About not knowing to look up words you don't know to look up: it is possible, y'know, to print KJV BIbles (like the TBS has done) with lists of vocabulary words (including archaic or obscure terms and "false friends"), and/or collections of margin-notes that readers are encouraged to learn.
@@Studio54MediaGroup Words you think you know but you don't. It's a term borrowed by extension from teaching French to monoglot English speakers. Some words in French look like similar words in English and mean pretty much the same thing - those words are "Friends." But there are French words that look like similar looking English words but they have another meaning altogether - those words are "False Friends" - they give you a false sense of security that you've understood when in fact you haven't.
Imo a lot of these disagreements could be worked out by switching to the Nkjv.I know it's not the Kjv but brethren it is close..Blessings.. Toni's husband
Man, I’m glad you produced this video. I have pulled all my translations off the shelf & put them back dozens of time in a mind battle as to which version I’m gonna read as my main study Bible. I was brought up KJV & it was also the first one I sat down & actually read some of it. I battle with staying traditional & yet desiring to understand what I’m reading. I say, hand me a Korean Bible & I don’t read Korean what use is it?! I keep bouncing from the many versions but want to single one out & use the rest more or less as word supporter for lack of language. I’ve prayed, thought, studied & battles about it. I keep running back to KJV but quickly get distracted from it. Ugg…
Try the Modern English Version, it's based on the same manuscripts as the King James, but with modern English. I was a King James guy for my whole life and gave the MEV a shot and I love it.
Honestly I’m going through the same exact thing. I have all these Bible translations and have no idea which one to “rest” in so to speak. The King James is trustworthy but it’s just difficult
Good video Bro! I enjoyed the conversation. I am in agreement with Mark, and I’m Paraphrasing here, that God has allowed these new faithful translations to be given to us and we should use them. Yet, I TOTALLY understand a KJV Bible Believers caution or even repulsion from a modern version and modern scholarship. Here is the thing… when ‘the majority’ of scholars say anything and agree as a collective a KJV Bible Believer (Or a NASB77/95 Bible Believer) may look at that and say… “hmmm… everyone is agreeing on this topic… wide is the gate that leads to destruction… I will take the harder narrow way.” I hope that makes sense. All this “agreement” and “ecumenism” in Bible Scholarship today gives Bible Believers a major issue to stand on. Frankly, that issue IS NOT directly addressed in any of these discussions. There is a legitimate ridicule that is leveled against KJV Bible Believers simply for trusting their Bibles. And CT text advocates (even as gently as Mark said it in this video) send a clear message to firm KJV Bible Believers: 1) Most KJV Bible Believers are NOT part of the discussion because they do not read Greek or Hebrew 2) KJV Bible Believers are wrong because they disagree with the Majority of Scholars 3) A KJV Bible Believers foundation is ‘clearly’ deficient. Broken even, as a KJV Bible Believers firm foundation rests on the traditional text of the KJV. 4) A KJV Bible Believer can’t trust their Bibles Now, I understand that is NOT what faithful bible believing modern scholars mean or intend and I commend Mark for reaching out and even dedicating a large part of his life to his KJV Bible Believing brethren… But, it is offensive to people to tell them that their Bible is Broken. I felt the exact same way when MacArthur said that my CSB was broken because it uses ‘gender accurate’ language. Or my ESV, KJV, and now my CSB were part of a grand conspiracy to hide the word ‘slave’. I have the EXACT same feeling of repulsion towards the LSB which tried to ‘fix’ my bibles (honestly, that emotion is swelling back up as I type this). Now this emotional reaction comes from words that someone I really trust (MacArthur) as a minister and Bible teacher… Imagine how somehow feels towards a scholar they do not trust or know when they say that their KJV Bible is broken, out dated, part of a grand conspiracy etc. God is good and this discussion is worth having and the struggle is worth going through.
Excellent!!! Exactly how I have felt for the past year thing my Bible isn’t the perfect Word. I understand how words change but not the Bible, please. 😩Get my point?! 🙃☺️
So what about the patristic evidence of the TR in ancient church writings…like Polycarp and Ireneaus who quote parts of verses that the CT has omitted?
I’m of the same thought. If the Apostolic Fathers (prior to around 150-175AD) quoted it, I’m going to be much more likely to logically believe that their quotes of the Bible should have more weight than a text that comes 200 plus years later. I’m sure it’s a bit more complex than that, but generally speaking, I think that is a valid argument.
Peter Gurry most definitely didn't design the ETC blog. I'm not even sure he was in graduate school yet when it came out in 2005. Neither does he run it, although he is one of its many contributors.
Without the autographs (no longer extant) then language cannot have priority - not Hebrew, not Greek and certainly not English. There exist falsified documents in Hebrew, Greek and English that pretend to be Scripture. So, I disagree, the Church of God is not dependent upon Hebrew and Greek speakers to know the Scriptures. The Scriptures have never been limited by language. This should not be construed to mean that Hebrew and Greek speakers aren't important or needful. The Scriptures are preserved in the form that God wants every generation and language to have. The Scriptures are the anthology of Canonical books recognized and received by a consensus of born-again Spirit-filled believers as authentic in any language or generation unto which they have come; they are the very word of God in written form given by inspiration of God - true in all its parts, perfect, pure, inerrant, infallible, etc. and the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. * The inspiration of God implies true in all its parts, perfect, pure, inerrant, infallible, etc. and the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. The inspiration of God is without distinction in nature and is not limited by time. * By the Scriptures, I mean the generally accepted consensus of versions, editions, and printings of the Scriptures. * The Standard Version always takes precedence over sectarian, peculiar, private or individually preferred versions or editions. * The Scriptures determine versions and editions; versions and editions do not determine the Scriptures. * The preservation of Scriptures is not about preserving exact jots and tittles, but rather the preservation of God's written authority - Sola Scriptura. Food for thought.
The big shame to me is that Burgon (who today would not be involved with the society named after him), Scrivener, Hoskier, E F Hills, and more latterly T Letis, put forward persuasive arguments for the majority text as being the text of the bible. Letis's book 'the ecclesiastical text' is terrific. The word had been settled. It was B B Warfield, who convinced by Westcott and Hort's theory that the academy were rediscovering the original text, enthusiastically endorsed it. Since then the word of God has been forever shifting, like sand in wind. Hardly surprising that since then there has been one publication of a bible after another. Is it coincidental that this has coincided with the decay of truth and trust in society at large as well as the church.
Current annotated kjvs are not as high quality as Arden Shakespeare Hamlet so the existing annotated kjvs like defined king james do need more footnotes, or can create new and better annotated kjvs.
That sounds so arrogant. You cannot know God's voice or his word unless you know Greek. If you know God's voice and hear it through the KJB you do not need to know Greek. Edification requires intelligibility, but Bro. Ward has non English words in his Bible and is ok with it.
The faulty premise of Critical Text Papists like Mark Ward and others is glaring. Complete house of cards claiming we must know Hebrew or Greek to know God's word. Mr. Ward is a false friend of the Church of Jesus Christ. When Critical Text advocates show me a Bible they believe has all of God's words let me know; I'm not sure what authority these men can claim when they seek to reconstruct what they think is forever lost.
Mr Ward is a very arrogant man, and likes to talk down to people and prove his educational superiority. I'm beginning to not be able to stand listening to him, how none of us are smart enough to understand the debate on TR vs CT. Very condescending.
hmm, strange, couldn't find anything about bible texts and translations in 1.Corinthians 14 😄.... no English either... so if we should argue that Psalm 12, Matt.5.18, etc. have nothing to do with bible texts and translations, why should we argue that 1.Cor.14 *is* about bible texts and translations?? it's funny how some modern evangelicals so easily apply 1.Cor. to texts and translations, while rejecting the same application to other scriptures... :)
For those who always say to look up the difficult words, I wonder if they really know their congregation. There are a whole lot of faithful Christians who struggle with the discipline to regularly read their Bibles. They are highly unlikely to sit down with a dictionary. This has nothing to do with their intelligence but more human nature and most likely an overwhelmed life. Let's make the words faithful but also plain.
A video about the “King James Preferred” or “New King James Preferred” opinion would be interesting. In other words, those of us that frequently read, appreciate, and like CT Bibles (believing it is the word of God), but at the end of the day, reach for the KJV or NKJV more often. How does that fit into the conversation? I would guess that would be the point of view of many TR readers.
I'm not 'dogmatic' about my Bible translation stance and have found use for many CT translations, however I prefer the NKJV because it's modern and uses the TR text. Not because I think the TR text is perfect, but because I think it's closer to the Byzantine type than our current CT.
@@Dwayne_Green I agree, plus it’s the most beautiful sounding modern translation, which actually matters. The originals were beautiful (I mean-so I’m told. I don’t speak Hebrew or Greek). Have you seen R Grant Jones video that rates the most literal translations? He has it further to the left on the scale than the NASB and LSB, and still manages to be understandable and beautiful.
@@garythomas3150 I havent seen it, but I probably should! I love Grant's channel. I've been developing a way to determine a translations concordance, and base don some preliminary testing, the NASB comes out weird and unexpected. So it could be possible.
I started to lean toward the ct viewpoint until I read where there are ancient scholars who referred to kjv scriptures that were deleted (possibly) by ct bibles..Blessings Toni's husband
May seem odd but, I have to say that one thing that really irritates me about most CT based bibles is that they are laid out in paragraph format. Why? So much easier on the eyes to do verse by verse. IMO
@@DTzant I find it generally easier to read with few breaks in the text. My eyes/mind sees each verse as a break in vs by vs and takes me a bit to get over that. I also like paragraph format because it 'blocks' out individual concepts a little nicer. I understand that paragraphs can be subjective, so I have that in mind, I just find it more helpful :)
@@DTzant No. I usually highlight the scriptures I'm using in the sermon so it catches my eye really easily. Either that, or I know the reference by heart :)
When I have discovered confessional bibliology I was convinced. But more I listen and more I read the sources used (Calvin, Owen etc...) the more holes appears. They project a doctrine in the past, anachronism. Read Calvin's commentary by yourself, especially on the catholics epistles, he made the same thing on textual variant than the CT advocates. The thing is that sometimes he supports variants that we find in the TR, that's all. But I should also say that the majority of CT advocates (as James White for example) does not understand the TR position. It's a doctrinal question (how the providence of God work in the preservation of the text) not a methodology question. So asking "how do you do with variant?" at a TR guys is a useless thing. That's not the question. From a French pentecostal minister who can also say that it is a very American question, this debate is quasi non-existent here.
similar here, I initially chased down confessional bibliology, because at first glance, it seemed to make sense. But as I began looking into it (you can see part of that journey from back when I started with Dr. Riddle), the promise of 'every jot and tittle' was not found and the which TR question, at least in my mind became insurmountable. While Dr Riddle may be happy with the 'macro text' and Peter Van Kleeck may be happy with 'each iteration', this doesn't suit well with the "Every Jot and Tittle" passage nor the wording "Kept pure IN all ages". I still can't bring myself to fully accept the CT text as THE text so I continue to maintain a Byzantine priority position.
Thanks again, Dwayne and Dr. Ward, for a good discussion of the appeal to update the translation of the TR texts that made up the KJV (or simply be open to the Bibles that have completed that task- i.e. the NKJV, MEV, etc.). It made me remember a number of scriptures that KJV-onlyists, the Trinitarian Bible Society, and Steve Waldron bring up as "errors" in the NKJV (besides their other critiques of the NKJV). I will circle back to your video on the NKJV and also ask if pursuing the "errors" in the TR-based Bibles could be worthy topic. I know Dr. Ward has pointed out at least one "error" in the KJV translation (if you haven't discussed it already). Talking about translation instead of textual criticism is certainly a middle ground where both sides are more likely to meet. I look forward to more videos on both topics. You're doing a great job, Dwayne. And, as encouraged by Dr. Ward in a comment exchange on a prior video, I am burrowing more into the works of textual critics of various opinions. Right now, I'm reading David Alan Black's "Rethinking New Testament Textual Criticism," a compilation of essays on the topic from 2002.
Hey Charles! I do envision my channel to tackle issues related to the Biblical text which does include some translational stuff, especially when it relates to textual criticism :) I do want to address Acts 12:4 and Easter in the KJV again. I touched on it, like... 10 years ago, and my opinion has changed a little bit based on some new info I learned. I think 'errors' in the NKJV might make an interesting video as well, I guess... wait and see? :) Thanks for your encouraging words, I'm glad your finding my channel helpful!
I'm not sure about the voice, but I truly wouldn't recommend the passion translation. I've had a chance to compare the first couple of chapters in John with the Greek text. It's very problematic, though I haven't done much on the TPT on this channel, Mike Winger has done an exhaustive review. In my opinion, there's good reason for BibleGateway to pull it from their website.
@@Dwayne_Green Evangelicals are maybe just biased against more liberal translations like ceb, nrsvue 2021, gnt, cev, etc. Some evangelicals rejected the tniv for being too liberal. After the tniv was fixed to become the niv 2011, some evangelicals still rejected the niv 2011 for being too liberal. Evangelicals will not use the catholic nabre even though nabre is translated from the same critical text, so the differences are really not in the text but in interpretations and which translators and authorities you trust (translations do require interpretations). Better to just learn hebrew and greek bec many things are lost in translation like hebrew elohim is plural and means gods not god.
@@colonyofcellsiamamachine6175 The Hebrew word Elohim is not necessarily plural. In semetic cultures the plural form of a word can be used to show reverence or awe to those in positions of great authority and power. Its called the 'plural of majesty'. In this context, it's not to be references as a plural noun, but rather as a respectful way to address someone.
@@Dwayne_Green translations of the word elohim definitely shows that interpretation is needed in translations. jewish translators, Kjv translators translated elohim in many ways depending on their interpretations. You can use a hebrew concordance to see how elohim is translated in many ways.
The KJVO position strikes me as elitist and jingoistic. It will create a linguistic ghetto where 20th century mentalities will stumble on misinterpreting 1611 English via false friends. Very sad. Pray for the KJVO crowd! Both of you are producing very helpful videos! Keep on!🙋🏼♂️📖
If using archaic kjv, can use helps like defined king james, tbs westminster, reformation heritage study bible, scofield III, to avoid misunderstanding the archaic english. If really want to understand most of the archaic english, can read the archaic kjv in parallel with free kjv verse by verse commentaries easily found on the internet like jamieson fausset brown, adam clarke, albert barnes, etc. Edification requires interpreters or definitions. If want to know more, should learn hebrew and greek bec many things are lost in translation like hebrew elohim is plural and actually means gods not god.
Hilarious use of the No True Scotsman fallacy by Mark. What he fails to understand is that having the skill set to do NT textual criticism (which doesn’t include Hebrew but does include German and Italian or French) is categorically different from evaluating the philosophy and methodology of textual criticism. It seems Dr. Ward is woefully ignorant of the history of NT textual criticism and its origin at the end of the 17th century as part of the counter-reformation. Its purpose was to undermine the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Furthermore, 2 Cor 10:4,5 commands us to evaluate the philosophy and methodology of NT textual criticism and see if it comports with Scripture. It does not. Therefore, it 1) is sin; 2) because it isn’t biblical it can never knowingly arrive at a true conclusion. This is devastating for NTTC. It means they will never know whether or not their decisions are correct. But it’s no surprise he wishes to avoid the real issue and focus on the secondary issue of No True Textual Critics. He knows he has no biblical foundation for his view and that his view was condemned as heresy by the Reformers.
There is always NTTC. The TR was delivered by NTTC. You cannot simply believe the TR fell from the sky and stated perfectly preserved with no manuscript variation like the muslims believe happened with the quran, because there are no two "TR type" or "Byzantine" manuscripts that perfectly match. If there is so much as one letter difference between two manuscripts, you must necessarily use logic to determine which reading to include in printed texts, and this is textual criticism. The TR was a critical text when it was first printed, as was every edition thereafter. You simply cannot reject NTTC and still have a NT text without going and finding a vellum manuscript yourself. To criticize textual criticism is to criticize erasmus' work and therefore the foundation of the KJV and every modern greek NT.
@@cmiddleton9872 no one said the TR fell from the sky. It’s deceitful for you to even apply that. You’re also unaware of the actual history of NTTC. It began as a counter-reformation attack on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura with the work of the papist Richard Simon. To equate that and the current practice with what the Reformers did. shows an amazingly high ignorance of the writings of both the Reformers on the textual issues and the writings of NTTC beginning with Simon. I would recommend doing what fools like Ward never do, actually study the subject reading the historical works.
