The Trinitarian Bible Society publishes "A Bible Word List & Daily Reading Plan", which is a booklet containing explanations of unfamiliar words in the Authorised (King James) Version, and also a daily Bible reading plan. It can be obtained via their website for free as a .pdf or a paperback.
@@michealferrell1677 It appears from their website that the revision of the Spanish Bible thy make some allowance for the current language; "faithful to the original languages and understandable to the current reader in Spanish". The revision appears to be of a 1602 edition.
God showed me the truth about using modern translations while I was still in a KJV preferred church. I knew there would be a price tag to stating my new position openly and debated for a while just keeping my discovery to myself. After all, I can still use the ESV in my private study and benefit greatly and use it to help me clarify some of the difficult places in the KJV. But when it came to what I would do with my children, I was convicted against handing them a Bible with unnecessary difficulties when God had cleared my conscience to use modern translations. The thing holding me back from doing so was fear of lashback from my church community. I had reached a crossroad. To continue doing what I had been doing would now be sinful for me (tho I do not say I was sinning in this area in the past). Now I knew better and was confronted with making a difficult choice. It cost me my church community sadly, but my kids have grown so much spiritually and our conversations around the Bible are less mired in trying to understand by it and more centered on following what it says. God has also placed us in a different church where we can continue to serve and grow. Everything we lost by making the hard choice to give our kids an ESV has been restored to us, and then some. This is God’s doing in our family and we are grateful. To clarify, I agree with Mark that I don’t think my mother owes me an apology for giving me a KJV. The difference is when you have been persuaded that the readability issue surpasses any textual or variant issues that modern translations are critiqued for, you must choose to follow as God leads. To do otherwise is sin. The same goes the other way around too. If you are unconvinced, keep using the KJV. You will never see me try to persuade anyone to discard or burn their precious familiar Bible. But again on the flip side, I do wish those that prefer their trusty King James wouldn’t scoff at the ESV either or have NIV burning parties. Search for the truth no matter how difficult and simply do as God leads you to do. To do otherwise is a sin.
Nope. Leave it alone. It’s a literary work of art. We don’t update Shakespeare. Folks have a zillion translations to choose from, including the NKJV which is exactly that update. Language doesn’t change enough to warrant changes every 20 years anyway.
Personally I don't think so. 1. There are a large amount of people from different groups/denominations who use the KJV. You cannot update it without causing more division and less authority in a specific edition. Who would agree on which words. Ward thinks Miserable does not mean miserable, but it does. Commendeth means commends, just like we read it. 2. Over 40 so-called updates have been attempted and not 1 has taken the place of the KJV. What would someone do differently than these have done? That should show the value and the desirability of updates. 3. I appreciate the standard edition of the 1611. It wasn't translated by me or for me. It is beautiful. I was actually attracted to Christianity through the beauty of the KJV. There are many people who I am hearing from who are starting to read the KJV. 4. The Defined KJV and things like it exist. If you have difficulty get the Defined. Soon there will be a free online option as well.
@@robertj5208 1 Corinthians 14 is not talking about reading or quoting Scripture. If it is than we are all in trouble. No modern edition fits a 1 Corinthians 14 view. The ESV uses words like Sheol which is not English, but a complex theological term. The NIV uses citadel and the NKJV uses rivulet. The originals do not fit Ward's manipulation of 1 Corinthians 14. Did the KJV translators believe it was wrong to use foreign languages in preaching? While it is unclear who a few of the translators were and many did not leave written works behind, we do have extant sermons from at least 12 of them. These range from the Puritan John Rainolds to the high church Lancelot Andrewes and even the writer of the preface Miles Smith. In examining their sermons, I have found that all 12 used Latin, and some included Hebrew and Greek. I am not defending every use of a dead or foreign language by a KJV translator but typically they were translated into English. If we can extend the application of 1 Corinthians 14 to encompass “reading the Bible in Church” then it follows that 1 Corinthians 14:13’s provision for interpretation would also apply. Either way, the KJV translators in practice did not agree with Ward's application. For reference, I have listed the translators and the specific sermon below where I found Latin included in them. These are not all their sermons. I stopped looking after I saw Latin was included in one. George Abbott “A sermon preached at Westminster May 26. 1608”; Lancelot Andrewes at times quoted Scripture in Latin sometimes leaving it untranslated “The copie of a sermon preached on good Friday last before the Kings Maiestie…6. April 1604”; Richard Bancroft “A Sermon preached at Pauls Crosse the 9 of February ... Anno. 1588”; William Barlow “A sermon preached at Paules Crosse, on the first Sunday in Lent: Martij 1. 1600”; Thomas Bilson used Greek in his sermon from July 25, 1603; Richard Clarke “Sermons preached by that reverend and learned divine Richard Clerke”, Richard Eedes, “Six learned and godly sermons preached some of them before the Kings Maiestie”; Roger Fenton, “A sermon of simonie and sacriledge preached at Pauls Crosse March 18 (1604)”; Arthur Lake “Ten sermons vpon severall occasions preached at S. Paul’s Cross and elsewhere 1641”; John Rainolds, “A sermon upon part of the prophesie of Obadiah:” Miles Smith “A learned and godly sermon preached at Worcester 1602” Thomas Sparke “A sermon preached at Cheanies the 14. of September, 1585” John Spencer “A learned and gracious sermon preached at Paules Crosse by that famous and iudicious diuine, Iohn Spenser”
If we would be faithful obeying “teach the generation following” (Deuteronomy 6:6-7; Psalm 48:13; 2 Timothy 2:2), there would not be a need for an every-generation update.
Ward’s work (especially on false friends) is a blessing to anyone reading the KJV and KJVo’s need it more everyone else.. lol - What’s that passage about “heaping coals” ? 💛😹
Regarding this question. I was reminded of the following scripture: ““Everything is permissible,” but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible,” but not everything builds up.” 1 Corinthians 10:23 CSB
Though I agree with Dr. Ward, I felt he perhaps went "a bridge too far" by using "sin" with regard to giving a child a KJV (only). He could have made his point a little less assertively, and he probably caused an unnecessary uproar that drowns out much of what he said. However, he may have a point Scripturally: Jesus admonished his followers to not hinder little children from coming to him (Matt 19:14, etc.), and it could be argued that one is doing just that by giving them only an antiquated translation that, per Dr. Ward's tests, even its most staunch defenders don't understand. Pastor Green, am I wrong in finding it a little inconsistent for you to disagree with Dr. Ward's position on the KJV's sufficient intelligibility while using a modern translation as your primary one? Good discussion. Thanks.
I don't think so. I would not force any church to take the KJV out of their pews. Just because I don't use the KJV in my church, doesn't mean no one should, each church is unique in their needs and my thought for my particular congregation is that it would be more beneficial to use a more modern translation.
KJV is a great Anglican Bible. My advice: As an Anglican I use the KJV for personal devotional reading; but I use various translations for study including the Septuagint as my primary OT.
Mark Ward has been very clear that he believes that the KJV is the Word of God. However, why give children one of the most difficult to understand translations? It's certainly not doing good for them, it's better than no Bible, but barely. Not one of my church friends read the Bible while we were growing up and we only had the KJV. Not one is still in church. I was given a NKJV at 8 and my Dad had a Mathew Henry Commentary, those two things facilitated a greater understanding and relationship with God.
Great video Dwayne and Mark. I think its been a valiant effort by Mark and you Dwayne to talk about this. The debate will never end because just looking at the comments which are full of attacks on both of you by KJVO. We still have the Ruckmanite crowd, Riplinger, Sam Gipp, Jack Chick, Steven Anderson and others who attack any translation or its readers who are different than the KJV. The accusations, assumptions and misinformation will never end. Its a valiant effort by both of you brothers to talk about this issue despite the juvenile attacks.
There is no moral equivalence even if you try to make it that way. I see KJV onlyists start arguments, accusations and attacks on people's salvation all the time on Facebook. Rarely do I see that with people who are not KJVO so if you are saying there is equal attacks by both sides, not true.
I used to be KJV Only and it took time to get away from it. I now use the NKJV and CSB and love them. BUT, if I’m honest with myself, it’s guys like this that almost make me want to go back to it. There’s this bizarre combo of admiration and venom towards the KJV from these guys that really makes one pause. I have watched a bunch of his videos, and while some of the info has been helpful, it comes packaged oftentimes in arrogance and condescension. Very similar to how I feel when I hear James White. After awhile his arrogance made my skin crawl. This aside, I STILL don’t understand this crusade against it. Don’t like it? Don’t read it. There a zillion other translations to choose from. But children have been reared on the KJV for 400 years right up to modern day independent Baptists with NO issue. This is a NON-issue that just needs to go away
@@MAMoreno I was IFB. No one in our church ever had an issue of getting a verse “wrong” because of the old English. saying their interpretation of verses is incorrect may or may not be incorrect in and of itself. Christians have been debating verses for millennia. I HIGHLY doubt there are too many IFBs teaching verses incorrectly because they don’t understand the old English. They may or may not understand certain concepts, but I doubt it’s because of the language. But even if that did happen, I’d say it’s rather rare. Can you give an example?
@@davegarciaofficial 2 Timothy 2.15. A verse that's intended to instruct pastors to preach the Gospel accurately in response to heresy is instead distorted to be a verse about earning righteousness through Bible study. It's sometimes taken even further to mean that a reader of the Bible must be a dispensationalist who "divides" salvation history into periods of works-righteousness and free grace.
@ but see, that’s YOUR interpretation. It may or may not be right and perhaps your English Bible got it wrong? See what I’m saying? Who’s to say who’s right on that interpretation? The NKJV retains that wording as well and is considered ones of the most accurate modern translations out there. 2 Tim 2:15 has little to do with the old English and everything to do with interpretation and theology. IFBs may or may not be correct. It’s been debated now for centuries. This particular example is very debatable. And if this is the only one you have, then respectfully I’d say this isn’t much of an issue. I really don’t wanna do this all night my friend. Again, people can just ignore IFBs, use whatever translation they want, and get on with their walks. This crusaded against the KJV with “metrics” and all this other nonsense is just not necessary.
When i was 9, i tried reading my Bible daily…and got thru one chapter (Genesis 1) in one day before concluding the truth: I can’t understand this. I’m thankful beyond description that some one gifted me a Bible in MY language (non-Jacobean English) three years later, redeeming the Bible from a possible lifetime of not touching bc it made no sense. It may be a sin to give a KJV. It inoculates children against an irrelevant Book that they can’t understand that doesdoes them no good. Tragic that that Book pretends to be a Bible in their language.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but the Bible was not written to 9 year olds. Even the originals are not easy to read for adults who know those languages. Robert Alter who reads the Bible in Hebrew and made his own translation of the OT said, “the Bible itself does not generally exhibit the clarity to which its modern translators aspire: the Hebrew writers reveled in the proliferation of meanings, the cultivation of ambiguities, the playing of one sense of a term against another, and this richness is erased in the deceptive antiseptic clarity of the modern versions…” At 9 you probably should have had someone helping you through it. Do you mind if I ask what version you were given at 9 that you found comprehensive?
@@richiejourney1840 I understand perfectly well why people want Bibles in their own vernacular, they're either new to reading the Bible, they haven't taken enough time to truly study and ask the Holy Spirit to lead them, or they think that changing words is not a big deal as long as "the meaning" stays the same. Ignorance is not an excuse to change the Bible.
The best time to give a KJV is when they are a child. They are still learning English. I read books written in the 1930s that use words I don't know. They are written in modern English, but have a character who won't use a small word when a longer word will do. I simply look them up. I also find the origin of the words. By the way, it is divisive to use a different version. Other versions have created confusion in the church. There is no good reason for other versions that call Jesus a liar. For those who do not know, this happens in John 7:8-10. No one has given an acceptable answer for this corruption of the Bible
Seems obvious that it would be much worse to give a child an NIV or any modern version in general as they omit and undercut good doctrines like the deity of Christ, hell and salvation. I was given a KJV as a child and I may have misunderstood some old archaic words but I certainly received good doctrine because the King James has good doctrinal intelligibility, which is much better than understanding words like “wont” or “halt” (which I could normally figure with a little educational study and understanding of context- yes even as a child).
@ChrisThompson-ew2eb they seem to disregard the Bible's built in dictionary, common sense to figure out context and the 3rd member of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit. God opens the book to us....making a translation that has a bunch of modern words may be more understandable in some places, but at what cost?
I think it's a good point.. although I don't believe the KJV is a sin to give to a child it's not the best translation for a child. While I can teach and help my child the majority of study will be their personal time in the Bible. I did give my children the KJV years ago before leaving the KJVO position and I gave them the NKJV when I grew as a Christian and they both became stronger adults for it
So Mark tripled down on his it would be a sin to give a child a KJV if you know it has hard words. I have listened carefully to the context each time he has said it and he still defends it or at least is not willing to clearly state a variant position. That is interesting. I actually expected him to back off on it. Oh well. Mark Ward, would you be willing to hold a discussion on the plowboy's comprehension of the KJV in the year 1611? Would you be willing to acknowledge that you have caused division? Even if in your mind it is indirectly (although I could point to at least one video where you called on people to do so). Would you be willing to acknowledge that modern editions do things more than just Sheol? What about rivulet or citadel etc.? Would you be willing to acknowledge that a 42nd update of the KJV is not going to somehow replace the KJV? What would you do differently to make an edition that would actually be accepted? Would you be willing to admit that the Defined existed before you even wrote your book and it demonstrates that we were already teaching the meanings of words. Would you be willing to admit that there are many false friends in the MEV, SKJV, MKJV, NKJV etc.?
Here’s how I took his comment: “If you, like me, believe the KJV has reached the point of not being sufficiently intelligible for your child’s reading ….and yet you give it to them, to you it is sin (because you know better).” So if one doesn’t agree with his premise about readability, then he’s NOT saying to that one it’s sin.
The same can be said of the ESV and would be just as true. Throw in all other English translations as well, while you're at it. They are all in rebellion against God and corrupt. They are interpreting, not translating, and making what they want, changing God's counsel that stares at them in the Greek.
But is that even a proper interpretation of James 4:17? Is not what James writes about sinning by omission -- omitting or failing to do the good one knows to do? Giving someone a Bible -- regardless of what version one gives -- is an act. It is not an omission.
Dr Ward basically thinks it's wrong to use the KJV because it has too many words that people don't understand anymore. And he cited James 4:17, which says it's a sin for someone who knows better to do wrong. Therefore, it would be a sin for HIM to give a KJV Bible to a kid, but it would not be a sin for someone else who doesn’t share his opinion. James 4 is about one's own conscience, so even if Dr Ward is correct on the issue, he's wrong if he says it's a sin for others to violate his conscience.
Did you know that a Bible word book from 1866 and a different one from 1884 have words like "replenish", "reins", "prevent" etc. These were challenging words then, and are the same ones people refer to today. We have the internet now. God is not muddling His way through history: He is making a way.
Many of you are taking this man's subjective opinion as objective fact. It is freely admitted that the King James unintelligibility is subjective. The number of words, whether 20 or 2000 words, it does not matter. Most of the modern versions create far more problems than they solve. The real elephant in the room are the missing verses and missing words and minority variant readings. Before anyone asks, the Apocrypha is not canon. It is alright to have a different opinion. The problem is in the way the material is presented and the way it is spread around. The King James Bible is not going anywhere.
There are no dead words in the KJB. We still know or can find out what any word means. While the OED etc. defines what an obsolete or an archaic word is, and also label certain word usage as such, as long as the KJB is used, and people are learning words and meanings, all is well. And people can and are learning. The KJB is greater in authority than the OED. The KJB is not becoming unintelligible, but the opposite is happening. The internet, wiki and search “ai” technology is aiding the understanding of meaning of KJB words. At no point in history is or will the KJB become “sufficiently unintelligible”. In fact, because of the standardisation of language, and especially because of the computers and the internet, the English language is remaining conversant with the KJB, and in a broad sense, English has become fixed and is just expanding. I would say that the KJB is at the same level of required learning it was 100 years ago, and with education and technology developing, these are providentially aiding the KJB. Too often people are not taking into account any religious revival or concerted efforts that would bring about the KJB into greater cultural consciousness, which I expect will happen, and which will only aid the KJB’s currency, relevancy and people’s knowledge of so-called unknown meanings. The KJB does not need, nor will it need, to be changed. It is exactly what God intends and wishes for "this date" and therefore cannot and shouldn't be "updated".
@Dwayne_Green I think Dr. Ward is right on almost all points (I even agree with his sentiment about it being a sin to give a child a KJV with the qualifications given in your community poll). I only have a few places I disagree. I think that it is specifically public, not private, reading which has the most leeway for intelligibility. Most people are not sufficiently trained to deal with KJV English, much less trained to use original languages to sort it out. I don't think people who don't have the toolset to do deal with the problems should be using the KJV as a main translation (and think translations intended for the every man should be on a very low register, to boot). But a lot of this has to do with Dr. Ward and I having different set of values going in. I also think the differences in text type matter more than he does. You know about the argument I'm working on, for instance, and it depends strongly on the Byzantine text (As an aside, I've worked through most of the variants and corrected several errors, and I think it could also inadvertently constitute a strong argument for the BT or even the TR). I think text form matters less than the KJVO or TR guys say, but more than most CT guys say...but I'm on this channel, and that's common :) I also disagree a good bit on the nature of inspiration, but that's a book. Other than that, I think Dr. Ward was right in his points, and these are more shifts in priority or emphases than outright disagreement.
1 John 3:4: Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. What law is being violated by giving your child a KJV? Wouldn't it be more a sin to hand your child an ESV, NKJV, NIV, etc. and tell them it's a Bible when it's not? Because those are corruption of the Bible.
@@KenyonBowers The qualifications I gave him before are that I don't think it's right to give a child _any_ Bible unsupervised. They can't process the information, and it can cause harm. It would, thus, be a sin for me to give something the children cannot handle. It's similar to how it's not a sin to explain the birds and the bees, but it is to do so too early, because it could hurt them. The KJV makes it worse, because it adds a barrier of comprehensibility on top of what a child already struggles with. I will eventually graduate them to the KJV, but that's only when they're ready, and that at my judgment. I already have a specific edition of the KJV for that point in the future, but that's not now. Likewise, I'm going to teach them to read the original languages, and I have the authoritative text for them on that, but that's further away. As for the modern translations not being a Bible, I simply don't believe that. That kind of belief is too modern for me. I hold to a conclusion that is closer to hat was professed by Theodore Leetis if taken with those of Augustine: the authoritative text is to be found in the range of manuscripts that were handed down and used by Christians in Greek (OT and NT) and in the Hebrew Masoretic handed down by Jews (OT). Thus, if a translation is derived form a Byzantine text, doesn't depart from what that Greek text can mean, and doesn't violate historical doctrine, it's on the table. This allows for several differences in the Greek text of the NT and also for multiple translations of the same phrase.
@@kainech Timothy knew the Scriptures from a child. There is nothing in the Bible that even implies there is a certain age at which you can start giving your children the Bible. You have 0 biblical proof behind your claims.
@@KenyonBowers Timothy wasn't given a KJV either. You can know the Scriptures from childhood without having ever seen a KJV, especially if you live in a non English speaking country.
The ESV made me KJVO. But if he was just making a point. it was cute. I suffer in silence at church with all of the sloppy new age bibles. I stay sad and depressed when I hear a beautiful verse read in a mediocre way. But the main problem will always be letting the critical text be primary in translation. we should not let catholics near our bibles, beliefs or boys .
The King James Bible translators use the Massoretic Hebrew Text for the Old Testament Bible and the ancient Original Byzantine Koine Greek Text for the New Testament so it was translated from the original Hebrew and from the original Greek the original Old King James Bible not the new King James
A couple of points. First, tho the Elizabethan English of the King James is somewhat different than the English of today, it's not so different as to constitute a foreign language. Yet, we teach foreign languages to children, and they often are able to learn them quite easily. Why can't folks teach their children to read King James English in a similar fashion? Secondly, an interesting "metrics" project for you, Pastor Dwayne, would be to determine just how many "false friends", and unintelligible words or phrases exist on an average, randomly selected page of the KJV. My guess is that it is under 3%. Is that really enough to support the claim that the KJV is sufficiently unintelligible? And, if pastors, teachers and parents can utilize the good work of the Trinitarian Bible Society and /or Mark Ward to help navigate the occasionally difficult passages, doesn't the issue become moot, to some degree?
@@igregmart No argument there--the point is that the typical reader of the most commonly used KJV, namely, the 1769 revision, should be able to navigate it with modern helps, and that it can be used to preach or to teach others without as much brain damage as the advocates of modern versions seem to imagine. Yes, it would be much more difficult to do this with a true 1611, due to the different spellings, etc.
@@michaelsinger2921 ha, ha. What did these words mean in 1611? sound mind, careful, charity, conversation, Corn, Discovered, Divers, halt, heresies, peculiar, Quick, sped, sporting, Study, Suffer, Visitation, wait on, want(ing) - “Where duty calls or danger be never (desiring) there.”
@ Of course, the meaning of many of those words has changed since 1611. The point is, that with appropriate helps, it is not that difficult to determine meanings of the vast majority of obsolete words. Even with modern translations, diligent readers can benefit in their understanding of the text by means of study helps. A recent edition of Unger's Bible dictionary, for example, spans nearly 1400 pages and contains thousands of articles explaining Bible terms. Sometimes a little extra work pays dividends in terms of better understanding of our language, both the current and the dated.
His point isn't that there's anything _wrong_ with the KJV. Rather, he calls for people to consider whether it's _wrong_ to expect a child to make sense of a 400-year-old translation when there are more accessible versions available and when there's so much on the line spiritually if they don't understand what they're reading.
@@ST52655 Yes, and children can be taught the truth in an English that they recognize rather than trying to teach it to them in a form of English that's completely alien to them.
With some study in the word, these "false friends" can be understood with ease. And as for giving a Kjv to a child? That's what study time with your family is for. Its our responsibility (adults) to make sure these little ones understand the Word
@@igregmart lol it’s broke. Has been broke since I was a kid 50 years ago. Many kids are given bibles (KJV) they can’t associate with and/or understand. If your lucky enough to be in a great Christian family then it’s not a big deal for you. For the rest of us…it’s a big deal and if we can’t associate/understand or be otherwise encouraged in what we are reading…well…it gets dropped and discarded.
It's tough when it turns out that many of us adults don't realize that we don't actually understand what the KJ is saying. That's the whole point and problem.
@ You don’t give rotten food to a child or the child will get food poisoning. On the same note you don’t give rotten scriptures to a child or he will get spiritual food poisoning
That's not true. He clearly recognized the validity Dwayne's argument regarding the subjectivity of readability and took his time explaining the nuance of his own position. His statements were in no way like Kamala Harris' nonsense.
The reason we have these debates is because KJVO go around on Facebook on other translation adds and start calling modern translations perversions, fake Bibles, satanic and people who read them apostates, heretics and you name it. Then they make false claims that the KJV is the only pure, perfect Word of God in English. I have seen KJV onlyists call the ESV the English Satanic Version, the NLT the New Lousy Translation, the NIV the Not Inspired Version and all the other juvenile nonsense they spew. They personally attack people who don't agree with them. You can thank the Ruckmanites, Gail Riplinger, Sam Gipp, Jack Chick and the late Tex Marrs to name just a few. Mark Ward has simply pushed back against this stuff as a former KJV onlyist himself. I personally think the KJVO arguments are such nonsense and brought much division in the church.
The steelman is: 1. Is it a sin to give your child the Latin Vulgate? 2. Is it a sin to forbid them use any Bible translation except the Latin Vulgate? I don't think so, because while I think we should read the Bible, I don't venerate it. I think it's important to tell our children about Jesus using the Bible or some other means.
If you know the truth about Modern English versions you'll understand that it is actually a sin to give those versions two children or anybody else and these aspects of the bibliology in history should not be unknown to Mark Ward but the people person you should really be listening to is David W Daniels and you should be reading your Bible more thoroughly but if you don't read the authorized version you basically will be missing a lot of scriptures and the reason that they're missing scriptures is because they were left out on purpose those scriptures were there in the beginning and the manuscript or manuscripts that have come down to us and that are behind the critical text are absolutely trash and should never be used and they actually should be burnt and done away with ask yourself what would God have told the Israelites to do with somebody and with their work if they produced the Bible or the scriptures of the Old Testament and they changed them it would have not been good for them and if you think we do not have God's perfect word today you are calling God a liar
When i was 9, i tried reading my Bible daily…and got thru one chapter (Genesis 1) in one day before concluding the truth: I can’t understand this. I’m thankful beyond description that some one gifted me a Bible in MY language (non-Jacobean English) three years later, redeeming the Bible from a possible lifetime of not touching bc it made no sense. It may be a sin to give a KJV. It inoculates children against an irrelevant Book that they can’t understand that does them no good. Tragic that that Book pretends to be a Bible in their language.
Funny, I know several 5 year olds that could have helped explain the chapter to you. Maybe the real sin was not asking for help in understanding the passage.
Boo. Give the man some grace. He makes many REALLY good arguments even though I often disagree with him. And he's finally departing from this stupid, unnecessarily divisive debate. Be more Christlike and argue from the scriptures for your position instead of calling people names!
@allenfrisch people have been attacking the kjv for many years and he is contributing to this. Kjv has never failed so why do people keep trying to take it down? It will never happen. Don't want to use the kjv? Fine your missing out in the joys of the greatest book in human history.
@@USAP1776 Again, I DISAGREE with Mark Ward VERY OFTEN. My point is to offer grace and kindness and debate rationally rather than vilifying someone who's agreed to drop the subject.
It is absolutely a sin to give ANYONE a KJV, the KJV is a perversion of the original language, I absolutely regret all the KJVs I have given out in my life which were many... it is a sin to give them an NASB just as much though! Gehenna is not "hell", eonian is not "everlasting" or "eternal", these are only the beginning of the lies! It is equal to editing a manuscript of the original as much as you want and then giving to someone, whether you like the fact or not... I would bet on punishment for those who have given out KJVs knowing how much it has changed the original languages...
@@richiejourney1840 John 7:8-10. Jesus tells his brothers he is not going to the feast in verse 8, but then goes to the feast in verse 10. Telling someone you won't do something, then doing it anyway, is called lying. However, in the KJV Jesus says he is not going yet, meaning he would go later, so when he goes to the feast he had not lied.
@@timlemmon2332I have checked other versions like the NIV, ESV, NASB, CSB, NKJV, and NLT. They all pretty much say the same thing as the KJV in verse 8.
Leaving KJVO and also leaving the NIFB were some of the best decisions I have ever made.
The Trinitarian Bible Society publishes "A Bible Word List & Daily Reading Plan", which is a booklet containing explanations of unfamiliar words in the Authorised (King James) Version, and also a daily Bible reading plan. It can be obtained via their website for free as a .pdf or a paperback.
❤
@@AJMacDonaldJr when TBS translates for other languages do they do so in their current language or are they stuck in 1611 as we are ?
1769
@@michealferrell1677 It appears from their website that the revision of the Spanish Bible thy make some allowance for the current language; "faithful to the original languages and understandable to the current reader in Spanish". The revision appears to be of a 1602 edition.
God showed me the truth about using modern translations while I was still in a KJV preferred church. I knew there would be a price tag to stating my new position openly and debated for a while just keeping my discovery to myself. After all, I can still use the ESV in my private study and benefit greatly and use it to help me clarify some of the difficult places in the KJV. But when it came to what I would do with my children, I was convicted against handing them a Bible with unnecessary difficulties when God had cleared my conscience to use modern translations. The thing holding me back from doing so was fear of lashback from my church community. I had reached a crossroad. To continue doing what I had been doing would now be sinful for me (tho I do not say I was sinning in this area in the past). Now I knew better and was confronted with making a difficult choice. It cost me my church community sadly, but my kids have grown so much spiritually and our conversations around the Bible are less mired in trying to understand by it and more centered on following what it says. God has also placed us in a different church where we can continue to serve and grow. Everything we lost by making the hard choice to give our kids an ESV has been restored to us, and then some. This is God’s doing in our family and we are grateful.
To clarify, I agree with Mark that I don’t think my mother owes me an apology for giving me a KJV. The difference is when you have been persuaded that the readability issue surpasses any textual or variant issues that modern translations are critiqued for, you must choose to follow as God leads. To do otherwise is sin. The same goes the other way around too. If you are unconvinced, keep using the KJV. You will never see me try to persuade anyone to discard or burn their precious familiar Bible. But again on the flip side, I do wish those that prefer their trusty King James wouldn’t scoff at the ESV either or have NIV burning parties. Search for the truth no matter how difficult and simply do as God leads you to do. To do otherwise is a sin.
His name is thenWord of God and he tells us to study. Only one version is the Word of God. Pretty sure you can figure which one.
At the very least, generational updates make sense to me . What do yall think ?
Nope. Leave it alone. It’s a literary work of art. We don’t update Shakespeare. Folks have a zillion translations to choose from, including the NKJV which is exactly that update. Language doesn’t change enough to warrant changes every 20 years anyway.
Personally I don't think so.
1. There are a large amount of people from different groups/denominations who use the KJV. You cannot update it without causing more division and less authority in a specific edition. Who would agree on which words. Ward thinks Miserable does not mean miserable, but it does. Commendeth means commends, just like we read it.
2. Over 40 so-called updates have been attempted and not 1 has taken the place of the KJV. What would someone do differently than these have done? That should show the value and the desirability of updates.
3. I appreciate the standard edition of the 1611. It wasn't translated by me or for me. It is beautiful. I was actually attracted to Christianity through the beauty of the KJV. There are many people who I am hearing from who are starting to read the KJV.
4. The Defined KJV and things like it exist. If you have difficulty get the Defined. Soon there will be a free online option as well.
Update makes sense, if not commanded by 1Cor14
@@robertj5208 1 Corinthians 14 is not talking about reading or quoting Scripture. If it is than we are all in trouble. No modern edition fits a 1 Corinthians 14 view. The ESV uses words like Sheol which is not English, but a complex theological term. The NIV uses citadel and the NKJV uses rivulet. The originals do not fit Ward's manipulation of 1 Corinthians 14.
Did the KJV translators believe it was wrong to use foreign languages in preaching? While it is unclear who a few of the translators were and many did not leave written works behind, we do have extant sermons from at least 12 of them. These range from the Puritan John Rainolds to the high church Lancelot Andrewes and even the writer of the preface Miles Smith. In examining their sermons, I have found that all 12 used Latin, and some included Hebrew and Greek. I am not defending every use of a dead or foreign language by a KJV translator but typically they were translated into English. If we can extend the application of 1 Corinthians 14 to encompass “reading the Bible in Church” then it follows that 1 Corinthians 14:13’s provision for interpretation would also apply. Either way, the KJV translators in practice did not agree with Ward's application.
For reference, I have listed the translators and the specific sermon below where I found Latin included in them. These are not all their sermons. I stopped looking after I saw Latin was included in one.
George Abbott “A sermon preached at Westminster May 26. 1608”; Lancelot Andrewes at times quoted Scripture in Latin sometimes leaving it untranslated “The copie of a sermon preached on good Friday last before the Kings Maiestie…6. April 1604”; Richard Bancroft “A Sermon preached at Pauls Crosse the 9 of February ... Anno. 1588”; William Barlow “A sermon preached at Paules Crosse, on the first Sunday in Lent: Martij 1. 1600”; Thomas Bilson used Greek in his sermon from July 25, 1603; Richard Clarke “Sermons preached by that reverend and learned divine Richard Clerke”, Richard Eedes, “Six learned and godly sermons preached some of them before the Kings Maiestie”; Roger Fenton, “A sermon of simonie and sacriledge preached at Pauls Crosse March 18 (1604)”; Arthur Lake “Ten sermons vpon severall occasions preached at S. Paul’s Cross and elsewhere 1641”; John Rainolds, “A sermon upon part of the prophesie of Obadiah:” Miles Smith “A learned and godly sermon preached at Worcester 1602” Thomas Sparke “A sermon preached at Cheanies the 14. of September, 1585” John Spencer “A learned and gracious sermon preached at Paules Crosse by that famous and iudicious diuine, Iohn Spenser”
If we would be faithful obeying “teach the generation following” (Deuteronomy 6:6-7; Psalm 48:13; 2 Timothy 2:2), there would not be a need for an every-generation update.
Ward’s work (especially on false friends) is a blessing to anyone reading the KJV and KJVo’s need it more everyone else.. lol - What’s that passage about “heaping coals” ? 💛😹
Regarding this question. I was reminded of the following scripture: ““Everything is permissible,” but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible,” but not everything builds up.”
1 Corinthians 10:23 CSB
"Hello Canada???" I haven't seen the web stats, but 'm sure Dwayne has way more listeners outside of Canada than it it.
@@DanielBuckphd probably! I’ll have to look up the stats!
Though I agree with Dr. Ward, I felt he perhaps went "a bridge too far" by using "sin" with regard to giving a child a KJV (only). He could have made his point a little less assertively, and he probably caused an unnecessary uproar that drowns out much of what he said. However, he may have a point Scripturally: Jesus admonished his followers to not hinder little children from coming to him (Matt 19:14, etc.), and it could be argued that one is doing just that by giving them only an antiquated translation that, per Dr. Ward's tests, even its most staunch defenders don't understand.
Pastor Green, am I wrong in finding it a little inconsistent for you to disagree with Dr. Ward's position on the KJV's sufficient intelligibility while using a modern translation as your primary one?
Good discussion. Thanks.
I don't think so. I would not force any church to take the KJV out of their pews. Just because I don't use the KJV in my church, doesn't mean no one should, each church is unique in their needs and my thought for my particular congregation is that it would be more beneficial to use a more modern translation.
KJV is a great Anglican Bible. My advice: As an Anglican I use the KJV for personal devotional reading; but I use various translations for study including the Septuagint as my primary OT.
Mark Ward has been very clear that he believes that the KJV is the Word of God. However, why give children one of the most difficult to understand translations? It's certainly not doing good for them, it's better than no Bible, but barely. Not one of my church friends read the Bible while we were growing up and we only had the KJV. Not one is still in church. I was given a NKJV at 8 and my Dad had a Mathew Henry Commentary, those two things facilitated a greater understanding and relationship with God.
where can I find a link to the debate?
th-cam.com/users/live33cK3KL-gJA?si=rnqKXhpYeuV20eiB
Haifey was so unprepared! Ward 1 Haifley 0
Great video Dwayne and Mark. I think its been a valiant effort by Mark and you Dwayne to talk about this. The debate will never end because just looking at the comments which are full of attacks on both of you by KJVO. We still have the Ruckmanite crowd, Riplinger, Sam Gipp, Jack Chick, Steven Anderson and others who attack any translation or its readers who are different than the KJV. The accusations, assumptions and misinformation will never end. Its a valiant effort by both of you brothers to talk about this issue despite the juvenile attacks.
The attacks have been in both directions Rodney.
There is no moral equivalence even if you try to make it that way. I see KJV onlyists start arguments, accusations and attacks on people's salvation all the time on Facebook. Rarely do I see that with people who are not KJVO so if you are saying there is equal attacks by both sides, not true.
@@rodneyjackson6181 I triggered you just by saying that the attacks have been on both sides. You know what I am saying is true.
and most of KJV-O originated in 7th Day Adventism, a "card" David Otis Fuller never "showed," his "obscure Bible scholar."
I used to be KJV Only and it took time to get away from it. I now use the NKJV and CSB and love them. BUT, if I’m honest with myself, it’s guys like this that almost make me want to go back to it. There’s this bizarre combo of admiration and venom towards the KJV from these guys that really makes one pause. I have watched a bunch of his videos, and while some of the info has been helpful, it comes packaged oftentimes in arrogance and condescension. Very similar to how I feel when I hear James White. After awhile his arrogance made my skin crawl.
This aside, I STILL don’t understand this crusade against it. Don’t like it? Don’t read it. There a zillion other translations to choose from. But children have been reared on the KJV for 400 years right up to modern day independent Baptists with NO issue. This is a NON-issue that just needs to go away
There has been an issue: generations of IFBs teaching verses incorrectly because they don't understand Jacobean English.
@@MAMoreno I was IFB. No one in our church ever had an issue of getting a verse “wrong” because of the old English. saying their interpretation of verses is incorrect may or may not be incorrect in and of itself. Christians have been debating verses for millennia. I HIGHLY doubt there are too many IFBs teaching verses incorrectly because they don’t understand the old English. They may or may not understand certain concepts, but I doubt it’s because of the language. But even if that did happen, I’d say it’s rather rare. Can you give an example?
@@davegarciaofficial 2 Timothy 2.15. A verse that's intended to instruct pastors to preach the Gospel accurately in response to heresy is instead distorted to be a verse about earning righteousness through Bible study. It's sometimes taken even further to mean that a reader of the Bible must be a dispensationalist who "divides" salvation history into periods of works-righteousness and free grace.
@ but see, that’s YOUR interpretation. It may or may not be right and perhaps your English Bible got it wrong? See what I’m saying? Who’s to say who’s right on that interpretation? The NKJV retains that wording as well and is considered ones of the most accurate modern translations out there.
2 Tim 2:15 has little to do with the old English and everything to do with interpretation and theology. IFBs may or may not be correct. It’s been debated now for centuries.
This particular example is very debatable. And if this is the only one you have, then respectfully I’d say this isn’t much of an issue.
I really don’t wanna do this all night my friend. Again, people can just ignore IFBs, use whatever translation they want, and get on with their walks. This crusaded against the KJV with “metrics” and all this other nonsense is just not necessary.
Don’t get me started on Mark Ward and James White. They both have agendas and are not winning me over with their arrogance.
When i was 9, i tried reading my Bible daily…and got thru one chapter (Genesis 1) in one day before concluding the truth: I can’t understand this.
I’m thankful beyond description that some one gifted me a Bible in MY language (non-Jacobean English) three years later, redeeming the Bible from a possible lifetime of not touching bc it made no sense.
It may be a sin to give a KJV. It inoculates children against an irrelevant Book that they can’t understand that doesdoes them no good.
Tragic that that Book pretends to be a Bible in their language.
People just don’t understand why people like us need and want the Bible in our own everyday language.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but the Bible was not written to 9 year olds. Even the originals are not easy to read for adults who know those languages. Robert Alter who reads the Bible in Hebrew and made his own translation of the OT said, “the Bible itself does not generally exhibit the clarity to which its modern translators aspire: the Hebrew writers reveled in the proliferation of meanings, the cultivation of ambiguities, the playing of one sense of a term against another, and this richness is erased in the deceptive antiseptic clarity of the modern versions…” At 9 you probably should have had someone helping you through it. Do you mind if I ask what version you were given at 9 that you found comprehensive?
@@richiejourney1840 I understand perfectly well why people want Bibles in their own vernacular, they're either new to reading the Bible, they haven't taken enough time to truly study and ask the Holy Spirit to lead them, or they think that changing words is not a big deal as long as "the meaning" stays the same.
Ignorance is not an excuse to change the Bible.
The best time to give a KJV is when they are a child. They are still learning English. I read books written in the 1930s that use words I don't know. They are written in modern English, but have a character who won't use a small word when a longer word will do. I simply look them up. I also find the origin of the words.
By the way, it is divisive to use a different version. Other versions have created confusion in the church. There is no good reason for other versions that call Jesus a liar. For those who do not know, this happens in John 7:8-10. No one has given an acceptable answer for this corruption of the Bible
I asked my kids which they prefer, and I made the case for KJV without requiring it.
"John 7:8 Some manuscripts 'not yet'."
@@wolteraartsma1290 you should not have to look to the footnotes to find this. It should be in the main body of scripture.
Seems obvious that it would be much worse to give a child an NIV or any modern version in general as they omit and undercut good doctrines like the deity of Christ, hell and salvation. I was given a KJV as a child and I may have misunderstood some old archaic words but I certainly received good doctrine because the King James has good doctrinal intelligibility, which is much better than understanding words like “wont” or “halt” (which I could normally figure with a little educational study and understanding of context- yes even as a child).
@ChrisThompson-ew2eb they seem to disregard the Bible's built in dictionary, common sense to figure out context and the 3rd member of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit. God opens the book to us....making a translation that has a bunch of modern words may be more understandable in some places, but at what cost?
I do think it's as sinful as giving a child a Latin Vulgate and saying, "well, you can learn Latin."
🤣🤣🤣 dumbest comment yet
@@davegarciaofficial Your lazy butt just doesn't want to learn Latin. Don't you love God's Word.
He’s using sarcasm to make his effective criticism
I think it's a good point.. although I don't believe the KJV is a sin to give to a child it's not the best translation for a child. While I can teach and help my child the majority of study will be their personal time in the Bible.
I did give my children the KJV years ago before leaving the KJVO position and I gave them the NKJV when I grew as a Christian and they both became stronger adults for it
So Mark tripled down on his it would be a sin to give a child a KJV if you know it has hard words. I have listened carefully to the context each time he has said it and he still defends it or at least is not willing to clearly state a variant position. That is interesting. I actually expected him to back off on it. Oh well.
Mark Ward, would you be willing to hold a discussion on the plowboy's comprehension of the KJV in the year 1611?
Would you be willing to acknowledge that you have caused division? Even if in your mind it is indirectly (although I could point to at least one video where you called on people to do so). Would you be willing to acknowledge that modern editions do things more than just Sheol? What about rivulet or citadel etc.? Would you be willing to acknowledge that a 42nd update of the KJV is not going to somehow replace the KJV? What would you do differently to make an edition that would actually be accepted? Would you be willing to admit that the Defined existed before you even wrote your book and it demonstrates that we were already teaching the meanings of words. Would you be willing to admit that there are many false friends in the MEV, SKJV, MKJV, NKJV etc.?
Here’s how I took his comment:
“If you, like me, believe the KJV has reached the point of not being sufficiently intelligible for your child’s reading ….and yet you give it to them, to you it is sin (because you know better).”
So if one doesn’t agree with his premise about readability, then he’s NOT saying to that one it’s sin.
The same can be said of the ESV and would be just as true. Throw in all other English translations as well, while you're at it. They are all in rebellion against God and corrupt. They are interpreting, not translating, and making what they want, changing God's counsel that stares at them in the Greek.
@@TheRootedWordso we all should just become Greek Israelites just so we can understand God perfectly?
But is that even a proper interpretation of James 4:17? Is not what James writes about sinning by omission -- omitting or failing to do the good one knows to do? Giving someone a Bible -- regardless of what version one gives -- is an act. It is not an omission.
Dr Ward basically thinks it's wrong to use the KJV because it has too many words that people don't understand anymore. And he cited James 4:17, which says it's a sin for someone who knows better to do wrong.
Therefore, it would be a sin for HIM to give a KJV Bible to a kid, but it would not be a sin for someone else who doesn’t share his opinion. James 4 is about one's own conscience, so even if Dr Ward is correct on the issue, he's wrong if he says it's a sin for others to violate his conscience.
Did you know that a Bible word book from 1866 and a different one from 1884 have words like "replenish", "reins", "prevent" etc. These were challenging words then, and are the same ones people refer to today. We have the internet now. God is not muddling His way through history: He is making a way.
This conversation makes me like Mark Ward even less. He’s clearly on a crusade.
Many of you are taking this man's subjective opinion as objective fact. It is freely admitted that the King James unintelligibility is subjective. The number of words, whether 20 or 2000 words, it does not matter. Most of the modern versions create far more problems than they solve. The real elephant in the room are the missing verses and missing words and minority variant readings. Before anyone asks, the Apocrypha is not canon. It is alright to have a different opinion. The problem is in the way the material is presented and the way it is spread around. The King James Bible is not going anywhere.
I used to be KJV Only and I still am today, I am sorry but mark ward arguments are boring, underwhelming and simply fall flat
There are no dead words in the KJB. We still know or can find out what any word means. While the OED etc. defines what an obsolete or an archaic word is, and also label certain word usage as such, as long as the KJB is used, and people are learning words and meanings, all is well. And people can and are learning.
The KJB is greater in authority than the OED.
The KJB is not becoming unintelligible, but the opposite is happening. The internet, wiki and search “ai” technology is aiding the understanding of meaning of KJB words.
At no point in history is or will the KJB become “sufficiently unintelligible”. In fact, because of the standardisation of language, and especially because of the computers and the internet, the English language is remaining conversant with the KJB, and in a broad sense, English has become fixed and is just expanding.
I would say that the KJB is at the same level of required learning it was 100 years ago, and with education and technology developing, these are providentially aiding the KJB.
Too often people are not taking into account any religious revival or concerted efforts that would bring about the KJB into greater cultural consciousness, which I expect will happen, and which will only aid the KJB’s currency, relevancy and people’s knowledge of so-called unknown meanings.
The KJB does not need, nor will it need, to be changed. It is exactly what God intends and wishes for "this date" and therefore cannot and shouldn't be "updated".
@Dwayne_Green
I think Dr. Ward is right on almost all points (I even agree with his sentiment about it being a sin to give a child a KJV with the qualifications given in your community poll). I only have a few places I disagree.
I think that it is specifically public, not private, reading which has the most leeway for intelligibility. Most people are not sufficiently trained to deal with KJV English, much less trained to use original languages to sort it out. I don't think people who don't have the toolset to do deal with the problems should be using the KJV as a main translation (and think translations intended for the every man should be on a very low register, to boot). But a lot of this has to do with Dr. Ward and I having different set of values going in.
I also think the differences in text type matter more than he does. You know about the argument I'm working on, for instance, and it depends strongly on the Byzantine text (As an aside, I've worked through most of the variants and corrected several errors, and I think it could also inadvertently constitute a strong argument for the BT or even the TR). I think text form matters less than the KJVO or TR guys say, but more than most CT guys say...but I'm on this channel, and that's common :)
I also disagree a good bit on the nature of inspiration, but that's a book.
Other than that, I think Dr. Ward was right in his points, and these are more shifts in priority or emphases than outright disagreement.
1 John 3:4: Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
What law is being violated by giving your child a KJV? Wouldn't it be more a sin to hand your child an ESV, NKJV, NIV, etc. and tell them it's a Bible when it's not? Because those are corruption of the Bible.
@@KenyonBowers The qualifications I gave him before are that I don't think it's right to give a child _any_ Bible unsupervised. They can't process the information, and it can cause harm. It would, thus, be a sin for me to give something the children cannot handle. It's similar to how it's not a sin to explain the birds and the bees, but it is to do so too early, because it could hurt them. The KJV makes it worse, because it adds a barrier of comprehensibility on top of what a child already struggles with.
I will eventually graduate them to the KJV, but that's only when they're ready, and that at my judgment. I already have a specific edition of the KJV for that point in the future, but that's not now. Likewise, I'm going to teach them to read the original languages, and I have the authoritative text for them on that, but that's further away.
As for the modern translations not being a Bible, I simply don't believe that. That kind of belief is too modern for me. I hold to a conclusion that is closer to hat was professed by Theodore Leetis if taken with those of Augustine: the authoritative text is to be found in the range of manuscripts that were handed down and used by Christians in Greek (OT and NT) and in the Hebrew Masoretic handed down by Jews (OT). Thus, if a translation is derived form a Byzantine text, doesn't depart from what that Greek text can mean, and doesn't violate historical doctrine, it's on the table. This allows for several differences in the Greek text of the NT and also for multiple translations of the same phrase.
@@kainech Timothy knew the Scriptures from a child. There is nothing in the Bible that even implies there is a certain age at which you can start giving your children the Bible. You have 0 biblical proof behind your claims.
@@KenyonBowers Timothy wasn't given a KJV either. You can know the Scriptures from childhood without having ever seen a KJV, especially if you live in a non English speaking country.
@@KenyonBowers
💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯💯
Mark won the debate, Dan in my opinion did not present himself well. The same for the continuation.
The ESV made me KJVO.
But if he was just making a point. it was cute.
I suffer in silence at church with all of the sloppy new age bibles. I stay sad and depressed when I hear a beautiful verse read in a mediocre way.
But the main problem will always be letting the critical text be primary in translation. we should not let catholics near our bibles, beliefs or boys .
You are correctly right all of the other translations are corrupt Greek text Greek lexicon the attic Greek the modern Greek and the classical Greek
The King James Bible translators use the Massoretic Hebrew Text for the Old Testament Bible and the ancient Original Byzantine Koine Greek Text for the New Testament so it was translated from the original Hebrew and from the original Greek the original Old King James Bible not the new King James
A couple of points.
First, tho the Elizabethan English of the King James is somewhat different than the English of today, it's not so different as to constitute a foreign language. Yet, we teach foreign languages to children, and they often are able to learn them quite easily. Why can't folks teach their children to read King James English in a similar fashion?
Secondly, an interesting "metrics" project for you, Pastor Dwayne, would be to determine just how many "false friends", and unintelligible words or phrases exist on an average, randomly selected page of the KJV. My guess is that it is under 3%. Is that really enough to support the claim that the KJV is sufficiently unintelligible?
And, if pastors, teachers and parents can utilize the good work of the Trinitarian Bible Society and /or Mark Ward to help navigate the occasionally difficult passages, doesn't the issue become moot, to some degree?
You probably are not actually reading the “English” of 1600 then…
You are correct! Like most folks who carry a KJV, I am reading versions based on the Blayney, 1769 revision.
@@igregmart No argument there--the point is that the typical reader of the most commonly used KJV, namely, the 1769 revision, should be able to navigate it with modern helps, and that it can be used to preach or to teach others without as much brain damage as the advocates of modern versions seem to imagine.
Yes, it would be much more difficult to do this with a true 1611, due to the different spellings, etc.
@@michaelsinger2921 ha, ha. What did these words mean in 1611? sound mind, careful, charity, conversation, Corn, Discovered, Divers, halt, heresies, peculiar, Quick, sped, sporting, Study, Suffer, Visitation, wait on, want(ing) - “Where duty calls or danger be never (desiring) there.”
@ Of course, the meaning of many of those words has changed since 1611. The point is, that with appropriate helps, it is not that difficult to determine meanings of the vast majority of obsolete words. Even with modern translations, diligent readers can benefit in their understanding of the text by means of study helps. A recent edition of Unger's Bible dictionary, for example, spans nearly 1400 pages and contains thousands of articles explaining Bible terms. Sometimes a little extra work pays dividends in terms of better understanding of our language, both the current and the dated.
I grew up with the KJV! ❤ There’s nothing wrong with it.
His point isn't that there's anything _wrong_ with the KJV. Rather, he calls for people to consider whether it's _wrong_ to expect a child to make sense of a 400-year-old translation when there are more accessible versions available and when there's so much on the line spiritually if they don't understand what they're reading.
@@MAMorenoChildren can be taught. I was.
@@MAMorenoand calling it a sin is outrageous
@@ST52655 Yes, and children can be taught the truth in an English that they recognize rather than trying to teach it to them in a form of English that's completely alien to them.
@@MAMoreno I guess you think my parents abused me?
With some study in the word, these "false friends" can be understood with ease. And as for giving a Kjv to a child? That's what study time with your family is for. Its our responsibility (adults) to make sure these little ones understand the Word
Also our responsibility to stay current…
@@igregmart lol it’s broke. Has been broke since I was a kid 50 years ago. Many kids are given bibles (KJV) they can’t associate with and/or understand. If your lucky enough to be in a great Christian family then it’s not a big deal for you. For the rest of us…it’s a big deal and if we can’t associate/understand or be otherwise encouraged in what we are reading…well…it gets dropped and discarded.
It's tough when it turns out that many of us adults don't realize that we don't actually understand what the KJ is saying. That's the whole point and problem.
Pride goeth before a fall.
It's sinful to give a modern English translation to a child.
There are humble folks who disagree on best translations. Let's not assign malicious intent to either side.
@ I never said anything about intent
@ You don’t give rotten food to a child or the child will get food poisoning. On the same note you don’t give rotten scriptures to a child or he will get spiritual food poisoning
@@ColonelEmpire "sinful" is word that encompasses intent
@@ColonelEmpire Im not disagreeing on the importance of teaching children to discern.
Dr. Mark Ward, so much word salad for such a simple question.
@FaithLikeAMustardSeed nope
That's not true. He clearly recognized the validity Dwayne's argument regarding the subjectivity of readability and took his time explaining the nuance of his own position. His statements were in no way like Kamala Harris' nonsense.
The reason we have these debates is because KJVO go around on Facebook on other translation adds and start calling modern translations perversions, fake Bibles, satanic and people who read them apostates, heretics and you name it. Then they make false claims that the KJV is the only pure, perfect Word of God in English. I have seen KJV onlyists call the ESV the English Satanic Version, the NLT the New Lousy Translation, the NIV the Not Inspired Version and all the other juvenile nonsense they spew. They personally attack people who don't agree with them. You can thank the Ruckmanites, Gail Riplinger, Sam Gipp, Jack Chick and the late Tex Marrs to name just a few. Mark Ward has simply pushed back against this stuff as a former KJV onlyist himself. I personally think the KJVO arguments are such nonsense and brought much division in the church.
Before the video starts. No. The answer is no. I can’t even think of how it’s possible to steel man the other side.
The steelman is:
1. Is it a sin to give your child the Latin Vulgate?
2. Is it a sin to forbid them use any Bible translation except the Latin Vulgate?
I don't think so, because while I think we should read the Bible, I don't venerate it. I think it's important to tell our children about Jesus using the Bible or some other means.
@ does your child speak Latin? That would be foolish if the answer is no.
I disagree. I don’t think this is an effective steel man.
If you know the truth about Modern English versions you'll understand that it is actually a sin to give those versions two children or anybody else and these aspects of the bibliology in history should not be unknown to Mark Ward but the people person you should really be listening to is David W Daniels and you should be reading your Bible more thoroughly but if you don't read the authorized version you basically will be missing a lot of scriptures and the reason that they're missing scriptures is because they were left out on purpose those scriptures were there in the beginning and the manuscript or manuscripts that have come down to us and that are behind the critical text are absolutely trash and should never be used and they actually should be burnt and done away with ask yourself what would God have told the Israelites to do with somebody and with their work if they produced the Bible or the scriptures of the Old Testament and they changed them it would have not been good for them and if you think we do not have God's perfect word today you are calling God a liar
Use the OED or even Google.
God forbid. They want us to learn Greek and master Nestles critical apparatus, but use a dictionary, now that's too difficult.
@@BrianBeam1611 So true, so sad. Blessings.
All the things going on in the world....THIS is somehow relevant!!! Pathetic!!!!
There’s always that moment when the head just gets too big… this was MW’s moment. Utterly foolish thing to say (or believe).
When i was 9, i tried reading my Bible daily…and got thru one chapter (Genesis 1) in one day before concluding the truth: I can’t understand this.
I’m thankful beyond description that some one gifted me a Bible in MY language (non-Jacobean English) three years later, redeeming the Bible from a possible lifetime of not touching bc it made no sense.
It may be a sin to give a KJV. It inoculates children against an irrelevant Book that they can’t understand that does them no good.
Tragic that that Book pretends to be a Bible in their language.
Funny, I know several 5 year olds that could have helped explain the chapter to you. Maybe the real sin was not asking for help in understanding the passage.
@@angel.v39what if she had no one to ask for that help?
@@angel.v39and I know many people of many ages who CAN’T explain that chapter. You might want to look at all sides.
Ward is a grievous wolf. Be wary.
And the KJVO going into Christian communities and yelling "Your Bible is satanic! Use the KJV only" aren't grievous wolves?
@@getgnomed6179 both
Boo. Give the man some grace. He makes many REALLY good arguments even though I often disagree with him. And he's finally departing from this stupid, unnecessarily divisive debate. Be more Christlike and argue from the scriptures for your position instead of calling people names!
@allenfrisch people have been attacking the kjv for many years and he is contributing to this. Kjv has never failed so why do people keep trying to take it down? It will never happen. Don't want to use the kjv? Fine your missing out in the joys of the greatest book in human history.
@@USAP1776 Again, I DISAGREE with Mark Ward VERY OFTEN. My point is to offer grace and kindness and debate rationally rather than vilifying someone who's agreed to drop the subject.
One of the dumbest questions I've ever heard.
It is absolutely a sin to give ANYONE a KJV, the KJV is a perversion of the original language, I absolutely regret all the KJVs I have given out in my life which were many... it is a sin to give them an NASB just as much though! Gehenna is not "hell", eonian is not "everlasting" or "eternal", these are only the beginning of the lies! It is equal to editing a manuscript of the original as much as you want and then giving to someone, whether you like the fact or not... I would bet on punishment for those who have given out KJVs knowing how much it has changed the original languages...
You need an IQ test asap
The other versions say Jesus is a liar, so you are calling the wrong version corrupt.
@@timlemmon2332what are you talking about?
@@richiejourney1840 John 7:8-10. Jesus tells his brothers he is not going to the feast in verse 8, but then goes to the feast in verse 10. Telling someone you won't do something, then doing it anyway, is called lying. However, in the KJV Jesus says he is not going yet, meaning he would go later, so when he goes to the feast he had not lied.
@@timlemmon2332I have checked other versions like the NIV, ESV, NASB, CSB, NKJV, and NLT. They all pretty much say the same thing as the KJV in verse 8.