I will soon be 66 years old, and I have been reading the Bible for most of those years. Even now, I read from the KJV every day. It is an excellent translation, but after all of these years I still struggle with the KJV language, and I appreciate the modern translation for making things a bit easier.
Thanks for sharing. I got saved when I was 27. I’m 35 now. I had no background in either camp, so to speak. I started reading the KJB, and although it had some tricky areas to understand, I soon became aquatinted with it and began to love it. At times I would refer to a dictionary if I was unsure of a word, just like I do in my secular reading. Now, when I refer to modern versions, it reads so incredibly sloppy in my opinion. I am entirely uneducated, having left school to start work at 16. Thanks.
@@joeymac6970 Joey, the KJV is an excellent translation-but if you're going to read it exclusively, you need to understand that it was translated into a form of English no one quite speaks or writes anymore. So there are going to be some places where you think you understand but, because of language change, you're going to miss the intent of the KJV translators. For help discerning when this is the case, I encourage you to check out my "Fifty False Friends in the KJV" series on RU-vid for help reading the KJV! ru-vid.com/group/PLq1Aq0ucgkPCtHJ5pwhrU1pjMsUr9F2rc
If KJV English is more understandable than modern English, why is it that none of these KJV-only writers use KJV English in their own books? Are they deliberately making their own books more difficult for people to understand by using contemporary English?
I want to mention that R.B. Oullette has had surgery for cancer and had to have his vocal cords removed last year, please everyone be in prayer for his healing and for God's grace as he adjusts to the changes his treatment brings.
I’m sad for anyone fighting cancer. OTOH if He were a modern translation user/promoter Gail Riplinger would claim God is punishing him & add his name to her list of one
I fully believe that if I could go back in time and say to the King James translators that English will change over the course of 400 years, they would totally be up for an updated translation into that new brand of English for the future. I have no doubt about it.
I remember in Ripplinger's book "New Age Bible Versions" that she described several men involved with modern translations later losing their voice, and she implied it was a mark of God's curse on them. And then you described the brother in this video losing his voice so charitably. Thank you for always handling this difficult subject with truth and love.
I've never understood the argument that the English language reached its peak in the early 1600s. I mean, is Chaucer chopped liver? Or further back, the Dream of the Rood? Or Beowulf? The early 1600s was the beginning of the modern era of the language, largely because of the influence of writers like Marlowe, Shakespeare, John Davies, and the KJV translators themselves. They lived at the beginning of moveable type, Gutenberg only having invented his press less than two hundred years before, so such writers helped to standardize the English language. Yet, one could argue that the standardization was anything but ideal because English was also undergoing the Great Vowel Shift, so spellings and pronunciations were often standardized in awkward ways that didn't make much sense and still plague non-native learners of the language today. In many ways (not all), Old English and Middle English were much more beautiful languages and made more sense than the modern English that came about in the 1600s.
14:41 Something struck me on this watching with Oullette's rhetorical "do we need another translation?", and that's this: what qualifies him to make that judgment for the whole (English-speaking) world? Sure, he can say for himself that he doesn't need one. He may be able to rightly say for his flock that they don't need one. But what qualifies him to say confidently that you or I don't need one? To the point that it would be not only fruitless, but in fact wrong to prepare one?
No matter your education level, reading level or age, for a person to say 400 year old British English is easier to read and understand than 21st century American English is either lying to themselves or are detached from reality. No one but KJVO think this way.
It’s not about readability. It’s about what the actual preserved text of the Bible is. I will stick with the KJV and the TR which are based on the vast majority of manuscripts that we have which came out of Antioch where we were first called Christians and has been the confessional text of the Church up until Bible agnostics came around in 1800s thinking they know better. I can no longer be my own authority where I use multiple modern versions to get readings in the Bible that I prefer in an ever evolving text with numerous passages removed or placed in brackets saying this passage shouldn’t be in your Bible, but we can’t yet sell you one without them yet footnotes. These Bibles were produced with an emphasis on two supposedly better and older manuscripts Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. I don’t want my Bible to came from the Vatican or a Catholic Monastery trash can out of Egypt which is now determined by German AI algorithms that change every few years. Scholars behind these Bibles are Bible agnostics because they can’t show you God’s word. They admit they have no idea what the apostles had and they say even if we had what they did today we wouldn’t know it. They also say that not a single verse in the Bible is guaranteed scripture. Any new discover could change or remove any verse in these Bibles going forward. This is a a house without a foundation built on sinking sand.
@@cloudx4541with all due respect sir you are a KJV onlyist who continues to spread KJV onlyist mythology. None of what you just said is accurate. Zero, zip, nada. And yes a great portion of this video is about readability and again that is another KJV onlyist myth that the KJV is easier to read than 20th and 21st Century American English. Epic mythology.
@@cloudx4541yes just watch any of the videos by Mark Ward, Pastor Jonathan Burris, or James White. Mark and Pastor Jonathan were both former KJV onlyists who have both dispelled these myths.
Thank you! Once again, poignant, because truth can be painful; relevant, because this advice injects a delicate nerve; humility, because you nailed it and gave God all the glory.
I was saved by the grace of God just about 3 years ago, and my first Bible, the one i was reading, was an AV. But the Lord taught me through the sheer difficulty i had in understanding it! I read with a dictionary by my side for the English words i couldn't easily parse. And then discovered the various Strong's apps! What a joy it was to see the original Greek and Hebrew! Soon i was reading multiple versions, and after about 18 months was able to start doing my own translations as I went. I thank God for the KJV, but I thank Him more for His wonderfully preserved scriptures, that we might all benefit from the implied philosophy of the King James translators - inherited no doubt (along with most of the translations) from Tyndale - who wrote so the plough boy could understand! Praise God for the gentle heart he has given you to disagree with so much love. Thank you brother!
absolutely love this video Mark! Thank you so much for your tireless, humble, and well-balanced work on this very important topic brother! you are an inspiration
Fantastic video (as always) Your comments about people not writing or speaking in Elizabethean english were spot on and I also find the material around 14 30 to be particularly persuasive. Well done!
I was a believer for ~15 years before I had even heard that there was a thing called King James Onlyism. My entire life took a radical about-face in college because of God's saving and sanctifying work through His word, by His Spirit and by great fellowship with other like-minded believers. I was shocked, repulsed, horrified and greatly angered when I finally encountered KJVO's online, who proceeded to call into question every foundational thing about my faith and conversion, love for and devotion to God's word (I grew up in the faith on the NIV) and favor in God's eyes, not because I was using the "right" translation and believing it to be perfect, but because He called and adopted me as one of His sons, whose Spirit dwells within me as the sanctifying power and guarantor of my future hope. Nope, none of that mattered. I was part of the "Alexandrian cult," a "Nicolaitan," a 'Bible Corrector" and "Bible Doubter" who didn't actually have God's perfect words. I've been told that by my lack of faith in the perfection of and use of the KJV, that I wasn't really born again, that I believe in "a Jesus" and have "a spirit" but not the one in the Bible. True confession: I'm quite hostile in my spirit toward them and perhaps need to simply walk away from the whole debate. I've spent countless hours over the last 25 years arguing and debating with them online, but never seeming to have made a dent. I commend you, Mark, for your patience and due diligence in your attempts to persuade them and other potential victims of the cancerous falsehood of King James Onlyism. I'm quite sure your work is making a difference and producing good fruit. You're uniquely gifted to handle the subject better than anyone else I've seen.
This is why I do my work. But the hostility you feel is also one reason I’m getting out after this year-at least out of active, direct, regular involvement. KJV-Onlyists, as a group, are especially exasperating. There are individual exceptions. It is not good for my spirit. Four years (six if you count my book) is enough. I encourage you to get out of the debate if you feel hostility. I don’t blame you, but if you can’t love your opponents, it’s time to stop! That’s what I determined!
Look to the latter part of Phil 2:12, ignore their fear mongering, and remind them they’re entitled to their opinion just as you are. “We are justified by Faith (alone)!”
I don't think either of you are likely to get any of the fanatics to accept nuance in anything biblical, KJVonlyists are not usually rational. You ARE going to (and have) helped kids raised by them that might have just walked away from the faith, helped guide newcomers away from the sensationalists, etcetera. Imagine ESL foreigners getting caught up in that crap 🤦♂️ they'll never get saved if it's KJVO or GTFO (I'm picturing Pacific Rim Buddhists and Indian Hindus, micronesian animists, etcetera walking into an IFB KJVonlyist church).
@@markwardonwordsMark I feel that way in general regarding bible study and current events. Most people *really* don't like to go further than virtue signaling and defending their comfortable, diplomatic positions.... they're not getting deep into ANY translation. I've argued with people that are elders and red in the face about what a verse means, and within three verses the chapter explains itself, contrary to what they claimed. They don't read outside curated formats depending on isolated verses to function.... almost like a chain letter. I don't know how else to describe it. I think that's why KJV only crazies are able to rouse such fervor, they think the message is sealed by inflexible wording = inflexible interpretation, transmission and reception? Except they're all over the spectrum just like everyone else. I think most Christian identity in America is built on traditional values and the new adults didn't follow those traditions so the lack of biblical literacy will allow them to drift.... flying some very interesting flags in whatever current finds them. Progressive christianity is going to push some very radical readings by cherry picked verses, with some CRT taught in sunday schools to help "clarify" how to interpret the awkward passages. That's the real fight, I have no idea how to even fight that outside my own circle of friends and family.
@@markwardonwordsI came across the KJVO movement for the first time about 24 years ago, having never used that translation much. I consequently spent years, in my free time, reading the arguments for and against and getting into time-wasting discussions. I almost arrived at a TR-Only position. (Being German, I can't see how KJV Only could work for any non native English speaker, or even anyone who is fluent in any language other than English.) Anyway, the whole argument almost destroyed my faith and my love for and trust in God's Word. Thanks for all you do/have done. I totally understand why you wish to bow out soon, as I imagine it being (not literally) soul destroying.
I see a similarity between the medieval church which claimed that the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible was all that anyone needed and the KJO’s. Didn’t the Reformation champion everyone having a Bible that they could clearly read and understand? Thank you for an excellent presentation. I use several translations including the 1611 King James which I use when I listen to Martyn Lloyd-Jones sermons online. Reason being MLJ preached from the King James translation.
I just stumbled into you web page. It was refreshing to here your disciplined criticism. It is a blessing to find someone in the world of textural criticism with humility. I comment to encourage you. Blessings In HIM,
Speaking of English I recently came across an interesting RU-vid video. Two men are talking about breakfast, work and similar things. They are using English but the word order and grammar are German. Anybody who knows some German will enjoy it. Did you know that German for dentist is toothdoctor? Did Old English sound a bit like that?
@@markwardonwords I believe the video being referenced is titled: "When people speak English but with German grammar" by a channel with the name "OVERLEARNER"; at least, that's a video with a similar premise that I watched recently and enjoyed 😛
I really appreciate your comments on trusting your pastors. That shows your integrity and honesty. If someone cannot see that you're simply advocating for factual adherence then they are blinded by their own bias. I have nothing else to say to that. Your truthfulness will always shine out against any slander or malicious accusation thrown your way.
Thank you. You touch on things that have concerned me for 50 years. It's not a matter of arrogance, but curiosity and becoming close to both God and the writers who took down the text, real people with voices and thought patterns tied to their language, daily lives, and their political and human condition. Translations are not a trap, they are a portal that show us how much their message resonates across centuries. That's the reason I took Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, both in the search for understanding the Bible and other texts more deeply, and in large part because language is a heady pursuit. It's important to understand that ideas and perception are part and parcel of the language they are conceived in. Greek is astonishing. So much of it is complex and contextual, verbs are rich in possible meanings. Also, I've always been disturbed by being cited the KJV by people who a) don't understand the context of the language, b) don't understand how much of the KJV is educated contextual guesswork combined with the desire to create a text of timeless beauty, c) is quoted inaccurately by people who would never listen to Shakespeare. I love the Bible on many levels, not the least as literature. I dearly love the KJV, the NEB, the NRSV, and the '63 Jerusalem Bible. And yes, the Vulgate and Septuagint. No single translation takes me where i need to go all of the time. That's no bad thing.
I am here for a discussion. Not King James Only - "It's not a matter of arrogance, but curiosity and becoming close to both God and the writers who took down the text, real people with voices and thought patterns tied to their language, daily lives, and their political and human condition." "It's important to understand that ideas and perception are part and parcel of the language they are conceived in." I agree with this and I believe that is the reason we need to have only literal translations be considered as translations. Curious to know as you have studied the original languages, about your preferences for the NEB and NRSV. I am not saying that you cannot read those or even paraphrases, just asking. Your points I believe you mean the KJV being cited by people a) don't understand the context of the language, There are certainly people who may not understand context but there are many more who do. Reading everything in context will aid your comprehension and that is why the KJV is intelligible and readable today. b) don't understand how much of the KJV is educated contextual guesswork combined with the desire to create a text of timeless beauty, This is all translations and all scholarship and not solely a "bug" of the King James. "Educated contextual guesswork" from NA1 to NA40, UBS, SBL, ECM, etc. The further removed we are from the biblical times, the worse things get. There is no drive to have a fixed text or fixed translation and anything is able to be tweaked in the next edition. In another 100 years will the scholarship get even better? c) is quoted inaccurately by people who would never listen to Shakespeare. No argument from me
I have quoted Ephesians 6:12 on several websites' comment sections in the KJV, only to be corrected that it was a mistranslation of the Geneva Bible, which is the most accurate one.
Such a good point….if modern English is so deteriorated and English from the 1600’s is so superior, why do the KJV onlyists speak/write in modern English instead of Elizabethan English
The Trinitarian Bible Society are one of the main proponents of the KJV. They are also doing commendable work in translating the Textus Receptus into over 40 different languages from all over the world. Yet, I'm certain that they are not insisting in translating it into versions of those languages as they existed 400 years ago. This really is a blind-spot that the English speaking church seems to have. Does anyone know if there is "Luther's original translation only" movement in Germany for German speakers? Or any other equivalent in Dutch, or Spanish, or French or any other European language? Or is it just us English speakers?
Some of us still like the 1885 and 1909 Reina Valera (no one actually reads the 1602, it’s mostly incomprehensible for native Spanish speakers) as we love the archaic Spanish, but there really isn’t a widespread movement. There was a translation called the 1602 Purificada which was a 1602 retranslated to match the KJV. Yes, let the irony of that sink in as the Spanish Bible predates the KJV…
@@CharlesSeraphDrums Thanks! I really like the richness and the rhythm of the Elizabethan English that the KJV uses. I'll happily admit that much of its language is aesthetically more satisfying than all modern English translations, but I still wouldn't want to encourage its general use in nearly all churches. Perhaps, in a university city with certain students, but I wouldn't want to have to insist that 99% of English speakers need to memorise the definitions of 1000 words and learn an defunct system of conjugation before hear God will speak to them.
Good video brother. I agree, my life changed for the better when I began reading modern versions. The KJV will always feel like home base, but the clarity I’ve experienced over now better comprehending verses that I didn’t even know I was not fully grasping, has greatly improved my walk with God.
Reading the Bible many times in the NKJV, ESV, NIV, reading through the KJV was pretty easy because my brain could draw on modern translations and context. To say it’s a 5th grade reading level is kind of silly though. Maybe 150 years ago a smart 5th grader could do it but the archaic syntax and diction make it more like a 10th grade level today.
Every KJVO pastor changes the KJV every time they clarify on a word or phrase by stating "This means, in other words, another way of saying this is and in the Greek/Hebrew etc. it means."
I had a pastor many years ago that used the KJV although he wasn't KJV only. I swear about half of his sermon was explaining the meanings of KJV words and phrases. If he had tried to use translation like the NIV or even the NASB his sermons would barely be 15 minutes long. 😂
We were hosting a bible study on proverbs and half the Bible study was figuring out what the verses meant, didn't have as much time to expound on the verses.
@@honsville I just read this one recently. Psalm 17:13-14. Arise, O LORD, disappoint him, cast him down: deliver my soul from the wicked, which is thy sword: from men which are thy hand, O LORD, from men of the world, which have their portion in this life, and whose belly thou fillest with thy hid treasure: they are full of children, and leave the rest of their substance to their babies. Ok, I have so many questions!!!??? Are the wicked actually God's sword and hand? What does that even mean? And then the men of the world have their belly filled with treasure and then they are full of children??? Are they pregnant?? Did they EAT THEM ????? WHAT IS GOING ON!!!????
Beginning at 8:50, Mark Wards focuses on something every one of us has firsthand experience in. Give that segment an honest, fair hearing, as you would want to be treated yourself?
Simultaneously comprehensive and succinct. I only read the main points of Oulette's book, to glean the arguments being put forth, and drew the same conclusion: His book is intellectually anemic.
@parksideevangelicalchurch2886 Thankyou for your very relevant question, "Does anyone know if there is "Luther's original translation only" movement in Germany for German speakers"? As a part-time pastor and Bible group leader here in Germany for more than thirty years I have never encountered a Luther-only Christian, although I make some use of this wonderful translation myself. My main regret here is that most of my Christian brothers and sisters rely too heavily on several modern paraphrases that sometimes fail to bring out the theology of the text, despite being generally quite good.
I don't know anything about Lutherans; however, my Grandfather was old school Mennonite Brethren. In the church he grew up in they would only use the "High German Bible" That was not the official name of the translation they used, but that's the only way I remember hearing them refer to it. The big issue for them was you couldn't read any English Bibles, sing English hymns even. This was in Canada in the 1930s. My grandfather never actually believed that was reasonable, he would teach in English if visitors came, but he was considered a liberal. The idea has completely died out in the MB church now, as far as I know. And not all MB church's taught it even at the time. But the one good thing was when my grandfather encountered KJVOist later in his life he saw right through the arguments. He said if the one was illogical so was the other.
@@ilovecats9336 Thankyou, yes, I am reminded of the Huettterers who moved to the Canadian border areas and are still there in small communities. To be clear, there will surely be Luther-only groups here in Germany even today. The difference is that these sincere, yet misguided brethren are to be found in exclusive groups rather than main line evangelical denominations like Baptists etc. This silly issue does not exist on the same scale here as in the English-speaking world.
Both Luther and Tyndale wanted to produce Bibles in the common vernacular of their days, so people could read and understand the Bible in their own tongue. Most modern translators are no different in their desire, and are, in my opinion, trying to carry the work of their predecessors forward. I personally prefer KJV since this is what I was raised with, but I also use my NKJV, NASB, and ESV from time to time and believe I am a better Bible student for it. I am concerned though about the obvious efforts of some modern translators to “sanitize” the Word so people aren’t offended. The Word is meant to convict people of their sin and that will offend those who don’t want to change. Changing the Bible to fit the times is a dangerous business.
I would like to share with you a bit about ASL...very interesting stuff!! Ok, There are vary of accents in ASL. To clarify, it is not a voice accents but it's a hand accents. Even though we the deaf people do "speak" in same ASL. Just like what you shared about an English language.
Ouellette's assertion about "recent evaluations" that show the KJV to be on a fifth-grade level is also self-defeating to his earlier point about distrusting scholars. Who would have done that evaluation? A layperson who doesn't know anything about linguistics, or an expert who is actually capable of evaluating the text? And if he's referring to the computer models, who wrote the computer program? That's an area where I'm DEFINITELY a layperson. I couldn't differentiate between different programming languages like Java or C Sharp. I know they exist, but I don't know anything about them. So even if he's referring to a computer's evaluation, he's relying on scholars. (Thanks, by the way, for doing the leg work on figuring out what those computer evaluations looked at. IMO, that's one of the most helpful portions in Authorized.) Excellent video, brother. Thank you.
Yes! I remember when I had no idea how Flesch-Kincaid analyses were performed. I asked an expert in elementary education to tell me, and she didn't know. So I sat down and looked it up. I was shocked to see what an obvious fallacy it is to appeal to Flesch-Kincaid as a defense of the KJV. I had to look it up, but once I did it took me five minutes to understand and to see the implications.
The challenge is not to do a fact dump but to put the facts together in a way that reflect the true relationships between those facts. That is a much more difficult exercise.
The issue to me seems to be more to do with comprehension than readability though obviously the two are inseparable. I find obstacles to comprehension for today's average reader in the King James translation that are unnecessary and could be fairly easily smoothed out with an update regarding not only word usage but word order.
RB is a wonderful preacher and he's wrong on this issue, but he is not divisive about it that I've seen.....I keep hearing this that language has, 'Deteriorated"...... I really don't think the language has gotten wors(er) it has just changed..............................
Search my blog for this post! I don't know that I've written more on the topic… Well, maybe my video "Don't Trust Scholars!" ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-G36Oo6q_rt4.html
1. Dr. Ward at 2:09-13: "... but I still came away R.B. Oullette's book A More Sure Word deeply grieved." Response: So is reading R.B. Oullette's book akin to playing Russian Roulette? In that you never quite know when a projectile is about to be discharged? 2. Dr. Ward at 3:37-44: "So I threw my hands up and said the butler did it, and for once in my life I won something in the end, but my date did not." Response: Let me guess ... It was the butler in the library who fatally struck the victim over the head with an original large print edition of the 1611 King James Bible that included the Apocrypha (horrors!). 3. Dr. Ward at 5:04-17: "If you can't read Greek, you're simply going to have to take someone else's word for that big picture, because the big picture can only be formed by extensive understanding of the details ... and those details are ... both sides agree this far, written in Greek." Response: The Textus Receptus Bibles website, seemingly neutral, on its page "Variations Between the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible" displays the variations in English, premised upon the Greek of the Stephanus 1550 and Beza 1598, both translators coming from the Reformed tradition. [Textus Receptus Bibles Com /Variations_Between_TR_and_KJV] 4. Dr. Ward at 6:30-44: Nikao means conquering Greek and Laos means people. Nicolaitinism means conquering the people, lording it over them, but the Bible doesn't say that's what the Nicolaitians were actually doing. Some scholars have made that guess because of that etymology and that's pretty much all we have to go on." Response: With this uncertainty, it seems prudent that one could still recommend Nicorette as a nicotine replacement therapy, including for Laotians, but not for those afflicted with Nicolaitian syndrome. 5. Dr. Ward at 7:23-42 "Yes, do your own reading. Yes, do your own thinking. Ask questions, don't follow blindly. Don't cede all your spiritual responsibilities to your church leaders, but just humbly admit it. You don't read Greek and you're going to have to take someone's word for it on matters relating to the Greek text of the New Testament. That someone is likely to be your pastor and that's OK." Response: If - A. "as newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby," (1 Peter 2:2, NKJV) - and - B. the person who provides this "pure milk of the word" is your pastor, - then - C. does this indicate a biblical preference for pasteurized milk? And if the NKJV is good enough for both St. Peter and Dr. Mark Ward, then that's good enough for ... 6. Dr. Ward at 11:58 - 12:06: "I simply can't fathom how Oullette can say this with a straight face with a straight face: 'The modern versions increase the reading difficulty of the English Bible.'" Response: I can, based upon the meaning of German word 'Heimat' for which there is no adequate translation into English. Quoting Wikipedia: "Bausinger (Hermann, 1926 - 2021, cultural scientist) describes it [Heimat] as a spatial and social unit of medium range, wherein the individual is able to experience safety and the reliability of its existence, as well as a place of a deeper trust: 'Home functions as the close environment that is understandable and transparent, as a frame, in which behavioral expectations are met, in which reasonable, expectable actions are possible - in contrast to foreignness and alienation, as a sector of appropriation, of active saturation, of reliability.'" [Wikipedia Org /wiki/Heimat] For R.B. Oullette, his reading/hearing modern English translations of the Bible intellectually challenges the primal experience of absorbing the King James Bible in his formative years. The King James Bible functions as his 'home' in the Heimat scheme of things, hence the modern translations present to him a sense of 'foreignness and alienation'. Physiologically, it is a question of the brain's memory encountering new data input that threatens erasure of the attached positive emotions and so impacts the entire body with a disturbing and unwanted stress. 7. As for Pastor Oullette's current health condition, I offer this quotation from Augustine of Hippo's Sermon 169: "And that will be your power, your strength; a share in Christ's sufferings will be your strength." [The Works of St. Augustine, Sermon 169, P. 231; Wesley Scholar Com webpage /wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Augustine-Sermons-148-183. pdf 239 of 388]
If the AV/KJV is more readable for younger people why as a kid was I regularly telling my grandad to stop using the AV to preach from as to my youthful mind it was clearly not the job of the preacher to be trying to translate and explain obsolete and obscure nearly 400 year old English words when I what I needed the preacher to explain was the context and what the author was trying to convey practically and spiritually in the whole verse or paragraph? The translators of my contemporary version (NIV or NKJV) told me the basic English meaning of the original Grerk/Hebrew words so why couldn't he just read it from one of them and make it instantly understandable to my contemporary ears? Out of respect at his funeral I had his chosen reading read from the AV, but I used the NLT I think in the printed orders of service so everyone would understand the English!
Maybe! If KJV-Only leaders and institutions will adopt it! So far I have reasons to believe that they will reject it as they have rejected every similar project.
I have it and I would answer that depends on what you are looking for. There does seem to be some changes in it beyond language updates such as Acts 12:4 Easter to Passover. Haven't gone through it extensively. I will say that I miss the italics for supplied words. It has red letters. Poetry is verse by verse. Only available in Single Column. I appreciate the revision process apparatus in the back. The one I bought has the Promise book embedded in it. I wasn't sure about it but it is kind of cool. Kind of like a Thompson Chain but with bible promises. I would not say it is a replacement for the KJV but it could be the perfect gift for someone who is really struggling with the KJV rather than to get them a NKJV or a MEV. Around a 8 or 8.5/10.
@@markwardonwords The reason why I would reject it is because they will not publish the FormTX Barbour Publishing used to obtain a copyright on the Simplified KJV in 2022. While there are positive updates in the SKJV, why would I trust a version of the Bible which will not disclose the application used for Copyright purposes? I just did a quick comparison of Habakkuk Chapter 2, plenty of Changes of Meaning which are not necessary for readability. Whether the changes are made in order to qualify for copyright purposes, or just to be different, the result is the same. In order for a revision of the KJV to be acceptable, at minimum the FormTX used for copyright should be published on the publisher's website. Really, the copyright should not be sought at all because the Publisher should state they cannot fill out section 6 of FormTX: "Give a brief, general statement of the new material covered by the copyright claim for which registration is sought" because they do not have any "new material" but only extremely minor updates to words, and the updates are not material enough in some books of the Bible to reasonably be copyrightable.
I've never been a full-on KJVO, but I was at a time relying on others to inform me that it was (at least) a great translation if not the best. That being said, there was always something that didn't sit right about some statements I heard about the KJV. Like about it being "5th grade reading level" or "easier to read than many other modern translations". I feel like you have to be purposefully ignorant or unrelenting in a personal agenda to ignore the fact that the language of the KJV is not modern English, and as such adds a level, maybe even many levels, of complexity to reading it for both English speaking children and foreigners speaking modern English as a second language. Regardless, my primary versions are now KJV (I am in a KJVO church), CSB, ESV, (for reading in my personal time) and (if I'm doing some comparative English reading stuff) the NASB. Even then, I was reading an NIV when presented the gospel and was saved. So I've always been open to many translations being valid for sharing the word of God and the message of salvation. Anyway, on top of my primary translation preferences, add some study guides and good commentaries, and I think I'm fairly well rounded in my understanding of what's going on in the text, even if I'm not familiar with Greek or Hebrew. It's at that point (as you state in a lot of your videos) that I begin to rely on others and their academic or scholarly understanding of something which I don't know myself. EDIT: And I'm so glad you made the recommendation of making a modern version using the TR. I've said this before too. But as far as I'm aware, KJVOs generally reject this idea as extra work to correct/update something that doesn't need to be corrected/updated, and people who speak down on KJVOs often criticize the idea as being inferior to using more widely accepted older texts. So while I love the idea and have said the same thing, it seems it's a lose-lose situation.
As someone who has read both books I have to say that A More Sure Word is certainly NOT the best defense of the KJVO position. This far the best defense I've read is Which Bible Would Jesus Use? While it may lack the conciliatory tone of Oullette's book, it presents a much more convincing argument.
@@markwardonwords The book is somewhat amateurishly written, frankly, but if you can get past that and just look at the information and arguments provided, it's the most thought-provoking KJVO book I've read so far.
English Deteriorated? Elizabethan was the primitive form before our Modern advancement. To say that it Deteriorated is completely absurd. KJV onlyists fail if they use such erroneous and illogical rhetoric. The supposed perfection of the KJV doesn't extend to the Elizabethan language itself. It was, by extension, a primitive form of the English language, and Middle English and Anglo-Saxon preceding it. Our modern English is the more advanced form. The language is still young, only about a thousand years old, as opposed to the Greek and Semitic languages that have spent eons developing. Elizabethan is far inferior to biblical Greek and Hebrew by thousands of years of development.
Compare: Genesis 3:1-7- KJV 1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. 6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. 7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. NRSV (1) Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, ‘Did God say, “You shall not eat from any tree in the garden”?’ (2) The woman said to the serpent, ‘We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; (3) but God said, “You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die.” ’ (4) But the serpent said to the woman, ‘You will not die; (5) for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.’ (6) So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate. (7) Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves.
The Early Fathers tell us what the Nicolaitan taught. They taught that Christians could engage in sexual immorality, and that it didn't matter what they did in the flesh...only what they believed in their minds. This fairly clear from what we are told about then in Revelation.
Also, the universal explanation of the Fathers for the name of this sect is that it was named for the Nicolas mentioned in Acts 6:5. The only divergence is that some say he was the leader of this sect, and others say that the followers of this sect misunderstood something he had taught. Also, the name "Nicolas" does not mean "victory over the people," it means "the victory of the people."
Aloha from the Island of Maui, Hawaii! Is there anyone out here in the "Blue Nowhere" able to answer this question, I would be very grateful, and I would invite you to visit and have fresh pressed sugarcane/lilikoi juice as we converse on the deck of my little cabin watching the sun set, behind the west Maui Mountains! Why did King James, in his rules to the translators of the KJB, in rule #3, command the translators to keep the term "Church" instead of the term "Ecclesia," which according to my understanding, is the term that Jesus actually used in Matthew 16:18? If these two terms were synonymous as most English Bible dictionaries say, why would he command them, not to use the term "Ecclesia/Congregation?" Your friend and brother in Christ, Maka'ala Stone
King James was having to deal with the rise of Nonconformists who did not adhere to Anglican beliefs. Some of these groups were promoting congregationalism. Thus, even though there was a precedent for using the word "congregation" in English translations, it was not ideal to push out an official translation for the Church of England that could easily be used to disagree with the structure of the Church of England.
Chick Publications, publishes and sells a Handbook of 600 Archaic English words in the KJV David Daniels says you need this with your King James Bible. about 50 cents each I have an older one of 500 words I gave my Mom who liked to read the KJV. She had a junior high education from the 1930s.
There are religious groups that hold on to the use of steel wheels so they don't become worldly. Trains still use steel wheels, but there are designed-in limits to make the most useful; flanges, rails, and wheel slip limiters. Rubber tires are used today which proves to be more productive. Can you imagine an airplane landing on steel wheels in wet weather? Even the current day religious groups that hold onto steel wheels, ride in cars that have "modern" advances such as rubber tires.
This is Old English: Hwæt. We Gardena in geardagum, þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon, hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon. (Beowulf) This is Middle English: Whan that Aprille with his shoures soote, The droghte of March hath perced to the roote, And bathed every veyne in swich licóur Of which vertú engendred is the flour. (Canterbury Tales) This is Early Modern English: The Lord is my shepheard, I shall not want. He maketh me to lie downe in greene pastures: he leadeth mee beside the still waters. He restoreth my soule: he leadeth me in the pathes of righteousnes, for his names sake. (King James Bible) It's not that the KJV is in contemporary English, but it is in a stage of English that is reaching its modern form.
@@randywheeler3914Right. They're trying to claim that the KJV is modern on a technicality. It would be like someone saying that a poem from the First World War is modern simply because it's part of the Modernist era of poetry (nevermind the subsequent postmodern and post postmodern eras!).
DR. WARD I think you'll find this video excellent material for this channel to show the inconsistency of the KJV-only argument when it comes to editions: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jn_mgQuEKws.html Basically there are some AV-onlyists who say you must read only one particular edition of the AV with very particular spelling and all the others (Oxford, etc.) are "corrupt". That is very consistent! But most AV-onlyists including Dr. Ruckmans camp find this to be a "hyper" position! Shocking! So we need an absolutely perfect translation but not an absolutely perfect edition of that translation? How does that work? This video is of Dr. Ruckman's protege and the man who is now the Pastor of Dr. Ruckman's church in Pensacola Florida
I wonder some if they could have a revision, like that 1700's one? I'm thinking maybe keeping those pronouns people still understand, thee, thou, pluals like you, yours?
My question to you, is what bible can I hold in my hand and know that I have the Word of God. I have noticed that a lot of churches that use the Modern versions say that they believe in the inspiration of Scripture but only in the original manuscripts. How do I know that I have the Scriptures the Word of God. In regards to knowing Greek and consulting a Greek knowledgeable person, didn't Jesus say that you have no need that anyone teach you, I will send the Holy Ghost, He will guide you into the truth because He will speak of Me.
@@johnbenkovic7684 I have always used the KJV as my main Bible. I have the Tyndale NT that I use in study, and I like checking the Geneva. I like Coverdale too. I normally look at the ESV, LSB, and CSB if I'm wanting a recent English translation. I don't hold to the TR or critical text. I think there are problems with both. I believe the truth is going to be closer to the majority text. But that said, I take textual variants one by one. I study each one as I come to it and have time. And my conclusions are not always toward the Critical or TR or Majority. They differ. But I have all the available possibilities to look at. I am a finite human though, and it is not necessary that I know the absolute answer to each textual variant. My faith is in Jesus and not in my own knowledge of textual variants.
@@hayfieldhermit9657 My simple question is what bible in English can I read in 2024 that I can be sure is the inspired Word of God? From watching the video, I understand that to be sure I must talk to someone who understands Greek. Is this a wrong conclusion? Jesus said Heaven and earth will pass away but My Words will never pass away. How can I know I have in my hands the Word of God?
Neither Dr. Stringer nor any member of the KJBRC has engaged in any dialogue with my viewpoint. They have started to mention it but do not seem to have done any research. (Privately, one member has talked with me a good deal-I should mention that.)
@@markwardonwords I think Daniel Haifley has addressed your viewpoints quite extensively. I think he was very open and frank with his interview with Bryan Samms also.
@@casey1167 I very much disagree. I've had some great conversations with Dan in private, but he has not engaged publicly with my thought in any detail-unless his recent KJBRC talk did so.
@@markwardonwords I guess I am not seeing that, from what I have seen he agrees with your identification of archaisms and readability issues (as frankly do most) but disagrees with the solutions you present. I think his review of the MEV (or SKJV, I can't remember which) was representative of his position of openness to updates, but hard stops as to changes of meanings. I think the overwhelming majority of KJVO people would be totally acceptant of a 1769 style revision of the KJV incorporating the TBS Word List.
Bro. Mark, I think you really hit on the most pivotal issue for KJV proponents when you say it's all about "who you trust." You'll probably find more enthusiastic, gospel-preaching, and Bible-loving pastors out there among the KJVO crowd than any other evangelical group today. So their flocks are rightly sceptical of Bible scholars who regularly approach biblical translation, doctrine, and tradition with scepticism. The KJV folks are not wrong that many of the same seminarians who disregard the traditional Majority/Byzantine Text also end up twisting or outright abandoning biblical Christianity as they study hundreds of liberal German and British theological treatises written over the past 200 or so years alongside the higher critical research that's been published by those same often apostate scholars. I think this is why you will probably never see a large response to your charitable efforts to sway the KJVO sheep out there.
I happen to agree with R.B. Ouellette and love the book "A More Sure Word." It is very informative and helpful. This review is very biased against the King James Bible; it is not scholarly but more emotional. I pray that the men who follow Mark Ward come to see the truth that the King James Bible is the perfect, inspired Word of God!
It is not that KJV only or TR people are anti authority or anti scholarship. As you stated in the video, the question boils down to what authorities the people are going to trust. Even if one does not personally know Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, Latin, etc. The original translation work of the King James translators still stands since they did speak those languages. That I am aware of, there is not a single translation on the market today in contemporary English that uses all of the original translation work. Take the Simplified KJV Acts 12:4 they switch Easter to Passover. They literally say on the back "Keeping all the translation work of the 1611 Bible". Before someone tells me that the translation should read Passover, you could be right. But again the King James translators chose Easter. I appreciate your call for another translation.
Murry, “…there is not a single translation on the market today in contemporary English that uses all of the original translation work.“ Original translation work of what, the KJ TRANSLATION? Yes or No you seem to have a partial if not a complete misunderstanding of the issues
I certainly would not say that *all* KJV-Onlyists are anti-authority or anti-scholarship. But I have frequently heard education talked down among them. Here's my video on that topic: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-G36Oo6q_rt4.html.
I wouldn't say that the KJV translators "chose" Easter. It's a leftover from the older translations that they were revising (the KJV wasn't a translation made entirely from scratch). The word was being phased out in favor of the less ambiguous "Passover," and I think it's highly likely that the KJV translators simply missed this occurrence.
@@curtthegamer934 I would tend to agree with you. Consider some early English translations of “Passover” in the New Testament: The Wycliffe Bible, 1395 - transliterates the Greek word for Passover - πάσχα (pascha) - as “pask,” or “paske.” The Tyndale Newe Testament, 1536 - generally uses “easter” and “easterlambe” for Passover. The Myles Coverdale Translation, 1539 - generally uses “Easter” and “Easter lambe” for Passover. The Geneva Bible, 1560 - uses “Passeover (Passeouer)” for Passover. The King James Version - uses “Passover” for 28 of the 29 occurrences of πάσχα in the New Testament, with Acts 12:4 being the only time “Easter” is used.
There is complications about modern translations that's definitely neuansed. On the one hand two manuscripts of the critical texts followed by many, is corrupted. Not enough to not interfere with people's salvation, as enough truths is there. It's just some areas of contradictions atheists most likely will use, in their campaign against Christianity. For some, like NKJV, is okay. Some isn't okay, though not going to be totally bad 90 percent of the time.
The best update of the KJV is the Simplified KJV by Barbour. Updated language with no critical text both NKJV and MEV follow most critical text and Catholic bibles in Zechariah 13:6 and 1 Kings 10:28 this is just a couple of many examples.
I also take my car to a mechanic; however my mechanic has not promised me eternal life. It is my opinion the tearing of the Temple curtain has meaning. God speaks to everyone who calls on Him. We need no go-between.
And yet God gave us a situation in which translation is required, and in which teaching is required. No go-betweens; no mediator between God and men. But teachers. That's what God gave us.
@@markwardonwords that's where you and I differ. I do believe that today we have the inspired word of God preserved in English. Granted it is "old" English with some words suitable for updating so long as those doing the updating do not change any doctrinal message. But of course that would require that those doing the updating have full knowledge of each and every doctrine, a condition with which I'm not comfortable. To me the safest route is to read and study the Bible that has stood the test of time, with dictionary near.
@@markwardonwords I've read again your writing above and wish to comment on your words. Once again you make a definitive statement which many find untrue. You said: "And yet God gave us a situation in which translation is required,...." Tell us, do you know that as fact or is it your opinion? If you had phrased it as your opinion, it would be much easier for this layman to swallow. However by stating it as fact sounds condescending and a bit taunting. In the video you mention the percentages of various versions purchased. What percent of those purchasing a KJV do you feel agree with your statement? Your basically saying to those of us who do believe we have the word of God that in fact we do not. And then have the nerve to tell us all we need a teacher. I don't expect a reply to this writing so I will end by shedding light on not a doctrinal teaching from God, but on an attribute of God: Then came certain of the elders of Israel unto me, and sat before me. And the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Son of man, these men have set up their idols in their heart, and put the stumblingblock of their iniquity before their face: should I be enquired of at all by them? Therefore speak unto them, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Every man of the house of Israel that setteth up his idols in his heart, and putteth the stumblingblock of his iniquity before his face, and cometh to the prophet; I the Lord will answer him that cometh according to the multitude of his idols; Ezek.14.1,Ezek.14.2,Ezek.14.3,Ezek.14.4 KJV The elders did not agree with the words of the prophet so they asked to speak with him. God said go ahead because He knew what was in their heart and would reinforce their thinking in their mind according to the feelings in their heart. Be very careful what's in your heart.
I am standing with the KJV translators, brother, who said that even the very meanest translation of the word of God is the word of God. And I don't think the KJV is the very meanest; I think it's the very best. I take the standard Protestant view going back to the Reformation that translations carry God's authority insofar as they accurately translate the inspired Hebrew and Greek. Only when fine details are needed, such as in theological controversy, is it normally truly necessary to appeal to the original languages. I strongly encourage you to read the KJV preface in detail and with care.
@@markwardonwords I have read the preface. The 40ish scholars from differing theological backgrounds seem secure enough in their own skin to be humble. Perhaps there reputations did not depend on the future sales volume of the product. You did say something that shockingly jumped out to me. You said: ".....the inspired Hebrew and Greek." Many times we hear the term "double inspiration" in somewhat negative context, but here you contribute inspiration to manuscripts which are indeed copies of copies of copies....... My question to you then is if inspiration can indeed transfer through numerous Hebrew and Greek copies why then cannot inspiration be bestowed by God upon an English copy? I do agree with you that the KJV is the very best translation, in fact I do believe it is the preserved inspired word of God in English. Since you state inspiration can be transferred from copy to copy of the original language, I would expect you would agree inspiration can be bestowed by God on His choosing. My main issue is when folks, scholar or layman, make comments that simply are not true; comments that the shallow version readers pickup on and repeat. I showed you a doctrine found in the KJV which is hidden in the rest; and as yet no comment on your part concerning said doctrine. I also reject any version which disagrees with itself as demonstrated at Heb 3:16. To me, things like only confirm that different version are indeed derived from a different set of manuscripts. Scholarship seems to disagree on the manuscript heritage, but for me the proof is in the pudding.
I am KJV only. In Numbers 3:14-51 KJV (yea, in every version of the bible!) God commands Moses to number the Levites. 1) Of Gershon: 7,500. 2) Of Kohath: 8,600 3) Of Merari: 6,200. (The TRUE total: 22,300.) BUT Numbers 3:39 says that the total is 22,000. This is basic math addition! It's not algebra or trigonometry or calculus, it's basic addition! Then God has Moses number the Israelites and their total comes to 22,273. 27 LESS THAN the Levites. However, since Numbers 3:39 incorrectly states that there are 22,000 Levites, God then has the Israelites pay 5 shekels a person (at 273 people that's 1,365 shekels!) because they're over and above the number of Levites, However, the Israelites were actually 27 LESS than the Levites. So, how is Numbers.3:13-51 KJV infallible and inerrant? .
The language of the KJB was not the language of 1611. The KJB uses a form of English different to 1611 English. The English it uses can best be called "Bible English". And that kind of English is a special kind of English, because it communicates more exactly than what mere 1611 English could communicate. Bible English was providentially designed to communicate God's words exactly. The notion that some modern translation using contemporary English is "totally intelligible" actually entirely misses the point about the Biblical English's ability to communicate the exact nuance of God's message. Biblical English also has the feature of being able to communicate to different generations. Therefore, this idea of making a new TR translation would entirely miss the mark, since it would not have the linguistic capability to communicate the exact truth. And that's the problem with so called "intelligible" modern translations: they are failing to communicate God's message exactly.
From all the terrible misinterpretations I've seen from KJVOs over the years--all of which could have been avoided by consulting a modern version--I'd say it's the opposite. The KJV is more likely to provide an inexact delivery of God's message to a person living in the 21st century.
A text only communicates the exact truth if it does so in words that are intelligible to the person reading it. In instances where modern English is incapable of conveying the exact meaning of a text (even with footnotes) then it is impossible for those of us whose only language is modern English to understand that exact meaning, and the more exact meaning conveyed in the KJB is as incomprehensible to us as the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Add in the fact that (as Mark has repeatedly demonstrated in his false friends series) there are numerous places where the KJB actively misleads modern readers about the meaning of particular words and phrases and I don't see any reason to treat it as a better (or even as good) translation of scripture for somebody living in the 21st century. It is better to have a less exact translation of scripture where I can understand the basic meaning than a more exact translation where I can't.
