I am so over this translation rabbit hole. I am a software engineer. I do NOT accel at language translation. I DO however accel at reading. I will read many translations, note any meaningful differences, defer to those that are more knowledgeable than I (my pastor and other more 'versed' Christians) and then pray on it. God will show me the way. God bless & good luck to all.
KEYWORD here = MEANINGFUL. I have read so many articles and watched SO many videos on MEANINGLESS differences I want to SCREAM! Please stop (not you Mark Ward, and most others ... but far too many looking for 'clicks'!)
With respect, can a code be written accurately, execute, and still produce results different than desired? The question is whether the code with no errors detected is the correct code
You’ll be in heaven soon God will show the King James Authorized 1611 Version is His Word, have a nice day. If it wasn’t perfect I’d stop believing in God Genesis 24:22, :30 and :47 and I’m a new Christian
The main thing people fail to understand is that language is a moving target, its regional and to some extent individual. Its a little more complex than most would care to admit. The message is pure holy and inspired.
Mark, perhaps there is a homonym/idiom here with Job 30:9-10 "And now am I their song, yea, I am their byword. They abhor me, they flee far from me, and spare not to spit in my face." Notice how in Job 30:9-10 he has become "their song," and they spare not to "spit in ...[his] face." The KJV text of Job 17:6 does not say I "used to be" a tambourine, but I was "as" a timbrel. The timbrel was an instrument that was struck. While תֹּפֶת is an act of spitting, it is very close to the word תָּפַף ( which means to strike or to beat [especially a timbrel]). It could be that Job is saying I have become a byword and am one who was beaten (enter imagery of tabret) and spit upon (the two Hebrew words are very close in sound). By noticing this connection one may also see Job as a type of Christ. Notice how Christ, like Job, was treated with contempt as they "spat in his face" and "struck" Him while making Him a byword. Matthew 26:67 Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands, Matthew 27:30 And they spit upon him, and took the reed, and smote him on the head. Mark 10:34 And they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise again. Mark 14:65 And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands. Mark 15:19 And they smote him on the head with a reed, and did spit upon him, and bowing their knees worshipped him. Furthermore, notice also that there may be a connection with the place Tophet תֹּפֶת (also known as the valley of Hinnom) which sounds very similar to תֹּפֶת. Isaiah 30:31-33 states "For through the voice of the LORD shall the Assyrian be beaten down, which smote with a rod. And in every place where the grounded staff shall pass, which the LORD shall lay upon him, it shall be with tabrets and harps: and in battles of shaking will he fight with it. For Tophet is ordained of old; yea, for the king it is prepared; he hath made it deep and large: the pile thereof is fire and much wood; the breath of the LORD, like a stream of brimstone, doth kindle it. Just thought I might add to the discussion. I am no Hebrew scholar and don't claim to be, just a sincere Christian who loves God's perfect word (Ps. 19:7; 18:30; 111:7; Deu 32:4; Rom 12:2; Jas 1:17).
Also I don't think the KJV translators confused tophet with toph, rather I think they recognized other places such as Isaiah 30:32 where בְּתֻפִּים the plural of תֹּף is used. Spit would not work in this context.
That's a fascinating thought! And this is why I say there can't be a "perfect" translation. Not even necessarily because of errors but because it's not always possible to put certain things, like a play on words, into a receptor language.
@khankorpofficial Those aren't errors. They were intentionally designed to derive the Greek and Hebrew language. Also, You can't do a interlinear direct interpretation. This style of writing is what gave the KJV a bad reputation in the first place. Going from "an help meet" to "a help meet." Even looking at the hebrew would not clarify the difference between gen 2 18 and gen 2 20. It's unclear to someone unscholarly in the minor details. But even without these details the writings can still be understood.
I am glad i listened to this talk which is helpful for me to better understand difference between the verbal plenary inspiration teaching and verbal plenary preservation.which is a favorite KJV only topic.
My pleasure! Thanks for watching! This particular example proved to be pretty complex. My Ugaritic wan’t quite equal to the challenge; I had to rely on authorities.
The worst one for me is Daniel 3:25 - "the fourth is like the Son of God" - this verse is completely different from the original text where it says "the fourth is like the son of gods". This is not an error. This was done on purpose, but why?
An excellent guess, and a possible parallel. But he doesn’t say, “I used to be a song,” he says, “I used to be a tambourine.” That seems like a further stretch. I’m just not seeing it, I’m afraid!
While I concede that the person to whom you are replying is missing the use of the tabret phrase, I must point out your carelessness in all this. Brother check your quote again. Job never said that he was a tabret. He instead said,...AS a tabret. BIG difference. You would do well to notice and mark “similitudes” in scripture, identified by the words “as & like”. I’m afraid you are way too careless with YOUR words to be correcting God’s
Brother, I know this will be unsatisfying to you-I myself dislike it when people won't admit a simple and clear error. But I said what I said quite self-consciously. There is not a bright and clear line between simile and metaphor. Similes are just a kind of metaphor. "I used to be a tambourine" and "I used to be like a tambourine" are not very different, if they differ at all. Maybe the latter is softer?
I totally get the “self conscious” thing, and it’s understandable. But Mark, this isn’t about simile & metaphor (I said similitude BTW). Nevertheless, this is about totally destroying the God-given method of biblical interpretation by replacing a word that should never be removed. This is not a small thing! You destroy the criss-references which enlighten the reader as to the spiritual and prophetic application of Job. The key in all this is in the same verse. The word “byword”. Any “plowboy” can use a concordance and see that the words byword and tabret are connected with blessings and curses upon Israel. The ONLY exception is in Job. Job is shown via type (aka spiritual application) to picture Israel in the Tribulation (aka time of Jacob’s Trouble). How many months in the Tribulation? Hint - how many chapters in Job? Please don’t simply dismiss this as Ruckmanism without honest consideration that you could learn much in this area. Also, the KJV translators knew when to translate the words for “spit in my face” ( see Job 30:9-10)
There is a huge difference between a simile and a metaphor. In Revelation 4:1 it could be the difference between the pretrib rapture and the posttrib-prewath rapture, consider the word "trumpet:" After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter. If this verse said the voice was (=) trumpet someone might think this verse is the rapture, but like a trumpet (not =trumpet) not so much.
Thanks for being real. I'm so tired of "I'm right and everyone else is working for the devil". I love the KJV. I've used it all my adult life. But I also love other version....I love God's word!!! Thanks again; great teaching/explanation.
From Strong’s Concordance: Hebrew: תּפת Transliteration: tôpheth Pronunciation: to'-feth Definition: From the base of H8608; a {smiting} that {is} (figuratively) contempt: - tabret. KJV Usage: spit Sounds like to me they were describing how the spit hit him in the face like a percussion instrument. I wouldn’t call that an error.
No, he reached for anything to make is sound reasonable. But he didn't make it actually work. Either the word meant to spit, or a tabret. He used an interpretation that has the single word meaning both things. (Which the Hebrew didn't mean tabret at all)
God knows our prideful tendencies, so he uses imperfection to humble us and to drive us to seek His truth. So many papyri, so many codices, so many languages, so many variants, so many dictionaries, so many lexicons, so many translations! That's right! So, prayerfully dig and search among all of that material instead of wasting time. "For now, we see in a mirror dimly." Thank you for your insights!🙋🏼♂️📖😊
Byword doesn't mean people were talking negatively about him. By-word means a proverbial saying, one that personifies a type, one that is noteworthy or notorious, frequently used word or pharse. Tabret is a small drum with or without cymbals. Job made a hyperbole statement about himself similiar to "death is as a drum". It is literally that simple and I am certian that the KJV translators figured that out considering they took certian words through 14 different test to figure out what was correct. What you brought up about looking for neighboring words and repeated words being only one of them. They admitted the are human and prone to error, yes. Yet, the KJB itself hasn't ever actually and genuinely been updated either.
It was revised in 1611 due to an error in Ruth 3:15 that referred to Ruth as "He". And it still has an error in Dut 21:22 to this day. ("If he be to be put to death" should be "if he be put to death") Also Rev 22:19 should say "tree of life" and not "book of life" (as the KJV have it), because NO Greek manuscript says "book". It came from a copy error in the Latin Volgate where 2 letters in a 5 letter word weren't clear and the scribe thought "book" (libro) made more sense than "tree" (ligno). And since the man compiling the Greek fragments in the 1500s didn't have any Greek fragments for the last 6 verses of Revelation, he translated from the Latin Volgate to complete the 1st TR (that was used for the KJV) It has errors my friend. (As in things that are incorrect)
@@markwardonwords Yeah, I always read the KJV in parallel with predecessor English Bibles plus Luther, Wycliffe, and the Clementine Vulgate; mainly looking for Germanic cognates and Latin influence. Otherwise, to the moderns! BTW, have you produced a KJV video addressing Heb 10:23's "faith" rendering vs. "hope"?
Strong's Concordance brings clarity for Job 17:6. The usage of aforetime and tabret have, somewhat, unique meanings for Job 17:6 vs other usages of these 2 words in other passages.
@ Mark Ward Thank you for this video. I found this very interesting and informative. I would love to see a video explaining Revelation 22:14 and the reason for the difference between the KJV and the modern versions. This really threw me for a loop when I discovered it.
Very helpful…thank you! Recommend highlighting “how” a church leader can change course without sounding heretical. I think this is the challenge. Very scary when your livelihood may be at stake.
Sadly, you can't even argue with KJV Onlyist. I personally don't see any problem with reading the KJV, but going out and burning Bibles and scoffing at literally any good fruit the new translations produce is foolishness.
Perhaps you need to do a video on this: Mistranslations in the KJV: 1. Leviticus 14:10 "meat" should be "grain" since flour is not a meat product. 2. Jeremiah 20:7 "deceived" should be "persuaded" since God does not de deceive His prophets. 3. Matthew 27:9-10 "Jeremy" (Jeremiah) should be "Zechariah" (Jeremiah never made such a prophecy although Zechariah did (Zech. 11:12-13). 4. Acts 12:4 "Easter" should be "Passover" (as it is translated 28 other times in the New Testament) otherwise a pagan word, unknown in the 1st century is used. 5. Acts 22:9 "heard" should be "under- stood" otherwise the verse would contradict Acts 9:7. 6. Romans 8:16, 26 "itself" should be "Him- self" otherwise the personality of the Holy Spirit is denied. 7. Acts 17:28 "offspring" should "be "crea- tion" otherwise the verse would contradict John 1:12. 8. John 20:17 "touch" should be "cling to" ortherwise it would contradict Luke 24:39. 9. Romans 5:9 - "God blessed for ever" should be "the eternally blessed God" other- wise the deity of Jesus is not correct- ly stated. 10. John 14:14 "ask anything" should be "ask ME anything" otherwise it is not clear we can pray to Jesus, denying His deity. 11. Numbers 23:22 "unicorn" should be "rhino- ceros" since unicorns do not exist. 12. Exodus 22:28 "revile the gods" should be "revile the judges" since non-existent "gods" cannot be reviled. 13. Joel 3:4 "Palestine" should be "Philistia" since the region was not known as "Pal- estine until after 129 A.D. 14. Matthew 10:4 "Canaanite" should be "Zeal- ot" since all of Jesus apostles were Jews and Canaanites are not Jews. 15. Romans 9:5 "who is over all" should be "who is God over all" otherwise the deity of Jesus is not clearly presented. 16. Zechariah 9:8 "any more" should be "at this time" otherwise it would be a false prophecy considering 70 AD. 17. Isaiah 5:25 "torn" should be "refuse" to re- flect the word in the Hebrew text.
@S.L. The 1611 King James Version was translated by the same translators who did the Old and New Testaments and was published that way. If you're going to use the King James Version only, you must include the Apocrypha, as the King James scholars translated it.
@S.L. The King James translators were never forced. Whenever they were threatened with force, e.g. using earlier English translations, they refused. No one forced them to use the Apocrypha. That's fake history. It never happened. That was made that up by those who wanted to advance their heretical agenda.
I have never learned to read the Bible using KJV but from what I’ve heard the pros would be: better poetry, heard memorizing is easier, and pronouns make it easier to tell who text is talking to. I was trying to find a reason for me to pick it up especially since I go to a traditional church and know some of the old terms as even NKJV isn’t difficult to read imo. I don’t think there is a good reason still not that it’s bad Bible or anything.
The blessing we have now is that most reference editions of KJV's will have the side note on that verse and many others for either correction or literal rendering.
@@markwardonwords , true sadly they don't take advantage of the side notes. The beauty of even the NKJV that has most of the textual variant readings that defer from TR in the side notes and how we need to utilize them more. I'm an ESV guy but been actually really appreciating the scholarship in the NIV (2011). I'll still use the KJV once in awhile. Thank you for your videos, very informative and encouraging. Soli deo gloria!
Peace be with you, brother in Christ. I am not attempting to defend the inerrancy of the KJV's usage of "tabret" over and above that of "spit", but wouldn't the intended meaning of "I was as a tabret" be to express being beaten down or slapped around by others? This to me conveys essentially the same meaning, although the imagery is different, to that of being spat upon. For in both cases, Job expresses that he has suffered abuse from others, making him also a "byword". That is not to say that "spit" is not a superior and more literal translation choice. But perhaps to be treated like a percussion instrument, to be pummeled upon, does fairly capture Job's meaning here of having suffered abuse. It could be viewed as a dynamic translation.
The same word for or related to "spitting" cannot be found in Num 12:14, Deut 25:9, 1 Sam 21:13, Isa 50:6, Lev 15:8. Also, why the difference between ESV and NIV on this point?
I'm gonna try to answer your question, but I'm not 100% sure of what you're asking. If your meaning "how do we get that same phrase in these verses without translating from the same Hebrew word?" The answer is simple. There can be many words in a source language that translate the same in the destination language. For example, Jesus asked Peter "do you love me?" 3 times. But the Greek, Jesus asked him with 2 different words that were translated as "love". As for the difference in Job 17:6 in the ESV and NIV. It's unclear of which saying ("they spit in my face" / "I am who they spit on"), is the intended saying. But the intended meaning is the same overall. (They show the ultimate disgust and contempt for Job publicly) In short and simplified, both translations give a correct and full sense *to the reader*, but it's unknown which was the chosen words of the author.
Job 17:6 "He has made me a byword of the people(God made him a instrument of suffering to the people), and before I was as a tambourine(a instrument of praise to the people). Job 2:10 "Shall we accept good(praise) from God, and not accept adversity(suffering)?" He has made me a instrument of suffering to the people, and before I was as a instrument of praise to them. Shall we accept praise from God, and not accept suffering? No, we should accept both.
In 2 Kings 13:1 it states that in the 23rd year of Joash King of Judah, Jehoahaz became king over Israel and reigned for seventeen years. This would put the end of Jehoahaz's reign in the 40th year of Joash's reign, since twenty three and seventeen equal forty.. Yet we read in 2 Kings 13:9-10 that Jehoahaz slept with his fathers, and they buried him in Samaria, and Jehoash his son reigned in his place in the THIRTY SEVENTH year of the reign of Joash king of Judah. This would leave only fourteen years for the reign of Jehoahaz, not seventeen years as stated in verse one of this chapter. There is no way you can juggle the numbers and make this come out right. This simply shreds the doctrine of inerrancy, which is the belief that God has perfectly preserved the Bible through the ages down to the present day with no errors in it at all even to the very letter. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny. There were mistakes made by some scribes centuries ago, however for me it doesn't shake my faith in the slightest. I don't depend in some false doctrine of inerrancy, particularly because of the shipwreck that it has made out of once solid Bible believers like Bart Ehrman, but I do believe in the infallibility of the original manuscripts. I also believe in the overall, overwhelming totality of the testimony of the Law, the Prophets and the Apostles as sufficient for my faith. I believe in all areas of theology, morality, prophecy (fulfilled and yet to be fulfilled), the historical account of God's creation of the world and of the world wide Flood of Noah and the story of the early Patriarchs, the history of the Jewish nation, the virgin birth, sinless life, death burial and resurrection of our Lord Jesus the Messiah, and in science the Bible is accurate.
Gentlemen. Before you scoff at such a notion, you would be wise to at least consider the truth of what Dr. Ruckman meant by that statement. I can easily show exactly why the word “tablet” must be left in the text. Changing it definitely destroys the prophetic application. I’ll stop with that, but if you wanna know what it is, I’ll gladly show you. Y’all are missing something here.
I just checked my BLB app, checking the interlinear for Job 17:6....and they don't even reference the tabret as a translation for Hebrew 'topet'. Something about that is just funny.
A tabret, like you said is like what we call a tambourine...and it is used generally in happy, joyful music, like songs of rejoicing, and which provoke dancing. The phrase "aforetime I was as a tabret" describes how Job remembered his life before his affliction came upon him, in contrast with how he was feeling at the time he spoke those words.
This is one of multiple confident expectations I've been given in this comment thread, I must say. And I'm afraid it doesn't have any bearing on the arguments I made from the Hebrew.
in the passage of Job 17:6...... I believe what we are being told by Job.. is that before this time... He was talked about... but before what time...?.. before the time of his wealth?...destitution? calamity? in other words what specific time is Job referring to as before this?.. before his destruction.. people talked about him how wealthy he was.?. they admired him? ..they were jealous of his prosperity?.. or before this point in time once we determine for certainty.. what aforetime situation Job is referring to as being talked about...a tabret may be translated as an obsolete abhorring instrument .or as spit as you have found.. according to the Hebrew... hmmm an abhorring instrument ... and I found that this was an instrument often played by women... could this passage possible mean... that once Job was looked upon as someone such as E.F. Hutton...?.. when he talked everybody listened... yet now he sees himself as someone that No one wishes to listen to?.. Job went from being important to being a nuisance.. is how Job saw himself in regards to his countrymen...
Hmm. This is possible. The OED does give that as a sense, the second-and it has far fewer citations, the last one in 1634, suggesting that it’s uncommon. Got any evidence for why you’d take the second sense rather than the first? I can’t think of anything, I’m afraid… I *can* read it that way, but it requires effort.
This doesn’t hold water. The 1611 translators knew the words: SPIT, SPITTING and SPITTLE. (That’s all forms) They’re all rendered in the KJB. In fact, see Job 30:10. Here it seems the “expression of contempt” is rendered which they have allegedly missed.
When you read out Job 17:6, I would have figured that Job was making an analogy where he had been beaten upon as one beats on a drum or tambourine. That means that if I had been translating the KJV in 1611, I would have put some effort into explaining the analogy. But they did not. Apparently, that wasn't in their goals. But of course, further study illuminates what was actually said.
@Proverbspsalms , wrong the original manuscripts are perfect, not the KJV, or any other translation. However, the doctrine in the other translations as well as the KJV is perfect. You can keep your KJV only ism to yourself. As a Christian, I am at liberty to read the KJV, New KJV, ESV etc...thanks
@@kennethsimpson5539 well I’m at liberty to listen to the Holy Ghost. Which you clearly or not. Just like millions of others who have a problem with kjv Bibles. It worked 400 years ago and 50 years ago. And even 10 years ago. You are damning your own soul. You can read what you want to read. Honestly, nobody cares. But when you start saying God’s word is not perfect then you’re walking on some dangerous ground. The Bible that you don’t like. I promise you that it was here and working before you were born. And it will continue to do so when the worms are eating your rotted body. I don’t know why do people keep playing God, thinking that his word is going to change because you don’t like it. Somebody needs to tell you that you are not important. Neither is your damnable opinion- Anyway, keep playing God and hell will be your home.
@Proverbspsalms , you didn't get your message from the Holy Spirit. I can assure you of that. It's obvious that you understand don't what I have written. I am not going to continue to argue with you... KJV idolater. God's Word is perfect. The KJV Translation, while an excellent translation, has flaws because it is a translation....not the original. Did Paul the Apostle read the KJV? What about the rest of the early church? What about my Chinese brethern who's facing serious persecution from the Chinese government over their faith. You sound like a fool. Repent of your idolatry and turn to Christ
I see no problem with Job 17:6 in the KJV. Job didn't say " I used to be a tambourine", but "I was as a tabret". St. Paul in 1 Cor 13 compared himself to a tinkling cymbal or sounding brass if he spoke with the tongues of men or angels yet without love. Job may have simply been using an analogy, maybe saying that his speech was entertaining, or that he was the life of the party, a good and entertaining host. I don't personally use the KJV, just as a disclaimer.
In my Othrodox Study Bible (St. Athanasius Academy Septuagint): Job 17:6 is ""But You made me a byword among the people, and I have become an object of laughter to them." It's interesting that there seems to be two variations in this verse, because this make me wonder where my translation of this verse has originated from. I think this could be from Andrew Rahlf's Greek OT, which the book states is a source of the text. As in Rahlf's text the word γέλως (laughter) is used. This topic one one I find interesting, but too much of it I find distracts us from the word.
Curious to know if you've ever tried to point out the Jesus/Joshua confusion to KJVOs? For example: "For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day." Hebrews 4:8 KJV "Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;" Acts 7:45 KJV When I'm trying to disprove the notion that the KJV is perfect, these have been my go to texts. It's hard to find an obvious error that doesn't require knowledge of Hebrew/Greek. Obviously it's understandable why they translated Ιησούς as Jesus, but in these two texts it's clearly referring to Joshua, which even English readers can see by looking at the context. If you've already made a video somewhere on this please remind me, I'm just curious to see how people respond to it. Your channel seems to get every possible objection. Lol
@@markwardonwords Anyone who watches your channel honestly can see that you have respect for the KJV and it's not your mission to bash it. But I do find it helpful to point out a few clear, problematic texts that get people thinking. Before I learned any of the Biblical languages, I thought the KJV was preserved etc. That every word of it was exactly what the original said, just in English. Then a friend in college pointed out to me something I'd never thought about before. When the NT quotes the OT, it's not always word-for-word identical. He showed me where Jesus quoted Isaiah and there were differences. Nothing major, but enough to disprove my thought that it was perfectly preserved. And that realization led me to approach the whole subject of translation with a much more open mind. I'm sure some people would see a video like this as "bashing the KJV," but I'm also sure that others will have their assumptions challenged by it. Anyway, keep up the good work, I have no doubt these videos will open the eyes of many for years to come. Your gracious spirit is always convicting to me. Something I need to work on...
this is intentional. just a way to make the reader understand that Joshua and Jesus are the same name. Joshua led the israelites over the river of judgment (jordan) into the promised land. Just like Jesus will lead us into heaven, not getting the judgement we deserve.
Something I've realized recently about absolutism vs confidence. God preserved his word in the exact same manner he preserved his own name. We don't know exactly how to spell or pronounce his name, but we 100% know the meaning. In the same way that we don't know the exact wording of the bible (or translations of it), but we 100% know the meaning.
I always feel that if people actually really read the translators to the readers in the KJV, we wouldn’t have these types of debates and sometimes falling out between brothers and sisters. As a person that reads many different translations I am finding a harmony in them all. Not one of top 5 translations belittle God or defame his name, awesome power. Every one of these bibles you could use to share the gospel with someone. it would be interesting to know if people who don’t speak English have such debates around translations in there own language. Although I suspect it’s a very western spoilt position as we have so many to choose from. To be honest I wish we were so passionate to making sure that others around the world have a complete copy of the bible like we do. I personally have decided to put my money where my mouth is and I now support that.
CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THEY ARE TAKEN FROM THE "OTHER TREE" IN THE MIDST OF THE GARDEN, THATS A SCARY STATEMENT YOU MADE. ALSO THE MANDATE OF THE ANTI CHRIST BIBLES IS THEY GIVE THEMSELVES UP TO THE BEAST. THEY MAKE JESUS A LIAR ETC.
@@ernestbailey6617 your in FOLLY. I don't/wont answer that. It's an information highway out there. Thank you for showing yourself, and what manner of spirit you are of.
You bash a tamberine and its the most noticable instrument. Maybe hes the Talk of the town. He is the loudest gossip subject. I'm english so i understand metaphors
I know true seekers of truth want confidence in the word of God they read, but I think we need to be careful, lest we strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. Matthew 23:24
Please do a video on 1 Corinthians 13. Although it's widely known as the "love chapter," the KJV uses the word "charity" instead of love. Is this an error, or did the original Greek mean something more specific than love?
I should do this. My friend Tim Berg has already written some good stuff, though: kjbhistory.com/loves-labor-lost-charity-banished-by-tyndale/ kjbhistory.com/loves-labor-lost-in-kjb/
NO, IT'S NOT AN ERROR. CHARITY IS JESUS. IF YOU READ THE BEGINNING OF THE NEXT CHAPTER, IT SAYS,"FOLLOW AFTER CHARITY..." SINCE WE FOLLOW JESUS, THATS THE CHARITY. IT ISN'T CARNAL, IT'S SPIRITUAL.
The word "Charity" is an "agape form of love". The word "love" doesn't suffice because it is generic and the world "has" it. Charity is the correct and perfect word because it shows and describes a perfect kind of love not found in this world. That is the simplest I can put it.
Not to mention, taking one word, hell to cover four words in the earlier Greek and Hebrew scriptures, sheol, hades, Gehenna and Tartarus, is like me telling you that all the directions on the compas are East.
I’d say that most if not all kjv only folks are cessationists(at least the ones I’ve met). I now have friends that are not. It’s challenged my thinking, wondering if tounges and the gifts are for today. I’ve been taught that, when that which is perfect has come that, that which is in part will be done away… being the Bible and kjv to be exact. Where do you stand on this teaching?
I'm a cessationist. I believe "the perfect" has not yet come (because when it does, I will know as I am known, and I don't think that has happened yet), but I still believe the gifts have ceased. I appeal to standard lines of cessationist reasoning. See the four views book on this topic.
Why did you quickly pass over the word "Byword" here? Going to Job 30, Byword meaning "their song" (see verse 9). Byword is mentioned 6 times in total and it is always used negatively, as an infamous parable, "among the nations and or people." (see first mention at duet 28:37 and at 1 Ki 9:7) and something akin to a saying. It is also linked with "Taunting." You can also see heading up to verse 31 a parallel to wind, instrument like actions and "attacks" but then finally at verse 31 at the end of the chapter it seals the meaning with instruments, harp and organ. A word you can isolate here is "Harp," every time the word "Tabret" is mentioned, which would be 9 times in total, is interestingly always accompanied with harps save three places where either a general conjoining word is used such "instruments of musick" in 1 Sam 18:6-- In this specific figure of speech, so not a literal individual accounting for the instrument (see the virgin of Israel in Jer 31)-- And here in Ezk 28:13 where it is speaking about Satan's instruments that he created, the pipe and the Tabret, so that would be an account of an event. Also Timbrel, Harp and Organ is used just after, at chapter 21 as well, and again Organ and Harp is used at 31. But anyways, no doubt Tabret at the very most isn't an error.
@@Isaiah_Cochran I'll let you try again-without name-calling, and (ideally) without the claim of a doctorate you clearly don't possess. =( I find it exhausting to try to read through your prose. I literally can't do it. I don't understand what you're saying-except the derisive name-calling; I got that part. =( Truly: try again. Get someone who can write clear English sentences to go over your prose with you so that I have the possibility of understanding it, and I will listen and engage.
What proves its imperfection to me is the word Easter used. Easter is just one day whereas Passover (unleavened bread) is 7 thus proving its imperfection. Easter is a derivative of Ishtar which is very pagan and God wouldn’t used a pagan derivative to describe one of His Holy Feast days.
Everything I’ve read on the topic of “Easter in the Bible” has me convinced that Easter is the correct translation. By the way, Passover is just one day. The Feast of Unleavened bread is right after Passover, and is a week.
And I'll tell you: what's hiding there is a desire to understand God's word and to heal bitter, unnecessary divisions in Christ's body. I do NOT attack the KJV. This is the only error I've pointed to in it, and to point to an error in it is to do no less than what the KJV translators themselves did in their preface, which I beg you to read.
@Jlde2024 thanks for your opinion, could you point to what part of the Bible says that other people's opinions should make you write hate comments into an "on line" comment section under a moving photograph?
That doesn’t make great sense in context, either, of course, or perhaps commentators would suggest it. I didn’t do an exhaustive search of the commentators, but I don’t see anyone opting for that meaning.
@Ian DONT WORRY, KEEP LOOKING AT JESUS. I READ KJV ALSO AND I KNOW, IT IS JESUS HIMSELF. IN REVELATION HE TELLS US THAT HE HAD A NEW NAME WRITTEN, THAT NO MAN KNOWS, BUT HE HIMSELF..........AND HE HAD A VESTURE DIPPED IN BLOOD, AND HIS NAME IS CALLED THE WORD OF GOD." HIS WORD IS ALIVE, BECAUSE HE IS ALIVE. SORRY ABOUT THE CAPITALS, I HAVE TROUBLE WITH HANDS. I STARTED MAKING MY OWN VIDS . GOD BLESS YOU.
I'm beyond 100% convinced with the perfect word in English. Today's modern KJV is. If God can not present his perfect word to the world after he has created all the languages, then the devil wins. God gets his word into the hands of the right people and leads and guides them into all truth. Of course, the devil made sure to create many counterfeit bibles to confuse everyone.
You are absolutely right. “Christians” treat the KJV EXACTLY I mean it’s scary identical to how the world treats Christianity. For example. You see Christianity mocked by everyone on every platform in some way at some point. No other religion is even mentioned ( on occasion someone will drop a joke about Islam or something) but nothing on a mass scale and on a unified very public level. Reason being is that the Devil attacks what he knows is real. And he will deceive the hearts and minds of anyone who will allow him to, just so that light is dimmed. Or at least he’ll try. The crazy thing is, that same spirit is going against KJV AND KJV users in almost a persecution type way. People HATE the KJV. Why? Because the KJV was a direct task that was placed on the hearts of the scholars he chose to translate it in English.
@@juqeboxmedia People don't really attack the KJV or dislike it apart from the KJO movement. It is the reason for the so-called "persecution". The KJO movement creates that problem, among others. It creates fear and confusion in people and causes division amongst Christians. I dislike it.
Reminds me of " a clanging symbol"... a noise some people do not want to hear. Tabret is a one sided drum. This reminds me of friends I talk with who talk and never stop. I cannot get a word in edgewise. A one sided conversation.
I never realized before how much of Job's response sounds iike knowledge of Christ's trial. I do know that Job's trial is the labor of one in whom the Word is fully formed. He will be brought to a state of repeating what God says. The portion of faith called "the good part." We know this as יענה or John--the beginning of the response of Jah. As the doves call to one another with cooing, we speak the words of God with faith. It is fair to called these word "inspired" because they come into our ears as the audible breath of the Most High God. The lord our God is One. The book of Job explains how lightning comes from the snow clouds. When translated to thunder animals understand. Are we all called to seek the face of God, his holy presence? The last step requires taking on the role of the lowest servant. Some of us need a lot of help to do it. Job will become "a son of God" and experience that quickening which allows him to understand the language of light. That isn't all, of course.
@@markwardonwords Well. It means you don’t seem to have the spirit of discernment. The “tabret” is simply an instrument of music. You can see that from the context by looking at the word usage in the actual KJV. Job 17:6-7 (KJV) 6 He hath made me also a byword of the people; and 🎼aforetime I was as a tabret.🎼7 Mine eye also is dim by reason of sorrow, and all my members [are] as a shadow. 1 Samuel 18:6 (KJV) And it came to pass as they came, when David was returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, that the women came out of all cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet king Saul, with 👉🏾tabrets, with joy, and with instruments of musick🎼. Job is saying people who used to love the sound of his voice (it was MUSIC to their ears), but now he is a byword, or example of a cursed man whom they are astonished by due to his circumstances. They thought that worldly gain was godliness erroneously. Even his wife said “curse God and die”. 1 Timothy 6:5 (KJV) Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. Here is a verse for you: 2 Corinthians 2:17 (KJV) For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
Although this might not be the most doctrinally important verse in Job 17:6 to me after looking at the counter argument and evidence for the KJB reading its the perfect example of why we should always stick with the KJV as final authority since the other readings completely invert the sense and destroy the contrast. If trusting the modern lexicons and scholarship can do this, it’s no wonder why the cults have such power to attack the fundamentals of the Christian faith on the important verses. This is not an error in translation its just your opinion, this video would more accurately be called “why I like the way modern versions translate Job 17:6”.
Read 2 Kings 8:26 & 2 Chronicles 22:2. Was King Ahaziah 22 years old or 42 years old when he began to reign over Israel as King for one year? I laughed about this because many a woman will lie about their age. Maybe King Ahaziah was sensitive about his age. It looks like the translators translated the numbers 22 & 42 correctly. From a bible believer, Patty
Gods word is infallible. I believe every word in the kjv. The more doubt you have the deeper you get from truth. In job he’s saying he’s being used as an instrument.if you don’t have the Holy Ghost you won’t know the Bible. It won’t make sense. There are no mistakes
My friend, that's the fourth explanation for the meaning of this verse that I've received from my KJV-Only brothers. Which one is correct, and how do you know?
1611 King James Authorised the first Edition is the perfect word of God. There are 9 fruits of the Spirit. 1+6+1+1=9 don't cast doubts! Upon the believers who need the truth. To be a true witness, Get the spoken word of God. 1611 King James Authorised. Which produces more fruit than any other versions.
@@debbyantoine You do realize no 1611 KJV’s are being printed today right? The KJV has undergone 100,000 changes since 1611. Which edition was correct? Was it in 1612, 1613, 1616, 1629, 1638, or 1769? The KJV was edited a bit in each of those years. Is the 1769 edition perfect? The version you read today is likely the Cambridge edition first published in 1900. Was King James around then to authorize that one? Was he around in 1769? In fact do your own comparison between the Oxford and Cambridge editions. Which edition is right? Which edition was “authorized”? Example: Compare Jeremiah 34:16. Modern versions of the KJV (the Oxford edition and the Cambridge edition) vary on this matter. The Oxford ed. says “…whom ye had set at liberty…” while the Cambridge ed. says “…whom he had set at liberty…” Which is correct? Is it Ye or He? That is more than just a spelling or printing change, those are content changes, and that is just one example. Another example is 2 Timothy 2:2 “heard from me” vs. “heard of me”. Which is it? Look I am not bashing the KJV, it is a good translation, but lets be real, your modern KJV was not authorized by King James, he died in the 1600’s way before 1769 or 1900. At some point you are going to have to realize the King James is only a translation. I ran into one KJV onlyist who insisted the king in Ecclesiastes 8:4 was King James despite the fact that Ecclesiastes was written approx. 2,500 years ago and the king in that passage was in fact King Solomon. This is how ridiculous KJV onlyists are becoming.
I do not frustrate the grace of God for if righteousness came by the law THEN CHRIST IS DEAD (current tense) in vain. In other words Christ has not risen from the dead. If this was pointed out to the KJV translators they would admit this contradiction. Furthermore the KJV translators declared that it was not their intention to make a new translation but to make a good translation better. Speaking of the eight English translations prior to theirs the KJV translators declared that all the other previous translations were honourable and that even the meanest translation containeth the word of God yea is the word of God. Arrogance and ignorance is not bliss no matter how much you think otherwise.
@@markwardonwordsMight want to read Joshua 5:13-15 and ask yourself who the man was that Joshua, who had just taken over from Moses, was bowing himself to before answering further...
Friend, I don’t think that verse is saying what I think you think it’s saying. :) byfaithweunderstand.com/2012/11/09/a-pillar-text-and-a-slick-website-for-king-james-onlyism/
Psalm 12:6-7 has nothing to do with the preservation of the words. It is people who are preserved, not words in the context. read all context of Psalm 12.
I can certainly find more mistakes in the KJV. But as you say the overall message is clear and should not deter us in seeking and learning the truth. It is naive to uphold that KJV is the absolute and free of errors, but errors were introduced by men. Although I like KJV, other versions of the Bible realize the mistakes on translation and correct them albeit with copyright limitations.
Well done, Mark! I admit, I do not know the original languages of the Scripture, but I have confidence in its trustworthiness. I just cannot believe that if one word is obscure, then all is wrong. I love and use the KJV, but not exclusively. I do not understand how or why, this should throw my KJVO friends into a tizzy. Have they NO REAL FAITH IN GOD? That is how it seems to me.
So you conclude the Authorised Version is wrong based on a word that you don't know the meaning of? Why not use the Hebrew word toph to work out what the Hebrew word tophet means?
4:20 Consider that a tabret, timbrel or tambourine as we might call it today is played by repeated striking with a palm. So in the context of the passage the KJV translation of the verse makes sense, in that Job is being literally or figuratively smitten. The cognate languages are interesting to think about, but nothing about the evidence you have presented would definitively conclude that there is an error in the KJV, just that similar languages may or may not have a different meaning than the biblical Hebrew
There are other translations as well such as the Geneva bible which also use tabret, and so there is other evidence that this could be a valid choice of words. "Job 17:6 Hee hath also made mee a byword of the people, and I am as a Tabret before them." Geneva
Or that the Geneva Bible translators made the same error-probably by relying on the same authorities. But you're the only defender of the KJV wording in these comments (that I can remember!) that even mentioned the cognate languages argument, so kudos to you!
@@markwardonwords Perhaps, that's the interesting thing about all of this, like with all historical/observational sciences you have to place things on a scale of confidence, it's difficult to definitively prove or disprove anything conclusively. Ill be honest with you I am trying to figure this out for myself right now. I appreciate your video here it presents good ideas and I am trying to honestly look at the issues from both sides and see if I can come to a conclusion that is satisfactory to my own heart, even if I can't convince others, I am less interested in that at this point and just want to know. One other informational point I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on, I heard the KJV translators were given the rule to be guided by the "Bishop's Bible" translation. Being careful not to unnecessarily change conclusions in that translation if the original texts did not demand it, and for this verse it says "17:6 He hath made me a byworde of the people, where as afore I was their ioy" (joy in ye olde english) It may be that the Bishops bible guided the translation to tabret as a figure of speech for joy, kinda like you mentioned in your video, in your speculative analysis of it. But it kind of makes sense reading it there, before Job's affliction he was a joy to the people around him... then it opens up the rabbit trail of what is the origin of the bishop's bible, and can I identify conclusive inaccuracies in that bible. All interesting things to think about and discover.
I believe the so-called errors in the KJV were meant to move us toward research. The advent of biblical scholarship such as that we have today is no accident. I think where we go wrong is placing our pride in the translation rather than the need to research for learning. In a sense, these so-called errors aren't really errors at all.
It is not a major point or the underlying reasoning by those who recognise the KJB's perfection that because the KJB has been long time used it is right. In fact, the view of the KJB's perfection is a doctrinal argument based on scripture itself that recognises the Providences and particularities of the KJB as fulfilling that role of being the perfect Bible. That hundreds of years of existence of the KJB is at best a secondary point.
bibleprotector, no one is in charge of KJV-Onlyism, and there are multiple strains within it. I believe I am representing the mainstream, IFB KJV-Onlyism I know best. They are more responsible and careful than Ruckmanism on the point you mention. And I repeatedly hear from them that the way we know what 1) text and 2) what translation is right is God's use of it.
@@markwardonwords God's long time using of the KJB is *an* argument but not "mainstream IFB KJBOs'" primary argument. Their primary argument is a list of scripture references (i.e. an interpretation and a doctrine) about how God's very words should exist today, be knowable, etc. It is a strawman to make out as if the age/venerableness of the KJB is their primary foundation. As for your implication that KJBO is fissiparous, the use of verses in regard to the KJB (e.g. Matthew 4:4) is common to Ruckmanites, IFB KJBOs, TROs (e.g. Donald Waite, David Cloud, etc.), certain Calvinists (e.g. Ian Paisley, Edward Hills, etc.), Andersonites, Riplingerites and someone like me. I concede of course there are doctrinal differences among Christians but the point stands that all these differing proponents primarily relied on giving a list of scripture proofs for the KJB.
I'll engage you a little further because you are engaging constructively. You are right that mainstream KJV-Onlyists appeal to many Scriptures. But to bridge the gap between "the Bible says that we have to have every word from the mouth of God" and "the KJV is that Word" they appeal to God's use of the KJV and its text.
@@markwardonwords That seems like your bias or blinkers ("oh these are just lovers of tradition and what they know"), because if you start from the Scriptures saying there is a perfect Bible, then you would only then use as one of the points that the KJB has been around for a long time, but that is only a secondary point after having established from the Scripture a doctrine that there should be a perfect Bible present first.
The idea that a translation's historical usage gives it any claim to perfection is self-refuting. We could then just as easily blame the King James Version for the evils of British imperialism by that reasoning. Surely the atrocities of colonialism committed from 1611 to 1881 shouldn't be placed on the shoulders of the venerable translators of the Authorized Version, but if the translation is to be validated by all of the Christian progress during those centuries, then it would just as soon be denigrated by the cruelties committed by English Christendom during the same period. And even then, if any translation has a special claim due to length of usage, it would surely be the Vulgate, so the only English translations worthy of consideration would have to be those based on the Latin. Thankfully, even Roman Catholics have recognized how weak that argument is and have shifted to modern translations based on Hebrew and Greek.
Ya know what wouldve been useful, for the KJ translators to give a commentary on the whole bible so qe would know whether they knew what the verse was saying. If they didnt know what the verse meant, then you cant blame someone for pointing out an error they made. Imagine speaking to them and asking them one by one, what does this verse mean and why tabret? Biships bible 1568 makes more sense than tabret, they probably tried to interpret what tabret meant. "He hath made me a byworde of the people, where as afore I was their ioy"
Seems like a good place to deploy this: KJV Onlyist, are you saying that not a single Christian anywhere in the world had true faith until A.D.1611, because they did not have the Perfect Word Of God in English to read? Even Christians who spoke other languages? Or the illiterate majority?
They usually begin to talk about how the Alexandrian texts were corrupted, but aside from 2 places, the differences aren’t all that significant. The two places are not adding St. Matthew’s ending to St. Mark’s gospel, and the Alexandrian text not including the section of Matthew where St. Peter is given the keys to Heaven. Since Catholics are most often accused of corrupting the texts, it’s humorous to think they corrupted it by removing the verse seemingly most in support of Papal supremacy, infallibility, and indefectibility.
That's why there are different dispensations of God's Grace for people through out time. Today we live by faith in Jesus Christ through God's perfect written word.
There are no errors in Gods Word. WE find errors when we rationalize too much over scriptures. We have no business looking for errors. To do so is like diaper babies judging Albert Einstine. Matt 18.3 We must be trusting little children and quite trying to correct God. 2 Cor 5.7 We walk by faith, not by sight. Or we walk by faith and not rationalization. Focus on Jesus and you won't find errors.
"...and aforetime I was a tabret" Yes, I'm sure many Christians will lose a lot of sleep over this mistake. Read other versions of the Bible, don't just read the KJV because that's shutting out God's Word for many people.
This is one of the four leading interpretations that KJV-Onlyists have given me. It does make sense. But it doesn’t reckon at all with what the Hebrew says.
Great video! Thanks! I use a wide variety of translations - Catholic, Protestant & Eastern Orthodox. Some are better. Some are not so good. The KJV is one of the best, but imperfect, just like its reader - me.
To me, this is your most important video! Because it’s a specific example of an error in the KJV. I would love to learn of other examples, if you have any! Thanks, Mark 😊
@@markwardonwords When thinking through the topic of the Bible versions, this was a big one for me. I, of course, don't know Hebrew, but I can't see how the KJV rendering could be possible considering verse 28.
@@markwardonwords Maybe the capitalization of "Son" is the issue, even more so than using the definite article. Clarke: "A most improper translation. What notion could this idolatrous king have of the Lord Jesus Christ? for so the place is understood by thousands. בר אלהין bar elahin signifies a son of the gods, that is, a Divine person or angel; and so the king calls him in Daniel 3:28: "God hath sent his ANGEL, and delivered his servants." And though even from this some still contend that it was the Angel of the covenant, yet the Babylonish king knew just as much of the one as he did of the other. No other ministration was necessary; a single angel from heaven was quite sufficient to answer this purpose, as that which stopped the mouths of the lions when Daniel was cast into their den." That's just one voice, sure, but I can't reconcile the KJV translation in verse 25 with verse 28. Thanks for responding.
![ลองสั่งของจากแอพ temu ถูกจริงหรอ?? ( part : 1/2 ) [โกงไหมครับ ep.89 ] | DOM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RTcZSQTiDZw/mqdefault.jpg)
![[UNCUT] “บอสณวัฒน์” ลากไส้!! ใครหนุนหลัง "แม่ตั๊ก ป๋าเบียร์" I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ I 30 ก.ย. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QlD7mU2KKRk/mqdefault.jpg)
I am so over this translation rabbit hole. I am a software engineer. I do NOT accel at language translation. I DO however accel at reading. I will read many translations, note any meaningful differences, defer to those that are more knowledgeable than I (my pastor and other more 'versed' Christians) and then pray on it. God will show me the way. God bless & good luck to all.
KEYWORD here = MEANINGFUL. I have read so many articles and watched SO many videos on MEANINGLESS differences I want to SCREAM! Please stop (not you Mark Ward, and most others ... but far too many looking for 'clicks'!)
This Is good humility and diligence.
With respect, can a code be written accurately, execute, and still produce results different than desired? The question is whether the code with no errors detected is the correct code
Thank you! Reading multiple translations is often the best way to derive the essence of a passage.
You’ll be in heaven soon God will show the King James Authorized 1611 Version is His Word, have a nice day. If it wasn’t perfect I’d stop believing in God Genesis 24:22, :30 and :47 and I’m a new Christian
The main thing people fail to understand is that language is a moving target, its regional and to some extent individual. Its a little more complex than most would care to admit. The message is pure holy and inspired.
Agreed!
Mark, perhaps there is a homonym/idiom here with Job 30:9-10 "And now am I their song, yea, I am their byword. They abhor me, they flee far from me, and spare not to spit in my face." Notice how in Job 30:9-10 he has become "their song," and they spare not to "spit in ...[his] face." The KJV text of Job 17:6 does not say I "used to be" a tambourine, but I was "as" a timbrel. The timbrel was an instrument that was struck. While תֹּפֶת is an act of spitting, it is very close to the word תָּפַף ( which means to strike or to beat [especially a timbrel]). It could be that Job is saying I have become a byword and am one who was beaten (enter imagery of tabret) and spit upon (the two Hebrew words are very close in sound).
By noticing this connection one may also see Job as a type of Christ. Notice how Christ, like Job, was treated with contempt as they "spat in his face" and "struck" Him while making Him a byword.
Matthew 26:67 Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands,
Matthew 27:30 And they spit upon him, and took the reed, and smote him on the head.
Mark 10:34 And they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise again.
Mark 14:65 And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands.
Mark 15:19 And they smote him on the head with a reed, and did spit upon him, and bowing their knees worshipped him.
Furthermore, notice also that there may be a connection with the place Tophet תֹּפֶת (also known as the valley of Hinnom) which sounds very similar to תֹּפֶת. Isaiah 30:31-33 states "For through the voice of the LORD shall the Assyrian be beaten down, which smote with a rod. And in every place where the grounded staff shall pass, which the LORD shall lay upon him, it shall be with tabrets and harps: and in battles of shaking will he fight with it. For Tophet is ordained of old; yea, for the king it is prepared; he hath made it deep and large: the pile thereof is fire and much wood; the breath of the LORD, like a stream of brimstone, doth kindle it.
Just thought I might add to the discussion. I am no Hebrew scholar and don't claim to be, just a sincere Christian who loves God's perfect word (Ps. 19:7; 18:30; 111:7; Deu 32:4; Rom 12:2;
Jas 1:17).
Also I don't think the KJV translators confused tophet with toph, rather I think they recognized other places such as Isaiah 30:32 where בְּתֻפִּים the plural of תֹּף is used. Spit would not work in this context.
That's a fascinating thought! And this is why I say there can't be a "perfect" translation. Not even necessarily because of errors but because it's not always possible to put certain things, like a play on words, into a receptor language.
@@4jgarner to say God can't do what he said he would is blasphemy
@@alcabins2722 it absolutely is! A hearty Amen on my part.
I do not see an error in this verse.
Please interact with the arguments made in the video.
No worries! Here are other verses in the KJV with errors!
Genesis 2:18
Genesis 12:6
Exodus 4:16
Exodus 15:14
Exodus 20:5
Exodus 34:14
Leviticus 1:3
Leviticus 6:10
Leviticus 6:16
Leviticus 11:20
Leviticus 13:14
Numbers 14:2
Numbers 15:15
Numbers 23:22
Numbers 24:8
Deuteronomy 4:24
Deuteronomy 5:9
Deuteronomy 6:15
Deuteronomy 12:22
Deuteronomy 14:4
Deuteronomy 14:6
Deuteronomy 14:9
Deuteronomy 14:11
Deuteronomy 23:17
Joshua 24:19
Ruth 4:4
1 Samuel 17:6
1 Samuel 17:45
2 Kings 2:23-24
2 Kings 23:7
Job 39:9-10
Job 39:13
Job 39:20
Psalms 22:21
Psalms 23:1
Psalms 29:6
Psalms 45:6
Psalms 65:1
Psalms 75:6
Psalms 78:49
Psalms 92:10
Isaiah 13:21
Isaiah 14:29
Isaiah 14:31
Isaiah 34:7
Isaiah 34:14
Isaiah 48:16
Joel 2:18
Joel 3:4
Nahum 1:2
Zechariah 1:14
Matthew 2:11
Matthew 8:2
Matthew 9:18
Matthew 14:33
Matthew 15:25
Matthew 18:26
Matthew 20:20
Matthew 27:29
Matthew 27:44
Matthew 28:9
Matthew 28:17
Mark 5:6
Mark 15:19
John 1:3
John 1:17
Acts 1:1
Acts 2:12
Acts 4:4
Acts 4:16
Acts 4:27
Acts 7:34
Acts 12:4
Acts 12:7
Acts 17:29
Romans 11:36
1 Corinthians 8:6
Galatians 5:12
Philippians 3:20
Colossians 1:16
1 Thessalonians 5:22
1 Timothy 3:16
1 Timothy 6:10
Hebrews 1:2
Hebrews 2:10
Hebrews 4:9
Hebrews 9:28
Jude 1
Jude 5
Jude 15
Revelation 14:1
Revelation 18:20
@khankorpofficial Those aren't errors. They were intentionally designed to derive the Greek and Hebrew language. Also, You can't do a interlinear direct interpretation. This style of writing is what gave the KJV a bad reputation in the first place. Going from "an help meet" to "a help meet." Even looking at the hebrew would not clarify the difference between gen 2 18 and gen 2 20. It's unclear to someone unscholarly in the minor details. But even without these details the writings can still be understood.
@@khankorpofficial
❤❤😂 Ty
I am glad i listened to this talk which is helpful for me to better understand difference between the verbal plenary inspiration teaching and verbal plenary preservation.which is a favorite KJV only topic.
Right! That's an all-important distinction!
Another excellent video. Thanks for this series, Mark!
My pleasure! Thanks for watching! This particular example proved to be pretty complex. My Ugaritic wan’t quite equal to the challenge; I had to rely on authorities.
The only error is saying that there is errors in the perfect word of God.
The KJV is trash and not the word of God
The worst one for me is Daniel 3:25 - "the fourth is like the Son of God" - this verse is completely different from the original text where it says "the fourth is like the son of gods".
This is not an error. This was done on purpose, but why?
Job 30:9 - and now am I their song, yea I am their byword.
Tabret means mocking job by singing song, with music instrument.
An excellent guess, and a possible parallel. But he doesn’t say, “I used to be a song,” he says, “I used to be a tambourine.” That seems like a further stretch. I’m just not seeing it, I’m afraid!
While I concede that the person to whom you are replying is missing the use of the tabret phrase, I must point out your carelessness in all this.
Brother check your quote again. Job never said that he was a tabret. He instead said,...AS a tabret. BIG difference.
You would do well to notice and mark “similitudes” in scripture, identified by the words “as & like”.
I’m afraid you are way too careless with YOUR words to be correcting God’s
Brother, I know this will be unsatisfying to you-I myself dislike it when people won't admit a simple and clear error. But I said what I said quite self-consciously. There is not a bright and clear line between simile and metaphor. Similes are just a kind of metaphor. "I used to be a tambourine" and "I used to be like a tambourine" are not very different, if they differ at all. Maybe the latter is softer?
I totally get the “self conscious” thing, and it’s understandable.
But Mark, this isn’t about simile & metaphor (I said similitude BTW).
Nevertheless, this is about totally destroying the God-given method of biblical interpretation by replacing a word that should never be removed.
This is not a small thing! You destroy the criss-references which enlighten the reader as to the spiritual and prophetic application of Job.
The key in all this is in the same verse. The word “byword”. Any “plowboy” can use a concordance and see that the words byword and tabret are connected with blessings and curses upon Israel.
The ONLY exception is in Job. Job is shown via type (aka spiritual application) to picture Israel in the Tribulation (aka time of Jacob’s Trouble).
How many months in the Tribulation? Hint - how many chapters in Job?
Please don’t simply dismiss this as Ruckmanism without honest consideration that you could learn much in this area.
Also, the KJV translators knew when to translate the words for “spit in my face” ( see Job 30:9-10)
There is a huge difference between a simile and a metaphor. In Revelation 4:1 it could be the difference between the pretrib rapture and the posttrib-prewath rapture, consider the word "trumpet:" After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter. If this verse said the voice was (=) trumpet someone might think this verse is the rapture, but like a trumpet (not =trumpet) not so much.
Jerome's attempt was "They have made me like a common proverb, and I am an example before their face."
Thanks for being real. I'm so tired of "I'm right and everyone else is working for the devil". I love the KJV. I've used it all my adult life. But I also love other version....I love God's word!!! Thanks again; great teaching/explanation.
I would love for you to make a video about words like “cockatrice” and “griffon” in the KJV!
Ooh. Good idea! I will consider this.
So he’s God? His opinion matters?
From Strong’s Concordance:
Hebrew: תּפת
Transliteration: tôpheth
Pronunciation: to'-feth
Definition: From the base of H8608; a {smiting} that {is} (figuratively) contempt: - tabret.
KJV Usage: spit
Sounds like to me they were describing how the spit hit him in the face like a percussion instrument. I wouldn’t call that an error.
Friend, please interact with the arguments made in the video.
@@markwardonwords he did. He made sense of this verse really easily
No, he reached for anything to make is sound reasonable.
But he didn't make it actually work.
Either the word meant to spit, or a tabret. He used an interpretation that has the single word meaning both things. (Which the Hebrew didn't mean tabret at all)
God knows our prideful tendencies, so he uses imperfection to humble us and to drive us to seek His truth. So many papyri, so many codices, so many languages, so many variants, so many dictionaries, so many lexicons, so many translations! That's right! So, prayerfully dig and search among all of that material instead of wasting time. "For now, we see in a mirror dimly." Thank you for your insights!🙋🏼♂️📖😊
Yes!
Byword doesn't mean people were talking negatively about him.
By-word means a proverbial saying, one that personifies a type, one that is noteworthy or notorious, frequently used word or pharse.
Tabret is a small drum with or without cymbals.
Job made a hyperbole statement about himself similiar to "death is as a drum".
It is literally that simple and I am certian that the KJV translators figured that out considering they took certian words through 14 different test to figure out what was correct. What you brought up about looking for neighboring words and repeated words being only one of them.
They admitted the are human and prone to error, yes. Yet, the KJB itself hasn't ever actually and genuinely been updated either.
It was revised in 1611 due to an error in Ruth 3:15 that referred to Ruth as "He".
And it still has an error in Dut 21:22 to this day. ("If he be to be put to death" should be "if he be put to death")
Also Rev 22:19 should say "tree of life" and not "book of life" (as the KJV have it), because NO Greek manuscript says "book".
It came from a copy error in the Latin Volgate where 2 letters in a 5 letter word weren't clear and the scribe thought "book" (libro) made more sense than "tree" (ligno).
And since the man compiling the Greek fragments in the 1500s didn't have any Greek fragments for the last 6 verses of Revelation, he translated from the Latin Volgate to complete the 1st TR (that was used for the KJV)
It has errors my friend. (As in things that are incorrect)
Very nice presentation Mark. I love it, especially the spirit of graciousness.
Thank you kindly, sir!
Thank you, Mark. Wonderful, balanced teaching!
My pleasure!
Appears to be borrowed from a Geneva edition like 1587? "Hee hath also made mee a byword of the people, and I am as a Tabret before them."
Yeah, there’s almost always a source for these odd renderings, a precedent. I don’t usually trace them out, because they can get obscure quickly.
@@markwardonwords Yeah, I always read the KJV in parallel with predecessor English Bibles plus Luther, Wycliffe, and the Clementine Vulgate; mainly looking for Germanic cognates and Latin influence. Otherwise, to the moderns!
BTW, have you produced a KJV video addressing Heb 10:23's "faith" rendering vs. "hope"?
Strong's Concordance brings clarity for Job 17:6. The usage of aforetime and tabret have, somewhat, unique meanings for Job 17:6 vs other usages of these 2 words in other passages.
@ Mark Ward Thank you for this video. I found this very interesting and informative. I would love to see a video explaining Revelation 22:14 and the reason for the difference between the KJV and the modern versions. This really threw me for a loop when I discovered it.
Great suggestion!
Very helpful…thank you! Recommend highlighting “how” a church leader can change course without sounding heretical. I think this is the challenge. Very scary when your livelihood may be at stake.
I have something on this. Will try to find.
I have been going through the TBS tract on differences between the KJV and NASB. I’ll admit, most of them are not controversial to me, but some of them surely raise my eyebrows.
Matthew 1:25
5:47
20:22-23
26:28
27:34-35
Mark 2:17
9:29
9:42
10:24
14:24
16:20
Luke 2:33
24:36
John 1:18
4:42
6:47
6:69
9:4
9:35
14:15
Sadly, you can't even argue with KJV Onlyist. I personally don't see any problem with reading the KJV, but going out and burning Bibles and scoffing at literally any good fruit the new translations produce is foolishness.
I’ve seen quite a number of these brothers that can be argued with - who can have a conversation. But then there are many who are like you describe.
Amen.
Perhaps you need to do a video on this:
Mistranslations in the KJV:
1. Leviticus 14:10 "meat" should be "grain"
since flour is not a meat product.
2. Jeremiah 20:7 "deceived" should be
"persuaded" since God does not de
deceive His prophets.
3. Matthew 27:9-10 "Jeremy" (Jeremiah)
should be "Zechariah" (Jeremiah
never made such a prophecy
although Zechariah did (Zech.
11:12-13).
4. Acts 12:4 "Easter" should be "Passover"
(as it is translated 28 other times in
the New Testament) otherwise a
pagan word, unknown in the 1st
century is used.
5. Acts 22:9 "heard" should be "under-
stood" otherwise the verse would
contradict Acts 9:7.
6. Romans 8:16, 26 "itself" should be "Him-
self" otherwise the personality of
the Holy Spirit is denied.
7. Acts 17:28 "offspring" should "be "crea-
tion" otherwise the verse would
contradict John 1:12.
8. John 20:17 "touch" should be "cling to"
ortherwise it would contradict Luke
24:39.
9. Romans 5:9 - "God blessed for ever" should
be "the eternally blessed God" other-
wise the deity of Jesus is not correct-
ly stated.
10. John 14:14 "ask anything" should be "ask
ME anything" otherwise it is not clear
we can pray to Jesus, denying His deity.
11. Numbers 23:22 "unicorn" should be "rhino-
ceros" since unicorns do not exist.
12. Exodus 22:28 "revile the gods" should be
"revile the judges" since non-existent
"gods" cannot be reviled.
13. Joel 3:4 "Palestine" should be "Philistia"
since the region was not known as "Pal-
estine until after 129 A.D.
14. Matthew 10:4 "Canaanite" should be "Zeal-
ot" since all of Jesus apostles were
Jews and Canaanites are not Jews.
15. Romans 9:5 "who is over all" should be
"who is God over all" otherwise the
deity of Jesus is not clearly presented.
16. Zechariah 9:8 "any more" should be "at this
time" otherwise it would be a false
prophecy considering 70 AD.
17. Isaiah 5:25 "torn" should be "refuse" to re-
flect the word in the Hebrew text.
He has covered many of these in his videos -- false friends.
@S.L. The 1611 King James Version was translated by the same translators who did the Old and New Testaments and was published that way. If you're going to use the King James Version only, you must include the Apocrypha, as the King James scholars translated it.
@S.L. The King James translators were never forced. Whenever they were threatened with force, e.g. using earlier English translations, they refused. No one forced them to use the Apocrypha. That's fake history. It never happened. That was made that up by those who wanted to advance their heretical agenda.
@S.L. I don't know who's been "educating" you, but they don't know real history. "There are none so blind as those who cannot see."
Romans 9:5 is correct though
I have never learned to read the Bible using KJV but from what I’ve heard the pros would be: better poetry, heard memorizing is easier, and pronouns make it easier to tell who text is talking to. I was trying to find a reason for me to pick it up especially since I go to a traditional church and know some of the old terms as even NKJV isn’t difficult to read imo. I don’t think there is a good reason still not that it’s bad Bible or anything.
The blessing we have now is that most reference editions of KJV's will have the side note on that verse and many others for either correction or literal rendering.
I am glad for such editions. I have little conception, however, for how many KJV readers are using them. Do you?
@@markwardonwords , true sadly they don't take advantage of the side notes. The beauty of even the NKJV that has most of the textual variant readings that defer from TR in the side notes and how we need to utilize them more. I'm an ESV guy but been actually really appreciating the scholarship in the NIV (2011). I'll still use the KJV once in awhile. Thank you for your videos, very informative and encouraging. Soli deo gloria!
@@jonk9041 Error found in the textual critics: th-cam.com/video/AU6y-Glj0wQ/w-d-xo.html
Peace be with you, brother in Christ.
I am not attempting to defend the inerrancy of the KJV's usage of "tabret" over and above that of "spit", but wouldn't the intended meaning of "I was as a tabret" be to express being beaten down or slapped around by others? This to me conveys essentially the same meaning, although the imagery is different, to that of being spat upon. For in both cases, Job expresses that he has suffered abuse from others, making him also a "byword".
That is not to say that "spit" is not a superior and more literal translation choice. But perhaps to be treated like a percussion instrument, to be pummeled upon, does fairly capture Job's meaning here of having suffered abuse. It could be viewed as a dynamic translation.
The same word for or related to "spitting" cannot be found in Num 12:14, Deut 25:9, 1 Sam 21:13, Isa 50:6, Lev 15:8. Also, why the difference between ESV and NIV on this point?
I'm gonna try to answer your question, but I'm not 100% sure of what you're asking.
If your meaning "how do we get that same phrase in these verses without translating from the same Hebrew word?"
The answer is simple. There can be many words in a source language that translate the same in the destination language.
For example, Jesus asked Peter "do you love me?" 3 times. But the Greek, Jesus asked him with 2 different words that were translated as "love".
As for the difference in Job 17:6 in the ESV and NIV.
It's unclear of which saying ("they spit in my face" / "I am who they spit on"), is the intended saying.
But the intended meaning is the same overall. (They show the ultimate disgust and contempt for Job publicly)
In short and simplified, both translations give a correct and full sense *to the reader*, but it's unknown which was the chosen words of the author.
Need more on textual absolutism vs textual confidence
It’s coming-big time!
bro 😂😂 6:28 my man said “pointy headed scholars who eat old paper to survive” 😂😂
That’s my dream job.
Job 17:6
"He has made me a byword of the people(God made him a instrument of suffering to the people), and before I was as a tambourine(a instrument of praise to the people).
Job 2:10
"Shall we accept good(praise) from God, and not accept adversity(suffering)?"
He has made me a instrument of suffering to the people, and before I was as a instrument of praise to them.
Shall we accept praise from God, and not accept suffering? No, we should accept both.
How about the error of translating “Passover” as Easter in acts…
Maybe being shaken around like a tambourine is like being mocked/spit at
Maybe?
In 2 Kings 13:1 it states that in the 23rd year of Joash King of Judah, Jehoahaz became king over Israel and reigned for seventeen years. This would put the end of Jehoahaz's reign in the 40th year of Joash's reign, since twenty three and seventeen equal forty.. Yet we read in 2 Kings 13:9-10 that Jehoahaz slept with his fathers, and they buried him in Samaria, and Jehoash his son reigned in his place in the THIRTY SEVENTH year of the reign of Joash king of Judah. This would leave only fourteen years for the reign of Jehoahaz, not seventeen years as stated in verse one of this chapter.
There is no way you can juggle the numbers and make this come out right. This simply shreds the doctrine of inerrancy, which is the belief that God has perfectly preserved the Bible through the ages down to the present day with no errors in it at all even to the very letter. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
There were mistakes made by some scribes centuries ago, however for me it doesn't shake my faith in the slightest. I don't depend in some false doctrine of inerrancy, particularly because of the shipwreck that it has made out of once solid Bible believers like Bart Ehrman, but I do believe in the infallibility of the original manuscripts. I also believe in the overall, overwhelming totality of the testimony of the Law, the Prophets and the Apostles as sufficient for my faith. I believe in all areas of theology, morality, prophecy (fulfilled and yet to be fulfilled), the historical account of God's creation of the world and of the world wide Flood of Noah and the story of the early Patriarchs, the history of the Jewish nation, the virgin birth, sinless life, death burial and resurrection of our Lord Jesus the Messiah, and in science the Bible is accurate.
Well done Mark, I always appreciate your scholarship presented with a lot of grace.
Thank you, Jon.
Scholarship?????
@@MrShain1611 and grace
Ruckman said the errors in the kjv are revelations. Wonder what this error reveals about anything 😅
And that's a neat summary of Ruckman's unorthodox bibliology!
Gentlemen. Before you scoff at such a notion, you would be wise to at least consider the truth of what Dr. Ruckman meant by that statement.
I can easily show exactly why the word “tablet” must be left in the text. Changing it definitely destroys the prophetic application.
I’ll stop with that, but if you wanna know what it is, I’ll gladly show you. Y’all are missing something here.
Oops! Meant to write “tabret”
@@kirbytabb3177 please add to your comment. I'm curious...
I don’t think Dr Ruckman ever said that.
Hello Mark. Have you looked at the LXX? Quite interesting. Thanks.
Yes I have!
Why man ? There is no error in concepts .
I just checked my BLB app, checking the interlinear for Job 17:6....and they don't even reference the tabret as a translation for Hebrew 'topet'. Something about that is just funny.
I appreciate your work sir. Thank you.
My pleasure!
My pleasure!
A tabret, like you said is like what we call a tambourine...and it is used generally in happy, joyful music, like songs of rejoicing, and which provoke dancing.
The phrase "aforetime I was as a tabret" describes how Job remembered his life before his affliction came upon him, in contrast with how he was feeling at the time he spoke those words.
This is one of multiple confident expectations I've been given in this comment thread, I must say. And I'm afraid it doesn't have any bearing on the arguments I made from the Hebrew.
You must have missed the part that showed, beyond doubt, that while you may like what the kjv here says it is flatly wrong.
My only real question about the accuracy of the KJV (and the TR and BYZ) is Mark 16:19. Can believers drink deadly things and live?
It’s talking on a spiritual level, not a literal one.
@@Nick-wn1xwconsidering it’s more of an account of history in Acts, I believe it was a real snake.
in the passage of Job 17:6...... I believe what we are being told by Job.. is that before this time... He was talked about... but before what time...?.. before the time of his wealth?...destitution? calamity?
in other words what specific time is Job referring to as before this?.. before his destruction.. people talked about him how wealthy he was.?. they admired him? ..they were jealous of his prosperity?.. or before this point in time
once we determine for certainty.. what aforetime situation Job is referring to as being talked about...a tabret may be translated as an obsolete abhorring instrument .or as spit as you have found.. according to the Hebrew... hmmm an abhorring instrument ... and I found that this was an instrument often played by women...
could this passage possible mean... that once Job was looked upon as someone such as E.F. Hutton...?.. when he talked everybody listened... yet now he sees himself as someone that No one wishes to listen to?..
Job went from being important to being a nuisance.. is how Job saw himself in regards to his countrymen...
Job 17:6 in the Septuagint; "But thou has made me a byword amount the nations, and I am become a scorn to them."
✔ That is one valid and important line of argumentation.
The irony is that the King James translators did not translate that verse. They copied it directly from the 1560 Geneva bible. A pre existing error.
Interesting. And they rejected the dynamic reading in the Bishop's Bible in favor of "tabret."
@@markwardonwords Thats because the Bishops Bible was created after the 1560 Geneva bible, in reaction to it.
Oh, were you there? You were sitting at the table when they did it. 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
Complete heresy, no they didn't copy from the Geneva Bible LMAO
Good job! A few passages are difficult to understand in the KJV so we need to learn Koine Greek and Hebrew instead to understand God's Word. Good job!
Is that what I said, my friend?
Tabret is one who plays the tabor not the tabor itself
Hmm. This is possible. The OED does give that as a sense, the second-and it has far fewer citations, the last one in 1634, suggesting that it’s uncommon. Got any evidence for why you’d take the second sense rather than the first? I can’t think of anything, I’m afraid… I *can* read it that way, but it requires effort.
This doesn’t hold water.
The 1611 translators knew the words:
SPIT, SPITTING and SPITTLE. (That’s all forms)
They’re all rendered in the KJB. In fact, see Job 30:10. Here it seems the “expression of contempt” is rendered which they have allegedly missed.
When you read out Job 17:6, I would have figured that Job was making an analogy where he had been beaten upon as one beats on a drum or tambourine. That means that if I had been translating the KJV in 1611, I would have put some effort into explaining the analogy. But they did not. Apparently, that wasn't in their goals. But of course, further study illuminates what was actually said.
The translation is not perfect, however I do love the poetic beauty of it. It's absolutely beautiful
Agreed!
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄 yes it is perfect, and what you like doesn’t matter. It’s not about you. Can we get back to what matters to God🙄🙄🙄🙄
@Proverbspsalms , wrong the original manuscripts are perfect, not the KJV, or any other translation. However, the doctrine in the other translations as well as the KJV is perfect. You can keep your KJV only ism to yourself. As a Christian, I am at liberty to read the KJV, New KJV, ESV etc...thanks
@@kennethsimpson5539 well I’m at liberty to listen to the Holy Ghost. Which you clearly or not. Just like millions of others who have a problem with kjv Bibles. It worked 400 years ago and 50 years ago. And even 10 years ago. You are damning your own soul. You can read what you want to read. Honestly, nobody cares. But when you start saying God’s word is not perfect then you’re walking on some dangerous ground. The Bible that you don’t like. I promise you that it was here and working before you were born. And it will continue to do so when the worms are eating your rotted body. I don’t know why do people keep playing God, thinking that his word is going to change because you don’t like it. Somebody needs to tell you that you are not important. Neither is your damnable opinion- Anyway, keep playing God and hell will be your home.
@Proverbspsalms , you didn't get your message from the Holy Spirit. I can assure you of that. It's obvious that you understand don't what I have written. I am not going to continue to argue with you... KJV idolater. God's Word is perfect. The KJV Translation, while an excellent translation, has flaws because it is a translation....not the original. Did Paul the Apostle read the KJV? What about the rest of the early church? What about my Chinese brethern who's facing serious persecution from the Chinese government over their faith. You sound like a fool. Repent of your idolatry and turn to Christ
I see no problem with Job 17:6 in the KJV. Job didn't say " I used to be a tambourine", but "I was as a tabret". St. Paul in 1 Cor 13 compared himself to a tinkling cymbal or sounding brass if he spoke with the tongues of men or angels yet without love. Job may have simply been using an analogy, maybe saying that his speech was entertaining, or that he was the life of the party, a good and entertaining host. I don't personally use the KJV, just as a disclaimer.
In my Othrodox Study Bible (St. Athanasius Academy Septuagint): Job 17:6 is ""But You made me a byword among the people, and I have become an object of laughter to them."
It's interesting that there seems to be two variations in this verse, because this make me wonder where my translation of this verse has originated from. I think this could be from Andrew Rahlf's Greek OT, which the book states is a source of the text. As in Rahlf's text the word γέλως (laughter) is used.
This topic one one I find interesting, but too much of it I find distracts us from the word.
Yeah, the relationship of the MT (Masoretic Text) to the LXX (Septuagint) is a fascinating study, but it can get obscure!
I imagine even the Hellenistic Jews weren’t sure if Job was a tambourine or a face to be spat on.
Curious to know if you've ever tried to point out the Jesus/Joshua confusion to KJVOs? For example:
"For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day."
Hebrews 4:8 KJV
"Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;"
Acts 7:45 KJV
When I'm trying to disprove the notion that the KJV is perfect, these have been my go to texts. It's hard to find an obvious error that doesn't require knowledge of Hebrew/Greek. Obviously it's understandable why they translated Ιησούς as Jesus, but in these two texts it's clearly referring to Joshua, which even English readers can see by looking at the context.
If you've already made a video somewhere on this please remind me, I'm just curious to see how people respond to it. Your channel seems to get every possible objection. Lol
Excellent, excellent! This is not one I’ve covered. I don’t prefer to spend time on KJV errors, of course, because that’s all KJV-Onlyists will hear.
@@markwardonwords Anyone who watches your channel honestly can see that you have respect for the KJV and it's not your mission to bash it. But I do find it helpful to point out a few clear, problematic texts that get people thinking. Before I learned any of the Biblical languages, I thought the KJV was preserved etc. That every word of it was exactly what the original said, just in English. Then a friend in college pointed out to me something I'd never thought about before. When the NT quotes the OT, it's not always word-for-word identical. He showed me where Jesus quoted Isaiah and there were differences. Nothing major, but enough to disprove my thought that it was perfectly preserved. And that realization led me to approach the whole subject of translation with a much more open mind. I'm sure some people would see a video like this as "bashing the KJV," but I'm also sure that others will have their assumptions challenged by it. Anyway, keep up the good work, I have no doubt these videos will open the eyes of many for years to come. Your gracious spirit is always convicting to me. Something I need to work on...
Thank you, David. These are very helpful thoughts.
this is intentional. just a way to make the reader understand that Joshua and Jesus are the same name. Joshua led the israelites over the river of judgment (jordan) into the promised land. Just like Jesus will lead us into heaven, not getting the judgement we deserve.
God is SPIRIT!! That is why there is NO POSSIBLE HUMAN TEXT to EMBODY the ALMIGHTY ONE!
Something I've realized recently about absolutism vs confidence.
God preserved his word in the exact same manner he preserved his own name. We don't know exactly how to spell or pronounce his name, but we 100% know the meaning.
In the same way that we don't know the exact wording of the bible (or translations of it), but we 100% know the meaning.
This is really good. Won’t be persuasive to the committed, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true! Excellent.
I always feel that if people actually really read the translators to the readers in the KJV, we wouldn’t have these types of debates and sometimes falling out between brothers and sisters. As a person that reads many different translations I am finding a harmony in them all. Not one of top 5 translations belittle God or defame his name, awesome power. Every one of these bibles you could use to share the gospel with someone. it would be interesting to know if people who don’t speak English have such debates around translations in there own language. Although I suspect it’s a very western spoilt position as we have so many to choose from. To be honest I wish we were so passionate to making sure that others around the world have a complete copy of the bible like we do. I personally have decided to put my money where my mouth is and I now support that.
Fully agreed. It’s so unbearably grievous to me that we’re even having a debate over Bible translations.
CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THEY ARE TAKEN FROM THE "OTHER TREE" IN THE MIDST OF THE GARDEN, THATS A SCARY STATEMENT YOU MADE. ALSO THE MANDATE OF THE ANTI CHRIST BIBLES IS THEY GIVE THEMSELVES UP TO THE BEAST. THEY MAKE JESUS A LIAR ETC.
You are suppose to study the bible not read it .. then only you would notice
@@francesrude3007 quote scriptures not your thoughts
@@ernestbailey6617 your in FOLLY. I don't/wont answer that. It's an information highway out there. Thank you for showing yourself, and what manner of spirit you are of.
You bash a tamberine and its the most noticable instrument. Maybe hes the Talk of the town. He is the loudest gossip subject. I'm english so i understand metaphors
You may want to check the New Jewish Publication Society translation. They, too, translate this correctly, as does the KJV.
Good call!
That’s not an error, it’s how you have interpreted aforetime (in a former time).
Please interact with the arguments made in the video.
I know true seekers of truth want confidence in the word of God they read, but I think we need to be careful, lest we strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.
Matthew 23:24
Thanks for posting, an excellent example of why the KJV needs to be updated.
✔
Please do a video on 1 Corinthians 13. Although it's widely known as the "love chapter," the KJV uses the word "charity" instead of love. Is this an error, or did the original Greek mean something more specific than love?
I should do this. My friend Tim Berg has already written some good stuff, though:
kjbhistory.com/loves-labor-lost-charity-banished-by-tyndale/
kjbhistory.com/loves-labor-lost-in-kjb/
NO, IT'S NOT AN ERROR. CHARITY IS JESUS. IF YOU READ THE BEGINNING OF THE NEXT CHAPTER, IT SAYS,"FOLLOW AFTER CHARITY..." SINCE WE FOLLOW JESUS, THATS THE CHARITY. IT ISN'T CARNAL, IT'S SPIRITUAL.
@@TIMMY12181 But not all love is charity, and the Greek word more closely translates to love.
CHARITY MEANS LOVE
The word "Charity" is an "agape form of love". The word "love" doesn't suffice because it is generic and the world "has" it. Charity is the correct and perfect word because it shows and describes a perfect kind of love not found in this world. That is the simplest I can put it.
Not to mention, taking one word, hell to cover four words in the earlier Greek and Hebrew scriptures, sheol, hades, Gehenna and Tartarus, is like me telling you that all the directions on the compas are East.
I’d say that most if not all kjv only folks are cessationists(at least the ones I’ve met). I now have friends that are not. It’s challenged my thinking, wondering if tounges and the gifts are for today. I’ve been taught that, when that which is perfect has come that, that which is in part will be done away… being the Bible and kjv to be exact. Where do you stand on this teaching?
I'm a cessationist. I believe "the perfect" has not yet come (because when it does, I will know as I am known, and I don't think that has happened yet), but I still believe the gifts have ceased. I appeal to standard lines of cessationist reasoning. See the four views book on this topic.
@@markwardonwords thank you for your time
I read KJV, and am not a cessationist
How to look at Timothy Bird's research & am I spelling his name correctly?Anyone, please reply. Thank you
Timothy Berg; kjbhistory.com. Excellent stuff. He’s done hard work for the church.
Why did you quickly pass over the word "Byword" here? Going to Job 30, Byword meaning "their song" (see verse 9).
Byword is mentioned 6 times in total and it is always used negatively, as an infamous parable, "among the nations and or people." (see first mention at duet 28:37 and at 1 Ki 9:7) and something akin to a saying.
It is also linked with "Taunting." You can also see heading up to verse 31 a parallel to wind, instrument like actions and "attacks" but then finally at verse 31 at the end of the chapter it seals the meaning with instruments, harp and organ. A word you can isolate here is "Harp," every time the word "Tabret" is mentioned, which would be 9 times in total, is interestingly always accompanied with harps save three places where either a general conjoining word is used such "instruments of musick" in 1 Sam 18:6--
In this specific figure of speech, so not a literal individual accounting for the instrument (see the virgin of Israel in Jer 31)-- And here in Ezk 28:13 where it is speaking about Satan's instruments that he created, the pipe and the Tabret, so that would be an account of an event.
Also Timbrel, Harp and Organ is used just after, at chapter 21 as well, and again Organ and Harp is used at 31. But anyways, no doubt Tabret at the very most isn't an error.
Please interact with the arguments used in the video. And don’t call me Shirley.
@@markwardonwords I am. Please interact with what I just said, the word "Byword" is literally defined here, it proves Tabret CAN be used here.
@@markwardonwords Also not to mention the figure in the verse "I was AS a tabret" making it out as if the verse said "I was a tabret" you are sneaky
@@markwardonwords It's been a full month and yet not a single reply or refutation and this video is still up even after having read my comment.
@@Isaiah_Cochran I'll let you try again-without name-calling, and (ideally) without the claim of a doctorate you clearly don't possess. =( I find it exhausting to try to read through your prose. I literally can't do it. I don't understand what you're saying-except the derisive name-calling; I got that part. =( Truly: try again. Get someone who can write clear English sentences to go over your prose with you so that I have the possibility of understanding it, and I will listen and engage.
What proves its imperfection to me is the word Easter used. Easter is just one day whereas Passover (unleavened bread) is 7 thus proving its imperfection. Easter is a derivative of Ishtar which is very pagan and God wouldn’t used a pagan derivative to describe one of His Holy Feast days.
Yes, I believe that is another error. I'm less confident of that one, however, because I feel like I can't find a way to explain what they did.
Everything I’ve read on the topic of “Easter in the Bible” has me convinced that Easter is the correct translation. By the way, Passover is just one day. The Feast of Unleavened bread is right after Passover, and is a week.
A career attacking the KJV with a smile, meekness, friendliness. I would love to see what's hiding under the skin.
And I'll tell you: what's hiding there is a desire to understand God's word and to heal bitter, unnecessary divisions in Christ's body. I do NOT attack the KJV. This is the only error I've pointed to in it, and to point to an error in it is to do no less than what the KJV translators themselves did in their preface, which I beg you to read.
@Jlde2024 thanks for your opinion, could you point to what part of the Bible says that other people's opinions should make you write hate comments into an "on line" comment section under a moving photograph?
I remember reading this verse in Hebrew for the first time. I thought job was saying he was tofeth, as in the valley of topheth in Jeremiah
That doesn’t make great sense in context, either, of course, or perhaps commentators would suggest it. I didn’t do an exhaustive search of the commentators, but I don’t see anyone opting for that meaning.
@@markwardonwords I didn’t make sense. I was so confused. I can easily see how translators make mistakes
@Ian Don't force people read KJV only!!
@Ian Then show me in KJV Bible where God or Jesus said: "Read KJV only or go to hell."
@Ian DONT WORRY, KEEP LOOKING AT JESUS. I READ KJV ALSO AND I KNOW, IT IS JESUS HIMSELF. IN REVELATION HE TELLS US THAT HE HAD A NEW NAME WRITTEN, THAT NO MAN KNOWS, BUT HE HIMSELF..........AND HE HAD A VESTURE DIPPED IN BLOOD, AND HIS NAME IS CALLED THE WORD OF GOD." HIS WORD IS ALIVE, BECAUSE HE IS ALIVE. SORRY ABOUT THE CAPITALS, I HAVE TROUBLE WITH HANDS. I STARTED MAKING MY OWN VIDS . GOD BLESS YOU.
Bible translation from manuscripts is more of an art than a science, so I've heard. It is very hard to do!
It is indeed difficult!
I use the hebrew bible.
I'm beyond 100% convinced with the perfect word in English. Today's modern KJV is. If God can not present his perfect word to the world after he has created all the languages, then the devil wins. God gets his word into the hands of the right people and leads and guides them into all truth. Of course, the devil made sure to create many counterfeit bibles to confuse everyone.
You are absolutely right. “Christians” treat the KJV EXACTLY I mean it’s scary identical to how the world treats Christianity. For example. You see Christianity mocked by everyone on every platform in some way at some point. No other religion is even mentioned ( on occasion someone will drop a joke about Islam or something) but nothing on a mass scale and on a unified very public level. Reason being is that the Devil attacks what he knows is real. And he will deceive the hearts and minds of anyone who will allow him to, just so that light is dimmed. Or at least he’ll try. The crazy thing is, that same spirit is going against KJV AND KJV users in almost a persecution type way. People HATE the KJV. Why? Because the KJV was a direct task that was placed on the hearts of the scholars he chose to translate it in English.
Why does God's Word need to be perfect in all languages? Why can't he preserve the original language, and the Word still be perfect?
@@juqeboxmedia People don't really attack the KJV or dislike it apart from the KJO movement. It is the reason for the so-called "persecution". The KJO movement creates that problem, among others. It creates fear and confusion in people and causes division amongst Christians. I dislike it.
Jeremiah 36:22 King Zedekiah burned the originals .... the originals never existed for some of these chapters
Where is this Letter to reader from Translators? You don't put it in the film itselfe.
I have a video on that on my channel. Can’t send the link at the moment. But search for it!
@@markwardonwords Can you please told me name of this films on your channel? I very respect sources.
@@BeniaminZaboj I'm not totally sure what you're asking, but here's the link to the video I mentioned: th-cam.com/video/ipfJGU5YYXM/w-d-xo.html
Reminds me of " a clanging symbol"... a noise some people do not want to hear. Tabret is a one sided drum. This reminds me of friends I talk with who talk and never stop. I cannot get a word in edgewise. A one sided conversation.
Could be!
With respect, this two-word response is the most succinct, yet troubling, summary of your entire presentation, Mark.
I never realized before how much of Job's response sounds iike knowledge of Christ's trial. I do know that Job's trial is the labor of one in whom the Word is fully formed. He will be brought to a state of repeating what God says. The portion of faith called "the good part." We know this as יענה or John--the beginning of the response of Jah. As the doves call to one another with cooing, we speak the words of God with faith. It is fair to called these word "inspired" because they come into our ears as the audible breath of the Most High God. The lord our God is One. The book of Job explains how lightning comes from the snow clouds. When translated to thunder animals understand. Are we all called to seek the face of God, his holy presence? The last step requires taking on the role of the lowest servant. Some of us need a lot of help to do it. Job will become "a son of God" and experience that quickening which allows him to understand the language of light. That isn't all, of course.
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
What does "study" mean, friend? th-cam.com/video/Nzgmi6I2HIE/w-d-xo.html
@@markwardonwords
Well. It means you don’t seem to have the spirit of discernment.
The “tabret” is simply an instrument of music.
You can see that from the context by looking at the word usage in the actual KJV.
Job 17:6-7 (KJV) 6 He hath made me also a byword of the people; and 🎼aforetime I was as a tabret.🎼7 Mine eye also is dim by reason of sorrow, and all my members [are] as a shadow.
1 Samuel 18:6 (KJV)
And it came to pass as they came, when David was returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, that the women came out of all cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet king Saul, with 👉🏾tabrets, with joy, and with instruments of musick🎼.
Job is saying people who used to love the sound of his voice (it was MUSIC to their ears), but now he is a byword, or example of a cursed man whom they are astonished by due to his circumstances. They thought that worldly gain was godliness erroneously. Even his wife said “curse God and die”.
1 Timothy 6:5 (KJV)
Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
Here is a verse for you:
2 Corinthians 2:17 (KJV)
For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
If the interpretation is so obvious, why did multiple KJV-Onlyists give me multiple different interpretations?
@@markwardonwords anyone can put a label on any book. You seem very naive to men.
Also. I just refuted your video on the verse you gave. So, will you be admitting your error?
Although this might not be the most doctrinally important verse in Job 17:6 to me after looking at the counter argument and evidence for the KJB reading its the perfect example of why we should always stick with the KJV as final authority since the other readings completely invert the sense and destroy the contrast. If trusting the modern lexicons and scholarship can do this, it’s no wonder why the cults have such power to attack the fundamentals of the Christian faith on the important verses. This is not an error in translation its just your opinion, this video would more accurately be called “why I like the way modern versions translate Job 17:6”.
Friend, where does the Bible say that a particular translation in any language should be the final authority on what the Hebrew or Greek means?
Read 2 Kings 8:26 & 2 Chronicles 22:2. Was King Ahaziah 22 years old or 42 years old when he began to reign over Israel as King for one year?
I laughed about this because many a woman will lie about their age. Maybe King Ahaziah was sensitive about his age.
It looks like the translators translated the numbers 22 & 42 correctly. From a bible believer, Patty
Gods word is infallible. I believe every word in the kjv. The more doubt you have the deeper you get from truth. In job he’s saying he’s being used as an instrument.if you don’t have the Holy Ghost you won’t know the Bible. It won’t make sense. There are no mistakes
My friend, that's the fourth explanation for the meaning of this verse that I've received from my KJV-Only brothers. Which one is correct, and how do you know?
1611 King James Authorised the first Edition is the perfect word of God. There are 9 fruits of the Spirit. 1+6+1+1=9 don't cast doubts! Upon the believers who need the truth. To be a true witness, Get the spoken word of God. 1611 King James Authorised. Which produces more fruit than any other versions.
🤣🤣🤣
@@debbyantoine You do realize no 1611 KJV’s are being printed today right? The KJV has undergone 100,000 changes since 1611. Which edition was correct? Was it in 1612, 1613, 1616, 1629, 1638, or 1769? The KJV was edited a bit in each of those years. Is the 1769 edition perfect? The version you read today is likely the Cambridge edition first published in 1900. Was King James around then to authorize that one? Was he around in 1769? In fact do your own comparison between the Oxford and Cambridge editions. Which edition is right? Which edition was “authorized”? Example:
Compare Jeremiah 34:16.
Modern versions of the KJV (the Oxford edition and the Cambridge edition) vary on this matter. The Oxford ed. says “…whom ye had set at liberty…” while the Cambridge ed. says “…whom he had set at liberty…”
Which is correct? Is it Ye or He? That is more than just a spelling or printing change, those are content changes, and that is just one example. Another example is 2 Timothy 2:2 “heard from me” vs. “heard of me”. Which is it?
Look I am not bashing the KJV, it is a good translation, but lets be real, your modern KJV was not authorized by King James, he died in the 1600’s way before 1769 or 1900. At some point you are going to have to realize the King James is only a translation. I ran into one KJV onlyist who insisted the king in Ecclesiastes 8:4 was King James despite the fact that Ecclesiastes was written approx. 2,500 years ago and the king in that passage was in fact King Solomon. This is how ridiculous KJV onlyists are becoming.
I do not frustrate the grace of God for if righteousness came by the law THEN CHRIST IS DEAD (current tense) in vain. In other words Christ has not risen from the dead. If this was pointed out to the KJV translators they would admit this contradiction. Furthermore the KJV translators declared that it was not their intention to make a new translation but to make a good translation better. Speaking of the eight English translations prior to theirs the KJV translators declared that all the other previous translations were honourable and that even the meanest translation containeth the word of God yea is the word of God.
Arrogance and ignorance is not bliss no matter how much you think otherwise.
I so appreciate your work. Have you done a video on the KJV’s unfortunate rendering of JESUS for JOSHUA in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8?
No. Good tip. I tossed it in my files.
They are two separate historical characters.
Their names in English are not the same.
King James version cited the wrong historical character.
@@markwardonwordsMight want to read Joshua 5:13-15 and ask yourself who the man was that Joshua, who had just taken over from Moses, was bowing himself to before answering further...
Psalm 12:6
Friend, I don’t think that verse is saying what I think you think it’s saying. :) byfaithweunderstand.com/2012/11/09/a-pillar-text-and-a-slick-website-for-king-james-onlyism/
@@markwardonwords Proverbs 3:5
@@zacharyferreira3730 yeah? So? What's your point, if any?
Psalm 12:6-7 has nothing to do with the preservation of the words. It is people who are preserved, not words in the context. read all context of Psalm 12.
I can certainly find more mistakes in the KJV. But as you say the overall message is clear and should not deter us in seeking and learning the truth. It is naive to uphold that KJV is the absolute and free of errors, but errors were introduced by men. Although I like KJV, other versions of the Bible realize the mistakes on translation and correct them albeit with copyright limitations.
Yes, we have many good translations to be grateful for, including the KJV.
People seem to be mocking Job thinking God has rejected him. At one time Job was someone they listened too.
People listen to the beat of the drum!
I think, if I remember, right, that this is the fourth confident interpretation of this phrase by KJV defenders that I have received.
Well done, Mark!
I admit, I do not know the original languages of the Scripture, but I have confidence in its trustworthiness. I just cannot believe that if one word is obscure, then all is wrong.
I love and use the KJV, but not exclusively. I do not
understand how or why, this should throw my KJVO friends into a tizzy. Have they NO REAL FAITH IN GOD? That is how it seems to me.
Ok, so you are correcting an error of an inerrant bible? Got it!
Please interact with the arguments made in the video.
So you conclude the Authorised Version is wrong based on a word that you don't know the meaning of?
Why not use the Hebrew word toph to work out what the Hebrew word tophet means?
4:20 Consider that a tabret, timbrel or tambourine as we might call it today is played by repeated striking with a palm. So in the context of the passage the KJV translation of the verse makes sense, in that Job is being literally or figuratively smitten.
The cognate languages are interesting to think about, but nothing about the evidence you have presented would definitively conclude that there is an error in the KJV, just that similar languages may or may not have a different meaning than the biblical Hebrew
There are other translations as well such as the Geneva bible which also use tabret, and so there is other evidence that this could be a valid choice of words.
"Job 17:6 Hee hath also made mee a byword of the people, and I am as a Tabret before them." Geneva
Or that the Geneva Bible translators made the same error-probably by relying on the same authorities. But you're the only defender of the KJV wording in these comments (that I can remember!) that even mentioned the cognate languages argument, so kudos to you!
@@markwardonwords Perhaps, that's the interesting thing about all of this, like with all historical/observational sciences you have to place things on a scale of confidence, it's difficult to definitively prove or disprove anything conclusively.
Ill be honest with you I am trying to figure this out for myself right now. I appreciate your video here it presents good ideas and I am trying to honestly look at the issues from both sides and see if I can come to a conclusion that is satisfactory to my own heart, even if I can't convince others, I am less interested in that at this point and just want to know.
One other informational point I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on, I heard the KJV translators were given the rule to be guided by the "Bishop's Bible" translation. Being careful not to unnecessarily change conclusions in that translation if the original texts did not demand it, and for this verse it says "17:6 He hath made me a byworde of the people, where as afore I was their ioy" (joy in ye olde english) It may be that the Bishops bible guided the translation to tabret as a figure of speech for joy, kinda like you mentioned in your video, in your speculative analysis of it. But it kind of makes sense reading it there, before Job's affliction he was a joy to the people around him... then it opens up the rabbit trail of what is the origin of the bishop's bible, and can I identify conclusive inaccuracies in that bible. All interesting things to think about and discover.
I believe the so-called errors in the KJV were meant to move us toward research. The advent of biblical scholarship such as that we have today is no accident. I think where we go wrong is placing our pride in the translation rather than the need to research for learning. In a sense, these so-called errors aren't really errors at all.
My friend, could you interact with specific arguments in the video?
It is not a major point or the underlying reasoning by those who recognise the KJB's perfection that because the KJB has been long time used it is right. In fact, the view of the KJB's perfection is a doctrinal argument based on scripture itself that recognises the Providences and particularities of the KJB as fulfilling that role of being the perfect Bible. That hundreds of years of existence of the KJB is at best a secondary point.
bibleprotector, no one is in charge of KJV-Onlyism, and there are multiple strains within it. I believe I am representing the mainstream, IFB KJV-Onlyism I know best. They are more responsible and careful than Ruckmanism on the point you mention. And I repeatedly hear from them that the way we know what 1) text and 2) what translation is right is God's use of it.
@@markwardonwords God's long time using of the KJB is *an* argument but not "mainstream IFB KJBOs'" primary argument. Their primary argument is a list of scripture references (i.e. an interpretation and a doctrine) about how God's very words should exist today, be knowable, etc. It is a strawman to make out as if the age/venerableness of the KJB is their primary foundation.
As for your implication that KJBO is fissiparous, the use of verses in regard to the KJB (e.g. Matthew 4:4) is common to Ruckmanites, IFB KJBOs, TROs (e.g. Donald Waite, David Cloud, etc.), certain Calvinists (e.g. Ian Paisley, Edward Hills, etc.), Andersonites, Riplingerites and someone like me. I concede of course there are doctrinal differences among Christians but the point stands that all these differing proponents primarily relied on giving a list of scripture proofs for the KJB.
I'll engage you a little further because you are engaging constructively. You are right that mainstream KJV-Onlyists appeal to many Scriptures. But to bridge the gap between "the Bible says that we have to have every word from the mouth of God" and "the KJV is that Word" they appeal to God's use of the KJV and its text.
@@markwardonwords That seems like your bias or blinkers ("oh these are just lovers of tradition and what they know"), because if you start from the Scriptures saying there is a perfect Bible, then you would only then use as one of the points that the KJB has been around for a long time, but that is only a secondary point after having established from the Scripture a doctrine that there should be a perfect Bible present first.
The idea that a translation's historical usage gives it any claim to perfection is self-refuting. We could then just as easily blame the King James Version for the evils of British imperialism by that reasoning. Surely the atrocities of colonialism committed from 1611 to 1881 shouldn't be placed on the shoulders of the venerable translators of the Authorized Version, but if the translation is to be validated by all of the Christian progress during those centuries, then it would just as soon be denigrated by the cruelties committed by English Christendom during the same period.
And even then, if any translation has a special claim due to length of usage, it would surely be the Vulgate, so the only English translations worthy of consideration would have to be those based on the Latin. Thankfully, even Roman Catholics have recognized how weak that argument is and have shifted to modern translations based on Hebrew and Greek.
Ya know what wouldve been useful, for the KJ translators to give a commentary on the whole bible so qe would know whether they knew what the verse was saying.
If they didnt know what the verse meant, then you cant blame someone for pointing out an error they made.
Imagine speaking to them and asking them one by one, what does this verse mean and why tabret?
Biships bible 1568 makes more sense than tabret, they probably tried to interpret what tabret meant.
"He hath made me a byworde of the people, where as afore I was their ioy"
Right! Good points!
Seems like a good place to deploy this: KJV Onlyist, are you saying that not a single Christian anywhere in the world had true faith until A.D.1611, because they did not have the Perfect Word Of God in English to read? Even Christians who spoke other languages? Or the illiterate majority?
In my experience, these questions get answered different ways in different portions of KJV-Onlyism.
@@markwardonwords - Actually, in my experience as well.
They usually begin to talk about how the Alexandrian texts were corrupted, but aside from 2 places, the differences aren’t all that significant. The two places are not adding St. Matthew’s ending to St. Mark’s gospel, and the Alexandrian text not including the section of Matthew where St. Peter is given the keys to Heaven. Since Catholics are most often accused of corrupting the texts, it’s humorous to think they corrupted it by removing the verse seemingly most in support of Papal supremacy, infallibility, and indefectibility.
That's why there are different dispensations of God's Grace for people through out time. Today we live by faith in Jesus Christ through God's perfect written word.
Not at all, just that God knew that the global language in the end times would be English 😊 He prepared us well.
at some point, could you go over the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy?
A great idea. Let me consider.
There are no errors in Gods Word. WE find errors when we rationalize too much over scriptures. We have no business looking for errors. To do so is like diaper babies judging Albert Einstine. Matt 18.3 We must be trusting little children and quite trying to correct God. 2 Cor 5.7 We walk by faith, not by sight. Or we walk by faith and not rationalization. Focus on Jesus and you won't find errors.
I agree! There are no errors in God's word! I'm with you 100%!
Frankly, you should have gone with Revelation 16:5.
But my channel is not dedicated to textual issue but translational ones. I talk about text only under some duress!
"...and aforetime I was a tabret" Yes, I'm sure many Christians will lose a lot of sleep over this mistake. Read other versions of the Bible, don't just read the KJV because that's shutting out God's Word for many people.
I tend to agree.
@@markwardonwords so does satan
Are you saved?
Not a mistake. What do you do with a tabret? You strike or hit it to get a sound. He was metaphorically saying he gets "beat up" by everyone.
This is one of the four leading interpretations that KJV-Onlyists have given me. It does make sense. But it doesn’t reckon at all with what the Hebrew says.
Great video! Thanks! I use a wide variety of translations - Catholic, Protestant & Eastern Orthodox. Some are better. Some are not so good. The KJV is one of the best, but imperfect, just like its reader - me.
I’m an imperfect reader, too!
To me, this is your most important video! Because it’s a specific example of an error in the KJV. I would love to learn of other examples, if you have any! Thanks, Mark 😊
I really don't go searching for these. And all the (few) I've seen have been really minor and obscure things.
@@markwardonwords Would you say the KJV got it wrong in Daniel 3:25? It seems so considering verse 28. Or am I missing something?
@@LoveAndLiberty02 I think so, yes. But not wrong as in impossible but wrong as in not the best.
@@markwardonwords When thinking through the topic of the Bible versions, this was a big one for me. I, of course, don't know Hebrew, but I can't see how the KJV rendering could be possible considering verse 28.
@@markwardonwords Maybe the capitalization of "Son" is the issue, even more so than using the definite article.
Clarke: "A most improper translation. What notion could this idolatrous king have of the Lord Jesus Christ? for so the place is understood by thousands. בר אלהין bar elahin signifies a son of the gods, that is, a Divine person or angel; and so the king calls him in Daniel 3:28: "God hath sent his ANGEL, and delivered his servants." And though even from this some still contend that it was the Angel of the covenant, yet the Babylonish king knew just as much of the one as he did of the other. No other ministration was necessary; a single angel from heaven was quite sufficient to answer this purpose, as that which stopped the mouths of the lions when Daniel was cast into their den."
That's just one voice, sure, but I can't reconcile the KJV translation in verse 25 with verse 28. Thanks for responding.
Isaiah 40:8 kjv
People used to listen to Job.
My friend, is this a fifth interpretation?