KJV: Your argument and objection is removed, the "problem" solved. Have a nice day🕊✝️❤🔥🔥🔥🙏🙌
Tell me more about it! It has glosses for dead words and false friends in the margins?
I really like this approach!
Praying that the Lord will use it.
Unfortunately for you, the majority of manuscripts, including the most recently discovered, all point to the KJV as the best translation. If you imagine trying to verify this through a "court of law" type scenario for example, the evidence would clearly validate the KJV text as the most reliable documentaion and the translation that best preserves Gods message in the English language. I think you know this, that's why you cant completely say the KJV people are wrong. I wasn't even taught to believe the KJV was THE BIBLE and yet the evidence is too clear to deny. Not to mention the obvious mistakes in the modern versions are really ridiculous. Some of which have absolutely no manuscript authority to back them up. Appealing to the archaic words is a pathetic attempt to discredit the KJV. You should know better than that. Its clear to me that when someone goes out of their way to speak against the KJV (and this seems to only happen against the KJV interestingly enough) you need to find something better to do, otherwise, you're just contributing to a greater effort to deceive people against providential preservation. God is the one preserving his word, not men, and God doesn't make mistakes. The only reason pastors, teachers, theologians, scholars and whoever, wont accept the KJV as the best bible, is because of academic pride, maintaining a reputation, not offending personal relationships and other personal reasons, but there's no good reason to reject the KJV as the best translation. And yes, I do know a thing or two about manuscripts and doing my own homework.
The KJV is an excellent translation-but if you're going to read it exclusively, you need to understand that it was translated into a form of English no one quite speaks or writes anymore. So there are going to be some places where you think you understand but, because of language change, you're going to miss the intent of the KJV translators. For help discerning when this is the case, I encourage you to check out my "Fifty False Friends in the KJV" series on TH-cam for help reading the KJV! th-cam.com/play/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc.html
Rescue me from the KJV.
Probably won't be happening here.
I hope you that watch this won't be fooled either.
Engage with the argument, brother. I don’t want to rescue anyone from the KJV, only from KJV-Onlyism. I haven’t been rescued from the KJV myself! I still use it daily!
@@markwardonwords Ok. What if someone is NIV only? Or NASB only? Or Catholic Bible only?
What about a belief in those?
I have never met any such people. Latin Vulgate-onlyism did seem to exist centuries ago. But not today that I’m aware of. Only KJV defenders have turned their preference into a formally stated doctrine. :(
@@markwardonwords That was my point.
Hope you understand this.
No, I don't! I would be prepared to accept this doctrine if the Bible taught it. But it doesn't, so I cannot!
Mark. Where is the sequel of this video?
th-cam.com/video/3O-PoUChXy8/w-d-xo.html
The bible also says trust in no one isn't it the same msg at the end of the day & not which bible is the best it's all about the msg i believe the kjv was written in a time where the pressure of translating was more difficult than in a Morden time with all the new access to now any1 can write and publish to fit this present time without being hunted down & being killed or convicted or wanted the kjv was an eye opening to all other bible's written i believe nothing against other bible's it's the msg from it. In my own way be consciences will take place to the sheppard that lead the sheep astray lol choosing bible title sometimes feels like claiming a brand or religion to divide rather than explaining the meaning of the content,explaining the meaning of a content brings people together claiming most times separates tks
If everything was made easy for us to understand then we would spend less time with God we would careless just as if everything in life was made or given easy we would careless about anything the way i see it the kjv puts u at work I've read many different bible's but the msg from some is the same not being bius i can't recall any of them claiming title's just basic rules ways of life & amazing stories that tells you that God is real & alive if am going to teach some1 to drive personally I'll to them how to drive a manual before I teach an automatic because manual gives you more responsibility than auto, manual u can't drive shifting gears on ur ph texting etc but auto some1 else would be like that's easy drinking tea on phone etc back to the bible kjv makes u think ask & research even gathering differently everybody has a different opinion when the brain is at work cause u are doing with caution a spiritual person that is every time am in a discussion with someone it's not about just the title its a about the msg are we really doing what it ask of us to do or are we selling Gods words to our own personal understanding
There’s a lot to agree with here, my friend.
Tks for understanding as long as we don't take out the main msg & put something totally different the msg from God should be taught as it was given that simple i listen to everybody but i try my best to do what the bible says not what the pastor says or men but what God ask of us to do at the end of the day religion nor pastors can't save you but by grace through faith that we are saved this is the biggest point in the bible